[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8868-8872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02594]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0283; FRL-10016-88-Region 3]


Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Negative Declarations Certification 
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Including the 
2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques Guidelines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. The portion for approval consists of negative 
declarations for certain specified Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG), 
including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG (2016 Oil and Gas CTG), as 
well as a number of other negative declarations for Alternative Control 
Techniques (ACTs) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS). The negative declarations cover only those CTGs or 
ACTs for which there are no sources subject to those CTGs or ACTs 
located in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) 
Emissions Control Area. EPA is approving these revisions to the 
Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0283. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the https://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 
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Trouba, Planning & Implementation 
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The 
telephone number is (215) 814-2023. Ms. Trouba can also be reached via 
electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#471335283225266902352e290722372669202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83d7f1ecf6e1e2adc6f1eaedc3e6f3e2ade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 16, 2020 (85 FR 43187), EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to part of a SIP submittal from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of 
negative declarations for certain specified CTGs, including the 2016 
Oil and Gas CTG, as well as a number of other negative declarations for 
ACTs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ Virginia's negative declarations 
cover the Northern Virginia area that was designated nonattainment for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and/or included as part of the Ozone Transport 
Region (OTR) by CAA section 184(a).\2\ The SIP revision that EPA is 
taking final action to approve in this action was submitted to EPA by 
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on April 2, 
2020. For additional information on the scope of the SIP submittal and 
the specific CTGs and ACTs for which VADEQ submitted a negative 
declaration, please see the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the NPRM for the list of negative declarations that the 
Commonwealth submitted for Northern Virginia, and which EPA is 
acting on here.
    \2\ The Northern Virginia area consists of Arlington County, 
Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford 
County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas 
City, and Manassas Park City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and 
VOCs to prevent photochemical reactions that result in ozone formation. 
Reasonably available control technology (RACT) is a strategy for 
reducing NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions from stationary sources 
within areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS, and for areas within the OTR. 
EPA has consistently defined RACT as the lowest emission limit that a 
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of the 
control technology that is reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility. CTGs and ACTs form

[[Page 8869]]

important components of the guidance that EPA provides to states for 
making RACT determinations. CTGs are used to presumptively define VOC 
RACT for applicable source categories of VOCs. ACTs describe an 
available range of control technologies and their respective cost 
effectiveness for particular source categories, but do not identify any 
particular option as the presumptive norm for what is RACT.
    On March 6, 2016 (80 FR 12264), EPA issued a final rule entitled 
``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (2008 Ozone 
Implementation Rule). In the preamble to the final rule, EPA makes 
clear that if there are no sources covered by a specific CTG source 
category located in an ozone nonattainment area or an area in the OTR, 
the state may submit a negative declaration for that CTG. 80 FR 12264, 
12278.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    In its April 2, 2020 submittal, VADEQ certified to EPA that the 
Northern Virginia area has met all of the CAA RACT implementation 
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including CAA sections 182(b)(2) 
and 184(b)(1)(B). However, this final rule only addresses section 2.2 
of the April 2, 2020 submittal, which contains negative declarations 
for certain CTGs and ACTs in the Northern Virginia area, as described 
in the NPRM. EPA notes that Virginia's April 2, 2020 SIP submission 
also addresses RACT for major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC in the 
Northern Virginia area under CAA section 182(b)(2)(C), but that portion 
of the SIP submittal is not being addressed in this action, and will 
instead be addressed in a future action taken by EPA.
    Table 3 of section 2.2 of the SIP submittal identifies source 
categories subject to CTGs and ACTs for which Virginia is submitting a 
negative declaration stating that there are no sources located in the 
Northern Virginia area subject to these CTGs or ACTs, for purposes of 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted in the NPRM, EPA issued a CTG for the 
Oil and Gas Industry in October of 2016. Because this is a newer CTG, 
section 2.2 of the submittal includes a first-time negative declaration 
for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. Along with the other negative 
declarations, VADEQ asserts that there are no facilities in the 
Northern Virginia area that are currently involved in oil and gas 
production and processing activities covered by the 2016 Oil and Gas 
CTG. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPRM 
and will not be restated here.

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received three comments on the July 16, 2020 NPRM. All comments 
received are in the docket for this action. One comment was generally 
supportive of the CAA's impact on human health and the environment but 
did not specifically address any aspect of EPA's proposed action and 
will therefore not be addressed here. A summary of the other two 
comments and EPA's responses are provided herein.
    Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that EPA should not approve 
Virginia's negative declarations ``. . . without review of all possible 
uses the state might use these approved declarations,'' because it may 
allow the state to ``. . . skirt more necessary environmental 
protections.'' The Commenter also appears to claim that EPA's approval 
of Virginia's negative declarations hinders development of projects in 
the state. To support this claim, the Commenter cites an unidentified 
analysis which purports to show that a solar industry investment 
project in Virginia was potentially blocked by such a declaration. 
Citing climate change as an example, the Commenter further asserts that 
``(w)ith EPA taking an official stance against projects to protect the 
environment, we all stand to lose.''
    Response 1: The Commenter has misinterpreted the purpose of the 
negative declarations, as well as the scope and impact of EPA's 
approval. As stated in the NPRM, the negative declarations in 
Virginia's April 2, 2020 submittal are related to the provisions of CAA 
section 184(b) which require that states in the OTR, or with areas 
included within the OTR, must revise their SIPs to implement RACT with 
respect to all sources of VOC covered by a CTG document. Because 
portions of Virginia are within the OTR, Virginia must provide a SIP 
submission to address RACT for all sources of VOC covered by a CTG. See 
NPRM 85 FR 43188, July 16, 2020.
    EPA has historically allowed states to submit a negative 
declaration for a particular CTG category if the state finds that no 
sources exist in the state, or area, which would be subject to that 
CTG. EPA has addressed the idea of negative declarations numerous times 
and for various NAAQS including in the General Preamble to the 1990 
Amendments,\3\ the 2006 RACT Q&A Memo,\4\ and the 2008 Ozone 
Implementation Rule.\5\ In each of these documents, EPA asserted that 
if no sources exist in the nonattainment area for a particular CTG 
category, the state would be allowed to submit a negative declaration 
SIP revision. This principle also applies to states and areas in the 
OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 
57 FR 13498 at 13512 (April 16, 1992).
    \4\ ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT): Questions and Answers'' Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 
May 18, 2006.
    \5\ ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements,'' (80 
FR 12263 at 12278 (March 6, 2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nothing in the CAA or EPA's implementing rules or guidance suggests 
that states must have a SIP approved regulation for a category of CTG 
sources that does not exist in the state. Should a new source of the 
type covered by the existing CTG be constructed in a state after 
approval of a negative declaration, EPA expects the state to develop a 
regulation and submit it to EPA for approval into the SIP in accordance 
with the relevant timing provided for by the CAA. At this time, because 
the portion of Northern Virginia included in the OTR does not have any 
sources subject to any of the CTGs listed in the NPRM, no regulations 
are required to be developed and submitted to EPA for SIP approval for 
those CTGs.
    Also, contrary to commenter's claim, the negative declarations will 
not have any impact on any proposed development projects. The negative 
declarations neither exempt sources subject to a CTG from complying 
with other provisions of the CAA and Virginia law which otherwise apply 
nor create any new requirements. In addition, EPA cannot identify any 
impact the negative declarations would have on any proposed solar 
project as claimed by the Commenter, and EPA is unable to evaluate the 
analysis that the Commenter references because no citation is included 
in the comment. The Commenter also references a letter from April 6, 
2013 that they sent to EPA. However, because the commenter did not 
identify the matter to which it applied or the person to whom the 
letter was sent, EPA could not locate such a letter and was therefore 
unable to evaluate it.
    Comment 2: A second Commenter also claims that EPA should not 
approve Virginia's negative declarations. First, the Commenter asserts 
that Virginia has no legal authority to make such declarations. 
Further, the Commenter asserts that negative declarations ``. . .

[[Page 8870]]

preclude any future development in that sector . . . unless a new state 
regulation is developed and enforced upon the new sources.'' 
Additionally, the Commenter asserts that the negative declarations will 
have a devastating effect on development, and that they are contrary to 
an unidentified Executive Order ``. . . precluding the government from 
imposing new regulations or rules on the oil and gas industry.'' 
Finally, the Commenter asserts that ``EPA must revoke this proposed 
rule and redo its analysis to show no state laws are being broken that 
restrict economic development and EPA must show that the rule is in 
line with the executive order promoting energy infrastructure and 
economic growth.''
    Response 2: First, EPA notes that the Commenter is incorrect in the 
assertion that the Commonwealth of Virginia lacks the legal authority 
to make and submit the negative declarations proposed for approval in 
the NPRM. The CAA establishes a partnership between state and Federal 
entities for the protection and improvement of the nation's air 
quality. Under CAA section 109, EPA is required to establish NAAQS for 
certain criteria air pollutants in order to protect public health and 
welfare. Subsequent to the promulgation or revision of a NAAQS, states 
are required by CAA section 110 to adopt and submit to EPA for approval 
a SIP which provides for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of the NAAQS within that state. This requires that the 
state have adequate state law authority to adopt, implement, and 
enforce the SIP. Virginia state law provides such authorities to the 
Virginia Air Pollution Control Board, which was created by the 
legislature of Virginia (See Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1300 through 1332.4). 
The Air Pollution Control Board has the broad authority to, among other 
things, act reasonably to achieve and maintain levels of air quality 
that will protect human health, welfare, and safety (Va. Code Sec. 
10.1-1306); ``advise, consult, and cooperate with agencies of the 
United States . . . in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter'' 
(Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1307.A); ``. . . promulgate regulations, including 
emergency regulations, abating, controlling and prohibiting air 
pollution throughout or in any part of the Commonwealth in accordance 
with the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (section 2.2-4000 
et seq.) . . .'' (Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1308); enforce the regulations it 
adopts (``[a]fter the Board has adopted the regulations provided for in 
Va. Code section 10.1-1308, it shall have the power to: (i) Initiate 
and receive complaints as to air pollution; (ii) hold or cause to be 
held hearings and enter orders diminishing or abating the causes of air 
pollution and orders to enforce its regulations pursuant to Va. Code 
section 10.1-1309; and (iii) institute legal proceedings, including 
suits for injunctions for the enforcement of its orders, regulations, 
and the abatement and control of air pollution and for the enforcement 
of penalties'' (Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1307.D)); and issue, revoke, amend, 
or deny permits for the issuance of air pollutants (See Va. Code Sec. 
10.1-1322). These authorities provide the legal basis and authority for 
the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board to submit a negative 
declaration to EPA attesting that certain sources covered by CTGs do 
not exist in the Northern Virginia area.
    Further, EPA cannot identify, and the Commenter did not identify, 
any conflict with any state law which the approval of these negative 
declarations might create. As discussed previously, the negative 
declarations being approved by this action do not create any new 
Virginia law, so no conflict with existing state law is being created.
    The Commenter is also incorrect about the impact and purpose of 
Virginia's negative declarations. As discussed in response to Comment 
1, the negative declarations which EPA proposed to approve in the July 
16, 2020 NPRM do not preclude any future proposal to locate a new 
source in the Northern Virginia area that is subject to a CTG. The sole 
purpose of these negative declarations is to certify that at the time 
of the declaration, no sources covered by a particular CTG exist within 
the Northern Virginia area. EPA's approval of the negative declarations 
indicates that the Agency agrees with the State's factual determination 
that no sources exist in the Northern Virginia area that are covered by 
the CTGs and ACTs listed. This factual determination does not itself 
preclude any future development or limit economic development because 
it does not impose any restrictions on sources or the State.
    Regarding the Commenter's assertion that the negative declarations 
are contrary to an unidentified Executive Order ``. . . precluding the 
government from imposing new regulations or rules on the oil and gas 
industry,'' EPA notes that the comment does not identify the Executive 
Order containing this prohibition. The Commenter may be referring to 
Executive Order 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic 
Growth) from March 28, 2017. Nevertheless, via this action, neither EPA 
nor Virginia is adopting or imposing any regulations or rules on the 
oil and gas industry. As explained previously, Virginia is merely 
stating that at this time there are no sources in the Northern Virginia 
area which are subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
    For the reasons stated, EPA disagrees with the commenters and is 
therefore finalizing our proposed approval of the negative declarations 
in Virginia's April 2, 2020 submittal.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving that portion of Virginia's April 2, 2020 SIP 
submission making a negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, 
as well as re-certifying a number of negative declarations for certain 
specified CTGs and ACTs, in accordance with the SIP requirements for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as a revision to the Virginia SIP.

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

[[Page 8871]]

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 Va. Code 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because this is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866.
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 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 April 12, 2021. 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 certifies negative declarations for certain specified 
CTGs, including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG, as well as a number 
of other negative declarations for ACTs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for 
the Northern Virginia area and 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.

    This document of the Environmental Protection Agency was signed on 
November 17, 2020, by Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, pursuant 
to the terms of the Consent Decree in Center for Biological Diversity, 
et al., v. Wheeler, Case No. 3:20-cv-00448-VC (N.D. CA). That document 
with the original signature and date is maintained by EPA. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned EPA Official

[[Page 8872]]

re-signs the document for publication, as an official document of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Philadelphia, PA, on November 17, 2020 by:
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
    Dated: February 3, 2021,
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 
52 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 
the entry for ``CTG Negative Declarations Certification for the 2008 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table 
to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2420   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
CTG Negative Declarations          Northern Virginia          04/02/20  2/10/21, [insert     Certifies negative
 Certification for the 2008 Ozone   VOC emissions                        Federal Register     declarations for
 National Ambient Air Quality       control area.                        citation].           CTG and ACT source
 Standard.                                                                                    categories in
                                                                                              Northern Virginia,
                                                                                              including the 2016
                                                                                              Oil and Gas CTG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-02594 Filed 2-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>