Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29959 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.300–51.309 

and CAA sections 169A and 169B. All 

general SIP requirements contained in 

CAA section 110, other provisions of the 

CAA, and our regulations applicable to 

this action were also evaluated. The 

purpose of this action is to ensure 

compliance with these requirements 

and to provide additional rationale to 

support our conclusions. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of Colorado 

revisions to its SIP to address the 

requirements of EPA’s regional haze 

rule discussed in section III, Final 

Action, of this preamble. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

V. 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 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve the use of 

measurement or other standards; 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 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 July 27, 2015. 

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 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: May 8, 2015. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator Region 8. 

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. 

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.320 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(124) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 52.320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(124) On May 25, 2011 the State of 

Colorado submitted revisions to its State 

Implementation Plan to address the 

requirements of EPA’s regional haze 

rule. On December 31, 2012, EPA issued 

a final rule approving this submittal and 

responding to public comments. On 

May 26, 2015 EPA reissued the final 

rule with respect to the nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) best available retrofit technology 

(BART) determination for the Comanche 

Generating Station to provide additional 

responses to public comments. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–12491 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0422; FRL–9927–90– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revisions to the Attainment Plans for 

the Commonwealth of Virginia Portion 

of the Washington, DC–MD–VA 1990 1- 

Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas and the 

Maintenance Plan for the 

Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Area To Remove the 

Stage II Vapor Recovery Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29960 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions remove the Stage II vapor 

recovery program (Stage II) from the 

attainment plans for the Virginia portion 

of the Washington, DC–MD–VA 1990 1- 

Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

Nonattainment Areas (Northern Virginia 

Areas), as well as from the maintenance 

plan for the Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS Maintenance Area 

(Fredericksburg Area) (the three areas 

are collectively referred to as the 

Virginia Areas or Areas). These 

revisions also include an analysis that 

addresses the impact of the removal of 

Stage II from subject gasoline dispensing 

facilities (GDFs) in the Virginia Areas. 

The analysis submitted by the 

Commonwealth satisfies the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). EPA is approving these revisions 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 27, 

2015 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

June 25, 2015. 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 Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0422 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0422, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0422. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by 

email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 18, 2014, Virginia 

submitted formal revisions to its SIP 

through the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ). These 

SIP revisions consist of the removal of 

Stage II from the attainment and 

maintenance plans for the Virginia 

Areas. The SIP revisions also consists of 

an analysis demonstrating that the 

removal of Stage II from the Virginia 

Areas’ attainment and maintenance 

plans will not cause any increase in 

emissions. This analysis satisfies the 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

CAA because it demonstrates the SIP 

revision will not interfere with any 

applicable requirements concerning 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress (RFP) of the NAAQS nor 

interfere with any other CAA applicable 

requirement. Virginia’s analysis shows 

that the removal of Stage II from these 

Areas will not worsen air quality nor 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

Areas. The analysis also satisfies the 

requirements of CAA section 184(b)(2) 

for comparability of control measures 

with the emissions reductions from 

Stage II for the portion of the Areas in 

the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). 

Stage II is a means of capturing 

gasoline vapors displaced during 

transfer of gasoline from the gasoline 

dispensing unit to the motor vehicle 

fuel tank during vehicle refueling at a 

GDF. Stage II involves the use of special 

refueling nozzles and coaxial hoses for 

vapor collection at each gasoline pump 

at a subject GDF. Gasoline vapors belong 

to a class of pollutants known as volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). These 

compounds along with nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) are precursors to the formation of 

ozone. Stage II gasoline vapor recovery 

systems have been a required emission 

control measure in areas classified as 

serious, severe, and extreme for the 

ozone NAAQS. 

The amendment of the CAA in 1990 

required, under CAA section 182(b)(3), 

Stage II controls for moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas and Stage II or 

comparable controls in the OTR. See 

CAA section 184(a) and (b)(2). However, 

under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, the 

requirements of section 182(b)(3) would 

no longer apply in moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas upon EPA 

promulgation of standards for onboard 

refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) as part 

of new motor vehicles’ emission control 

systems, and would no longer apply in 

serious or above ozone areas after EPA’s 

determination that ORVR technology is 

in widespread use. ORVR is a 

mechanism employed by vehicles to reuse the vapors in their gas tanks instead 

of allowing them to escape. Over time, 

non-ORVR vehicles continued to be 

replaced by ORVR-equipped vehicles. 

On May 16, 2012, EPA determined that 

ORVR technology is in widespread use 

throughout the U.S. vehicle fleet and 

waived the requirement for states to 

implement Stage II vapor recovery at 

GDFs in nonattainment areas classified 

as Serious or above for the ozone 

NAAQS. In that rulemaking, EPA 

determined that emission reductions 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29961 

from ORVR-equipped vehicles were 

essentially equal to and would soon 

surpass the emission reductions 

achieved by Stage II alone, and that a 

state previously required to implement 

a Stage II vapor recovery program may 

take appropriate action to remove the 

measure from its SIP. See 77 FR 28772 

(further providing that states could 

address CAA section 110(l) for removal 

of Stage II by showing removal would 

not result in an emissions increase). 

The Washington, DC–MD–VA 1990 1- 

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area was 

designated as a serious nonattainment 

area under the 1990 1-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS. The Washington, DC–MD–VA 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Nonattainment Area was designated as 

moderate under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS. The Fredericksburg Area for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS was 

designated as a moderate nonattainment 

area. 

On December 19, 1997, the District of 

Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia (the 

three States) submitted an attainment 

plan for the Washington, DC–MD–VA 

1990 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Nonattainment Area. On April 17, 2003 

(68 FR 19106), EPA conditionally 

approved the attainment plan. However, 

on November 13, 2002 (67 FR 68805), 

EPA reclassified the Area as severe 

nonattainment. To meet the 

requirements of the severe 

classification, the three States submitted 

an attainment plan on February 24, 

2004. On May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688), 

this attainment plan was approved. 

On June 12, 2007, the three States 

submitted an attainment plan for the 

Washington, DC–MD–VA 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area, 

which EPA proposed to approve on 

March 20, 2013 (78 FR 17161). 

Subsequently on February 28, 2012 (77 

FR 11739), EPA published a clean data 

determination as well as a 

determination of attainment that the 

Area met the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS by its mandated attainment 

date, which was based on the 2008 to 

2010 monitored air quality data. While 

the clean data determination suspended 

the requirement to submit certain 

planning-related SIPs for the Area, 

including the attainment demonstration, 

EPA was not precluded from acting on 

an attainment demonstration submitted 

for the Area. On April 10, 2015 (80 FR 

19206), EPA approved the attainment 

plan. On September 28, 2005, a 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the Fredericksburg Area were 

submitted by Virginia. On December 23, 

2005 (70 FR 76165), EPA approved the 

Fredericksburg Area redesignation 

request and maintenance plan. 

The 1990 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS was 

revoked on June 15, 2005. However, 

EPA’s implementation rule for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS retained the 

Stage II-related requirements under 

CAA section 182(b)(3), for certain areas 

under the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS (see 40 

CFR 51.900(f)). Therefore, the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS attainment plan for 

the Washington, DC–MD–VA Area was 

required to contain provisions for the 

implementation of Stage II. 

II. Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA 

Analysis 

The March 18, 2014 SIP revision 

submitted by VADEQ seeks removal of 

Stage II from the attainment and 

maintenance plans for the Virginia 

Areas. The analysis submitted by 

VADEQ for the SIP revision addresses 

the effects of removing Stage II from the 

Virginia Areas. In accordance with 

section 110(l) of the CAA, the analysis 

demonstrates that the removal of Stage 

II from the Virginia Areas will not 

interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

analysis also meets the requirements of 

CAA section 184(b)(2), which the 

Northern Virginia Area is subject to 

because it is a part of the OTR. For this 

analysis, VADEQ followed EPA’s 

August 7, 2012 Guidance on Removing 

Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control 

Programs from State Implementation 

Plans and Assessing Comparable 

Measures. The guidance document 

provides a method in which states could 

provide certain calculations showing 

that increased emissions from nonORVR compatible Stage II would 

eventually negate benefits from the 

implementation of Stage II. Also, the 

guidance gives the states flexibility to 

provide additional or alternate analyses 

to EPA for consideration. 

As recommended by the guidance, 

VADEQ calculated the area-wide (the 

Virginia Areas) VOC inventory 

emissions benefits from Stage II. These 

calculations show the point at which 

the emissions increases from non-ORVR 

compatible Stage II would overtake 

emissions benefits from Stage II. The 

VOC inventory calculation results from 

year 2008 to 2020 are provided in Table 

1, Stage II Emissions Reductions in the 

Virginia Areas-Wide VOC Inventory. 

The results provided in Table 1 

demonstrate that in 2013 there would 

no longer be a VOC emissions benefit 

from Stage II, or that the emissions 

benefit is negative, and Virginia 

removed the Stage II requirement from 

its regulations on January 1, 2014. 

VADEQ also provided additional data 

and analyses demonstrating that Stage II 

has very little impact on VOC emissions 

in the Virginia Areas and that modeling 

indicates that the formation of ozone in 

the Area is much more dependent on 

NOX emissions than VOC emissions. 

EPA finds removal of Stage II from the 

attainment and maintenance plans will 

not increase emissions of VOC or 

increase ozone. EPA also finds removal 

will not interfere with attainment, 

maintenance, or RFP for the NAAQS, 

nor interfere with any other CAA 

requirement. The SIP revision also 

addresses CAA section 184(b)(2) 

comparability requirements. A detailed 

summary of EPA’s review and rationale 

for proposing to approve these SIP 

revisions including analysis of CAA 

sections 110(l) and 184(b)(2) may be 

found in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) prepared in support of 

this rulemaking action and is available 

on line at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0422. 

TABLE 1—STAGE II EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN THE VIRGINIA AREASWIDE VOC INVENTORY

Year 

Emissions 

reductions 

(tons per 

day VOC) 

2008 .......................................... 0.58 

2009 .......................................... 0.46 

2010 .......................................... 0.31 

2011 .......................................... 0.19 

2012 .......................................... 0.08 

2013 .......................................... ¥0.01 

2014 .......................................... ¥0.07 

2015 .......................................... ¥0.13 

2016 .......................................... ¥0.17 

2017 .......................................... ¥0.20 

2018 .......................................... ¥0.22 

2020 .......................................... ¥0.24 

III. 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29962 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the revisions 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia to remove Stage II from the 

attainment plans for the Northern 

Virginia Areas and maintenance plan for 

the Fredericksburg Area. EPA is 

approving these revisions because it was 

demonstrated that the removal of the 

Stage II requirement on January 1, 2014 

will not cause any emissions increases 

that could interfere with the Virginia 

Areas’ attainment or maintenance of the 

1990 1-Hour and/or 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS or any other applicable CAA 

requirement. EPA is also approving 

these revisions because they meet the 

requirements of the comparability 

clause in CAA section 184(b)(2). EPA is 

publishing this rule without prior 

proposal because EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

SIP revisions if adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective on July 

27, 2015 without further notice unless 

EPA receives adverse comment by June 

25, 2015. If EPA receives adverse 

comment, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29963 

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 July 27, 2015. 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 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 

action. 

This action approving the removal of 

Stage II from the Virginia Areas’ 

attainment and maintenance plans may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 7, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by revising the entries 

for ‘‘1-Hour Ozone Modeled 

Demonstration of Attainment and 

Attainment Plan,’’ ‘‘8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan for the 

Fredericksburg Area,’’ and ‘‘8-hour 

Ozone Modeled Demonstration of 

Attainment and Attainment Plan for the 

1997 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MATERIAL

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

1-Hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and Attainment Plan.Washington 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area.

8/19/03 

2/25/04 

5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 .......... 2005 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets of 

97.4 tons per day (tpy) 

for VOC and 234.7 tpy 

of NOX. 

3/18/14 5/26/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation].Removal of Stage II 

vapor recovery program. See section 

52.2428. 

* * * * * * * 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the 

Fredericksburg Area.

City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania 

County, and Stafford County.

5/4/05 

9/26/11 

12/23/05, 70 FR 76165. 

12/20/12, 77 FR 75386 ........ Revised 2009 and 2015 

motor vehicle emission 

budgets for NOX. 

3/18/14 5/26/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation].Removal of Stage II 

vapor recovery program. See section 

52.2428. 

* * * * * * * 

8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and Attainment Plan for the 1997 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Washington, DC– 

MD–VA 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.

6/12/07 4/10/15, 80 FR 19206 .......... 2009 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets of 

66.5 tons per day (tpd) 

for VOC and 146.1 tpd 

of NOX. 

3/18/14 5/26/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation].Removal of Stage II 

vapor recovery program. See section 

52.2428. 

■ 3. Section 52.2428, is amended by 

adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2428 Control Strategy: Carbon 

monoxide and ozone. 

* * * * * 

(l) As of May 26, 2015, EPA approves 

the removal of the Stage II vapor 

recovery program from the attainment 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29964 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

plans for the Virginia portion of the 

Washington DC–MD–VA 1990 1-hour 

and 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS 

Nonattainment Areas and from the 

maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12351 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0192; FRL–9927–96– 

Region–5] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Ohio: Cleveland and Delta; 

Determination of Attainment for the 

2008 Lead Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 20, 2015, the 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

(Ohio EPA) submitted a request to the 

Environmental Protections Agency 

(EPA) to make a determination under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) that the 

Cleveland and Delta nonattainment 

areas have attained the 2008 lead (Pb) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS or standard). In this action, 

EPA is determining that the Cleveland 

and Delta nonattainment areas (hereafter 

also referred to as the ‘‘Cleveland area’’, 

‘‘Delta area’’ or ‘‘areas’’) have attained 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS. These 

determinations of attainment are based 

upon complete, quality-assured and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the 2012–2014 design period showing 

that the areas have monitored 

attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Additionally, as a result of this 

determination, EPA is suspending the 

requirements for the areas to submit 

attainment demonstrations, together 

with reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plans, contingency 

measures for failure to meet RFP, and 

attainment deadlines for as long as the 

areas continue to attain the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective July 27, 2015, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 25, 

2015. 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–2015–0192, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015– 

0192. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Sarah 

Arra, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 

886–9401 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401, 

arra.sarah@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 action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. Application of EPA’s Clean Data Policy to 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

IV. Do the Cleveland and Delta areas meet the 

2008 Pb NAAQS? 

V. What is the effect of this action? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is taking final action to 

determine that the Cleveland area and 

Delta area have attained the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. This is based upon complete, 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2012–2014 

monitoring period showing that the 

areas have monitored attainment of the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Further, with this determination of 

attainment, the requirements for the 

Cleveland and Delta areas to submit 

attainment demonstrations together 

with RACM, RFP plans, and 

contingency measures for failure to meet 

RFP and attainment deadlines are 

suspended for as long as the area 

continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

As discussed below, this action is 

consistent with EPA’s regulations and 

with its longstanding interpretation of 

subpart 1 of part D of the CAA. 

If either the Cleveland area or the 

Delta area violates the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

after this action, the basis for the 

suspension of these attainment planning 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES