Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10451 

permit to operate when a source is 

transitioning to a title V permit to 

operate as well as language for fees 

related to such sources that meet the 

title V applicability requirements. The 

subsection now reads, ‘‘Sources that are 

subject to the title V permitting 

requirements of section 33–15–14–06 

are exempt from the requirements of 

this section.’’ While the time frame 

related to the State issuing initial title V 

permits has largely passed, in the event 

a minor source’s emissions grow to the 

extent that a title V permit becomes 

necessary, any applicable requirements 

in the minor source permit to operate 

will transition into the title V permit to 

operate. In such a case, until a title V 

permit is issued, the minor source 

permit remains in effect. 

The changes in Chapter 33–15–14 

only affect the applicability of certain 

permitting requirements contained in 

this Chapter. These changes do not 

affect emission limits in the SIP or other 

requirements that would affect ambient 

concentrations of criteria pollutants. 

These changes are consistent with CAA 

and regulatory requirements. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to the North Dakota SIP that the 

Governor of North Dakota submitted 

with a letter dated April 14, 2011 and 

that were state-effective April 1, 2011. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve North Dakota’s revisions to the 

following portions of the North Dakota 

Administrative Code: Chapter 33–15– 

01, ‘‘General Provisions,’’ section 33– 

15–01–04.52 ; Chapter 33–15–02, 

‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 

sections 33–15–02–04.1, 33–15–02– 

07.1, 33–15–02–07.2, 33–15–02–07.3, 

33–15–02–07.4, section 33–15–02, 

Tables 1 and 2. EPA is proposing to 

approve Chapter 33–15–14, ‘‘Designated 

Air Contaminant Sources, Permit to 

Construct, Minor Source Permit to 

Operate, Title V Permit to Operate,’’ 

sections 33–15–14–01.9, 33–15–14– 

01.10, 33–15–14–01.12, 33–15–14– 

01.15, 33–15–14–02.1, 33–15–14–02.13, 

33–15–14–02.13.o, 33–15–14–03.1c 

with the understanding that the State 

and EPA will continue discussions to 

clarify and strengthen the State’s current 

minor source program as it relates to oil 

and gas production facilities. See 

section III of this action for a description 

of these revisions. EPA acted previously 

on the revisions to Chapter 33–15–15, 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality,’’ that were also included 

in the April 14, 2011 submittal. See 77 

FR 64734, October 23, 2012. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 14, 2014. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04073 Filed 2–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0006; FRL–9907–10– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Regional Haze Five-Year Progress 

Report State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Commonwealth of Virginia through 

the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ). Virginia’s 

SIP revision addresses requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s 

rules that require states to submit 

periodic reports describing progress 

towards reasonable progress goals 

(RPGs) established for regional haze and 

a determination of the adequacy of the 

Commonwealth’s existing SIP 

addressing regional haze (regional haze 

SIP). EPA is proposing approval of 

Virginia’s SIP revision on the basis that 

it addresses the progress report and 

adequacy determination requirements 

for the first implementation period for 

regional haze. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0006, 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–2014–0006, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10452 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1On June 13, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 

approval of Virginia’s October 4, 2010 regional haze 

SIP to address the first implementation period for 

regional haze (77 FR 35287). In a separate action, 

published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA 

finalized a limited disapproval of the Virginia 

regional haze SIP because of the Commonwealth’s 

reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to 

meet certain regional haze requirements, which 

EPA replaced in August 2011 with the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208, August 

8, 2011). In the aforementioned June 7, 2012 action, 

EPA finalized a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

for Virginia to replace the Commonwealth’s reliance 

on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Following these 

EPA actions, the DC Circuit issued a decision in 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 

(2013) vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR in place 

pending the promulgation of a valid replacement 

rule. EPA believes that the EME Homer City 

decision impacts the reasoning that formed the 

basis for EPA’s limited disapproval of Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP based on Virginia’s reliance upon 

CAIR and expects to propose an appropriate action 

regarding the limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the regional haze SIP upon final 

resolution of EME Homer City. 

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– 

0006. 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 Virginia’s submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze 

Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy 

Determinations 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Virginia’s Regional 

Haze Progress Report SIP and Adequacy 

Determination 

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP 

Submittals From the Commonwealth of 

Virginia 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the state and in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

States are also required to submit, at the 

same time as the progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing regional haze SIP. See 40 

CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report 

SIP is due five years after submittal of 

the initial regional haze SIP. On October 

4, 2010, Virginia DEQ submitted the 

Commonwealth’s first regional haze SIP 

in accordance with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308.1

On November 8, 2013, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted, 

as a SIP revision (progress report SIP), 

a report on progress made in the first 

implementation period towards RPGs 

for Class I areas in the Commonwealth 

and Class I areas outside the 

Commonwealth that are affected by 

emissions from Virginia’s sources. This 

progress report SIP and accompanying 

cover letter also included a 

determination that the Commonwealth’s 

existing regional haze SIP requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement and emissions reduction 

goals for 2018. EPA is proposing to 

approve Virginia’s progress report SIP 

on the basis that it satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze 

Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy 

Determinations 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must 

submit a regional haze progress report 

as a SIP revision every five years and 

must address, at a minimum, the seven 

elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As 

described in further detail in section III 

of this rulemaking action, 40 CFR 

51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of 

the status of measures in the approved 

regional haze SIP; (2) a summary of 

emissions reductions achieved; (3) an 

assessment of visibility conditions for 

each Class I area in the state; (4) an 

analysis of changes in emissions from 

sources and activities within the state; 

(5) an assessment of any significant 

changes in anthropogenic emissions 

within or outside the state that have 

limited or impeded progress in Class I 

areas impacted by the state’s sources; (6) 

an assessment of the sufficiency of the 

approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a 

review of the state’s visibility 

monitoring strategy. 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report SIP, a determination 

of the adequacy of their existing 

regional haze SIP and to take one of four 

possible actions based on information in 

the progress report. As described in 

further detail in section III of this 

rulemaking action, 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

requires states to either: (1) Submit a 

negative declaration to EPA that no 

further substantive revision to the state’s 

existing regional haze SIP is needed; (2) 

provide notification to EPA (and other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

planning process) if the state determines 

that its existing regional haze SIP is or 

may be inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress at one or more Class I areas due 

to emissions from sources in other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

planning process, and collaborate with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10453 

these other state(s) to develop additional 

strategies to address deficiencies; (3) 

provide notification with supporting 

information to EPA if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze SIP is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress at one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources in another country; or (4) revise 

its regional haze SIP to address 

deficiencies within one year if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze SIP is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress in one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources within the state. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Virginia’s 

Regional Haze Progress Report and 

Adequacy Determination 

On November 8, 2013, Virginia 

submitted a SIP revision to address 

progress made towards RPGs of Class I 

areas in the Commonwealth and Class I 

areas outside the Commonwealth that 

are affected by emissions from Virginia’s 

sources. This progress report SIP also 

includes a determination of the 

adequacy of the Commonwealth’s 

existing regional haze SIP. 

Virginia has two Class I areas within 

its borders: James River Face Wilderness 

Area (James River) and Shenandoah 

National Park (Shenandoah). Virginia 

mentions in the progress report SIP that 

Virginia sources were also identified, 

through an area of influence modeling 

analysis based on back trajectories, as 

potentially impacting nine Class I areas 

in five neighboring states: Dolly Sods 

Wilderness Area in West Virginia; Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park and 

Joyce Kilmer—Slickrock Wilderness 

Area in North Carolina and Tennessee; 

Linville Gorge, Shining Rock and 

Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North 

Carolina; Cohutta and Wolf Island 

Wilderness Areas in Georgia; and Cape 

Romaine Wilderness Area in South 

Carolina. 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs 

This section summarizes each of the 

seven elements that must be addressed 

by the progress report under the 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g); how 

Virginia’s progress report SIP addressed 

each element; and EPA’s analysis and 

proposed determination as to whether 

the Commonwealth satisfied each 

element. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) require a description of the 

status of implementation of all measures 

included in the regional haze SIP for 

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both 

within and outside the state. The 

Commonwealth of Virginia evaluated 

the status of all measures included in its 

2010 regional haze SIP in accordance 

with the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its progress 

report SIP, Virginia summarizes the 

status of the emissions reduction 

measures that were included in the final 

iteration of the Visibility 

Improvement—State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

regional haze emissions inventory and 

RPG modeling. The Commonwealth also 

discusses the status of those measures 

that were not included in the final 

VISTAS emissions inventory and were 

not relied upon in the initial regional 

haze SIP to meet RPGs. The 

Commonwealth notes that the emissions 

reductions from these measures, which 

are relied upon by Virginia for 

reasonable progress, will help ensure 

Class I areas impacted by Virginia 

sources achieve their RPGs. The 

measures include applicable Federal 

programs (e.g., mobile source rules, 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards, Federal 

and state consent agreements, and 

Federal and state control strategies for 

electric generating units (EGUs) such as 

CAIR, CSAPR, and state multi-pollutant 

regulations for EGUs). Virginia’s 

summary includes a discussion of the 

benefits associated with each measure 

and quantifies those benefits wherever 

possible. In instances where 

implementation of a measure did not 

occur on schedule, information is 

provided on the source category and the 

measure’s relative impact on the overall 

future year emissions inventories. The 

progress report SIP also discusses the 

status and implementation of the best 

available retrofit technology (BART) 

determinations for BART sources in 

Virginia, the implementation status of 

BART for sources in neighboring states, 

and the implementation of a reasonable 

progress determination for one Virginia 

source. Finally, Virginia’s progress 

report SIP discusses implementation of 

regulations and requirements developed 

after Virginia’s regional haze SIP was 

prepared which Virginia asserts will 

provide extra assurance that Virginia’s 

Class I areas will meet their RPGs 

including the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standard (MATS) for EGUs, the 2010 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), several 

control measures for volatile organic 

compound (VOC) reductions, Federal 

consent decrees which include SO2 and 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) reductions at 

sources, and plant shutdowns. 

In aggregate, as noted later in section 

III.A of this rulemaking action, the 

emissions reductions from the identified 

measures are expected to exceed 

significantly the original projections in 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP and result 

in lower emissions by 2018 than 

originally projected. Virginia states that 

it did not expect reasonable progress to 

be adversely impacted in any of the 

Class I areas in Virginia or neighboring 

states by any of the changes to the 

emissions reductions projected. 

EPA proposes to find that Virginia’s 

analysis adequately addresses the 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

The Commonwealth documents the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze SIP such as regulations, 

Federal and state consent decrees, and 

BART determinations in addition to 

describing additional measures that 

came into effect since the VISTAS 

analysis for the Virginia regional haze 

SIP was completed, including new 

regulations for EGUs, Federal consent 

decrees, and unanticipated plant 

shutdowns. Virginia’s progress report 

also describes significant measures 

resulting from EPA regulations other 

than the regional haze program as they 

pertain to Virginia sources. The progress 

report SIP highlights the effect of several 

Federal control measures both 

nationally and in the VISTAS region, 

and when possible, in Virginia. 

The Commonwealth’s progress report 

discusses the status of key control 

measures that the Commonwealth relied 

upon in the first implementation period 

to make reasonable progress. In its 

regional haze SIP, Virginia identified 

SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs as 

a key contributor to regional haze in the 

VISTAS region and identified the EGU 

sector as a major contributor to visibility 

impairment at all Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region. The Commonwealth’s 

progress report SIP provides additional 

information on EGU control strategies 

and the status of existing and future 

expected controls for Virginia’s EGUs, 

with updated actual SO2 emissions data 

for the years 2002–2012 reflecting large 

reductions of SO2 through 2012. In its 

regional haze SIP, Virginia had 

determined that no additional controls 

of non-EGU sources were reasonable for 

the first implementation period. 

Regarding the status of BART and 

reasonable progress control 

requirements for sources in the 

Commonwealth, EPA finds Virginia’s 

progress report SIP adequately reviews 

the status of the Commonwealth’s four 

BART sources and its reasonable 

progress determination source by 

mentioning that controls are currently 

operational at these sources or that units 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10454 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2 Virginia also identified 66 BART-subject sources 

in other states determined to be in the area of 

influence of either James River or Shenandoah 

using the Commonwealth’s methodology for 

determining sources eligible for a reasonable 

progress control determination. EPA finds the 

progress report SIP adequately summarizes the 

BART control determinations and their 

implementation for these facilities in the 

surrounding States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, 

Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, Tennessee, and 

North Carolina. 

3 In comparing 2002 and 2012 emissions to report 

the 87 percent decrease in SO2 emissions from the 

EGU sector, Virginia excluded SO2 emissions from 

EGU sources which did not report to CAMD in 2002 

from the 2012 SO2 emissions of 28,345 tpy. The 

complete SO2 emissions from all Virginia EGUs 

reporting to CAMD in 2012 is 30,732 tpy. 

4The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired 

days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average 

visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for 

the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar 

year with the highest and lowest amount of 

visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over a 

five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301. 

have been shutdown.2 Because the 

Commonwealth found no additional 

controls to be reasonable for the first 

implementation period for sources 

evaluated for reasonable progress in 

Virginia, no further discussion of the 

status of controls was necessary in the 

progress report SIP. EPA proposes to 

conclude that Virginia has adequately 

addressed the status of control measures 

in its regional haze SIP as required by 

the provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) by discussing the status of 

key measures that the Commonwealth 

relied upon in the first implementation 

period to make reasonable progress. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(2) require a summary of the 

emissions reductions achieved in the 

state through the measures subject to the 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

In its regional haze SIP and progress 

report SIP, Virginia focused its 

assessment on the largest contributor to 

visibility impairment, SO2 emissions 

from EGUs. Virginia made this decision 

for the first implementation period due 

to VISTAS’ findings that sulfate 

accounted for more than 70 percent of 

visibility-impairing pollution in the 

Southeast and that SO2 point source 

emissions in 2018 represent more than 

95 percent of the total projected SO2

emissions inventory. 

Overall, Virginia states SO2 emissions 

have decreased significantly in the 

Commonwealth. Virginia states there 

has been a large reduction in SO2

emissions from EGUs, an 87 percent 

decrease from 2002 to 2012, which 

resulted from many process and 

operational changes, including SO2

control installations, switches to cleaner 

fuels by emission units, retirements of 

units, and curtailments of certain coalfired operations. Based on utility 

emissions data from 2002 through 2012 

as reported in EPA’s Clean Air Markets 

Division (CAMD) database, Virginia 

indicates that actual emissions of SO2

from the coal-fired EGU sector have 

dropped from 216,341 tons per year 

(tpy) in 2002 to 28,345 tpy in 2012, 

reflecting the 87 percent decrease.3

Additionally, the 2012 actual emissions 

of SO2 (30,732 tpy) are substantially less 

than originally projected in the 2018 

modeling inventory (82,121 tpy). 

While heat input to Virginia’s EGUs 

has decreased approximately 27 percent 

from 2002 values, Virginia states in its 

progress report SIP that SO2 and NOX

emission rates for the coal-fired EGUs 

have decreased by 82 percent for SO2

and 67 percent for NOX due to 

installation of controls and fuel 

switches. Given these substantial 

reductions in emission rates, Virginia 

states it expects the significant 

reductions of SO2 should be maintained 

even if heat inputs increase in the 

future. Virginia states that similar 

progress in emissions reductions across 

all VISTAS states have been observed 

between 2002 and 2012 as well. Based 

on EPA’s CAMD data, 2012 heat input 

data decreased only 8 percent from 2002 

values, while SO2 and NOX emission 

rates declined 76 percent and 73 percent 

respectively. Virginia also states in its 

progress report SIP that it expects 

additional retirements of EGU sources 

through 2018 and asserts the remaining 

coal-fired EGUs in Virginia have 

operational SO2 controls which should 

greatly reduce the visibility impact of 

such sources on Class I areas. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Virginia has adequately addressed the 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) 

with its summary of the large emissions 

reductions, particularly in SO2 and NOX

from EGUs, achieved in the 

Commonwealth through the measures in 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP. The 

Commonwealth provides estimates, and 

where available, actual emissions 

reductions of SO2 (and NOX) from EGUs 

in Virginia that have occurred since the 

Commonwealth submitted its regional 

haze SIP. The Commonwealth 

appropriately focused on SO2 emissions 

from its EGUs in its progress report SIP 

because Virginia had previously 

identified these emissions as the most 

significant contributors to visibility 

impairment at James River and 

Shenandoah and at additional Class I 

areas that Virginia sources impact. In 

addition, Virginia provides estimates, 

and where available, actual emissions 

reductions for certain non-EGU control 

measures that were in its regional haze 

SIP when addressing the requirements 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) for 

implementation status. Because no 

additional controls were found to be 

reasonable for the first implementation 

period for evaluated sources in Virginia 

for reasonable progress, EPA proposes to 

find that no further discussion of 

emissions reductions from controls was 

necessary in the progress report SIP. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3) require that states with 

Class I areas provide the following 

information for the most impaired and 

least impaired days for each area, with 

values expressed in terms of five-year 

averages of these annual values: 4 (1) 

Current visibility conditions; (2) the 

difference between current visibility 

conditions and baseline visibility 

conditions; and (3) the change in 

visibility impairment over the past five 

years. 

The Commonwealth provides 

visibility data for 2001 through 2011 

that addresses the three requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for James River and 

Shenandoah. In the Virginia regional 

haze SIP, for the 20% worst days, 

Virginia established a RPG for James 

River of 6.7 deciview (dv) reduction in 

visibility impairment by 2018, which is 

significantly greater than the 4.2 dv 

reduction required to meet the uniform 

rate of progress necessary to achieve a 

natural background condition of 11.1 dv 

by 2064. For Shenandoah, Virginia 

established a RPG for the 20% worst 

days of 7.4 dv reduction in visibility 

impairment by 2018, which is 

significantly greater than the 4.2 dv 

reduction required to meet the uniform 

rate of progress necessary to achieve the 

natural background condition of 11.4 dv 

by 2064. Likewise, Virginia also adopted 

a RPG for the 20% best days that would 

result in a 2.2 dv reduction in visibility 

impairment for James River and 1.8 dv 

reduction in visibility impairment for 

Shenandoah. Based on Virginia’s 

analysis of emissions reductions and 

visibility data for 2001–2011, Virginia 

states it is on track to achieve its RPGs 

by 2018, visibility is improving at James 

River and Shenandoah, and no 

additional controls on non-EGUs are 

needed as SO2 emission reductions from 

EGUs are expected to continue over the 

next five years. 

EPA finds the difference between 

current and baseline visibility and the 

five-year rolling averages for the most 

impaired (20% worst) and least 

impaired (20% best) days at both 

Virginia Class I areas indicates that 

visibility has significantly improved 

since 2001 (as illustrated in Table 1 of 

this rulemaking action) and finds 

Virginia’s assessment that it is on track 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10455 

5 VISTAS improved model performance for the 

2002 base year emissions inventory used by 

Virginia in its original regional haze SIP, resulting 

in updates to the 2002 inventory and the 2009 and 

2018 projection inventories. VISTAS provided the 

final iteration of these inventories to the states in 

2008. 

6Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(b), regional haze SIPs 

for the first implementation period were due on 

December 17, 2007. Therefore, EPA finds that the 

2007 emissions inventory used by Virginia in this 

progress report SIP reflects an appropriate 

emissions inventory for Virginia to use for 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(4) to track emissions changes of visibilityimpairing pollutants from the state’s sources. 

7The 2011 NEI inventory uses state-supplied data 

or model inputs for area and non-road estimates. 

The 2011 on-road estimates are based on Virginia’s 

application of EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator (MOVES) model using both countyspecific inputs for all Virginia jurisdictions and the 

model’s inventory mode. The 2011 point source 

data is based on 2011 CAMD data for those sources 

reporting to CAMD or on data from Virginia’s 

Comprehensive Environmental Data System 

(CEDS). 

8EPA notes that emissions of PM2.5 remained 

relatively stable in Virginia between 2007 and 2011; 

however, significant reductions in emissions of 

PM2.5 occurred from 2002 (85,762 tpy) to 2011 

(72,441 tpy), and the 2011 emissions of PM2.5 are 

still well below the 2018 projections of 93,895 tpy 

of PM2.5 demonstrating Virginia’s progress in 

reductions of PM2.5. 

to meet its RPGs at James River and 

Shenandoah reasonable given the 

downward trend in visibility 

impairment and in SO2 emissions from 

EGUs. 

TABLE 1—VISIBILITY DATA FOR VIRGINIA CLASS I AREAS

Year 

James River Face Wilderness Area Shenandoah National Park 

20% Worst days 20% Best days 20% Worst days 20% Best days 

Annual 5-Year 

average Annual 5-Year average Annual 5-Year average Annual 5-Year average 

2001 ................................................................. 29.5 ................ 14.5 ................ 29.2 ................ 13.2 ................

2002 ................................................................. 30.4 ................ 15.7 ................ 30.5 ................ 11.5 ................

2003 ................................................................. 28.4 ................ 12.9 ................ 28.9 ................ 9.5 ................

2004 ................................................................. 28.2 ................ 13.8 ................ 29.3 ................ 9.4 ................

2005 ................................................................. 30.5 29.4 14.9 14.4 30.8 29.8 10.2 10.8 

2006 ................................................................. 29.0 29.3 14.8 14.4 29.3 29.8 10.6 10.3 

2007 ................................................................. 28.5 28.9 13.8 14.0 28.8 29.4 11.1 10.2 

2008 ................................................................. 25.5 28.4 13.0 14.1 25.7 28.8 8.2 10.0 

2009 ................................................................. 22.9 27.3 11.6 13.6 21.8 27.3 8.2 9.7 

2010 ................................................................. 23.9 26.0 13.4 13.3 23.4 25.8 9.7 9.6 

2011 ................................................................. 24.3 24.4 11.5 12.7 23.4 24.6 7.8 9.0 

EPA finds Virginia provided the 

required information regarding visibility 

conditions and changes to meet the 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), 

specifically providing current 

conditions based on the latest available 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

monitoring data, the difference between 

current visibility conditions and 

baseline visibility conditions (2001– 

2004), and the change in visibility 

impairment over the most recent fiveyear period (2007–2011) for which data 

were available at the time of the 

progress report SIP development. For 

the 2007–2011 time period for James 

River, visibility impairment for the 20- 

percent worst days improved by 4.5 dv 

(comparing 5 year averages) and for the 

20-percent best days improved by 1.3 dv 

(comparing 5 year averages). For the 

2007–2011 time period for Shenandoah, 

visibility impairment for the 20-percent 

worst days improved by 4.8 dv 

(comparing 5 year averages) and for the 

20-percent best days improved by 1.2 dv 

(comparing 5 year averages). Given the 

visibility improvement in Virginia’s 

Class I areas, EPA finds that the 

Commonwealth’s assessment that it is 

on track to meet RPGs by 2018 is 

reasonable. EPA proposes to conclude 

that Virginia has adequately addressed 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3). 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(4) require an analysis tracking 

emissions changes of visibilityimpairing pollutants from the state’s 

sources by type or category over the past 

five years based on the most recent 

updated emissions inventory. In its 

progress report SIP, Virginia presents 

emissions inventories for 2002, 2007, 

2009, 2011, and 2018 in accordance 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(4). The progress report SIP 

includes Virginia’s baseline emissions 

inventory from 2002 and estimated 

emissions inventories for 2009 and 2018 

(as updated by VISTAS in 2008).5

Virginia’s progress report SIP includes 

the 2007 emissions inventory prepared 

by the Southeastern Modeling, Analysis, 

and Planning (SEMAP) project, which 

was funded by EPA and the ten states 

in VISTAS and which is the most recent 

historical inventory that has been fully 

quality-assured according to Virginia.6

Virginia then compares emissions from 

2002 and 2007 to its 2011 emissions 

inventory which was prepared from 

2011 National Emissions Inventory, 

version 1 (NEIv1) data and available 

state-level information.7

The pollutants inventoried include 

carbon monoxide (CO), VOCs, NOX, fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse 

particulate matter (PM10), ammonia 

(NH3), and SO2. The emissions 

inventories include the following source 

classifications: Stationary point and area 

sources, off-road and on-road mobile 

sources, and biogenic sources. The 

comparison of emissions inventory data 

shows that emissions of the key 

visibility-impairing pollutant for the 

southeast, SO2, continued to drop from 

428,070 tpy in 2002 to 268,877 tpy in 

2007 to 115,436 tpy in 2011. The 

emissions inventories also show similar 

substantial declines in other pollutants, 

including CO, NOX, PM10, and VOCs 

between 2007 and 2011.8 Finally, the 

2011 emissions inventory shows 

emissions levels of SO2, CO, NH3, PM10, 

PM2.5, and VOCs well below levels 

projected for 2018. 

For meeting the requirements under 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), Virginia 

documented substantial emissions 

reductions in SO2 and NOX from EGUs 

that already have occurred and 

discussed further emissions expected by 

2018 for this sector. As noted in section 

III.A of this rulemaking action, Virginia 

expects overall EGU SO2 emissions to 

continue to decline beyond the 

reductions projected in the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze SIP due 

the retirement of many coal-fired power 

plants and additional fuel switches not 

previously projected which should 

result in further visibility improvement 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10456 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9As stated above, Virginia’s 2007 emissions 

inventory reflects emissions in the year the first 

regional haze SIP was due per 40 CFR 51.308(b), 

and EPA finds the 2007 inventory to be an 

appropriate emissions inventory for Virginia to use 

for 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) to track emissions changes 

of visibility-impairing pollutants. 

at Class I areas affected by Virginia 

sources. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Virginia has adequately addressed the 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). 

While ideally the five-year period to be 

analyzed for emissions inventory 

changes is the time period since the 

current regional haze SIP was 

submitted, availability of qualityassured data may not always correspond 

with this period. Therefore, EPA 

believes that there is some flexibility in 

the five-year time period states can 

select for tracking emissions changes to 

meet this requirement. EPA proposes to 

find Virginia appropriately compared its 

2011 emissions inventory with the 2007 

emissions inventory.9 Virginia also 

included more recent SO2 and NOX

emissions data from 2012 for the EGU 

sector which shows continuing 

declining trends in emissions of these 

pollutants. EPA also reviewed 

preliminary SO2 and NOX emissions 

data from CAMD for Virginia’s EGUs for 

2013 and notes similar significantly 

reduced emissions from these EGU 

sources in 2013. EPA believes that 

Virginia presented an adequate analysis 

tracking emissions trends for visibility 

impairing pollutants such as SO2, NOX, 

PM10 and PM2.5 since 2007 using the 

emissions data available to Virginia. 

Virginia’s 2011 emissions inventory 

shows significant reductions of 153,441 

tpy of SO2, 92,081 tpy of NOX, and 

16,373 tpy of PM10 from 2007 with even 

larger reductions when compared to 

2002 and well beyond what was 

projected for 2018, demonstrating 

greater progress than Virginia had 

projected in 2010. EPA believes this 

provides sufficient information to 

support the representativeness of the 

period evaluated by Virginia. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of 

any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have occurred over 

the past five years that have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources. In its progress report SIP, 

Virginia states that sulfates continue to 

be the biggest single contributor to 

regional haze at James River and 

Shenandoah. Accordingly, Virginia 

focused its analysis on addressing large 

SO2 emissions from point sources but 

has also addressed in its analysis NOX

and PM2.5. In its progress report SIP, 

Virginia demonstrates that the 

Commonwealth’s reduced emissions in 

2012 have already exceeded Virginia’s 

2018 emissions inventory projections 

for SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 particularly for 

the EGU sector and discusses further 

emissions reductions expected from 

additional state and Federal measures 

not included in the regional haze SIP 

such as MATS, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 

Federal consent decrees with SO2 and 

NOX reductions at sources, and plant 

shutdowns. 

EPA proposes to find that Virginia has 

adequately addressed the provisions 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). The 

Commonwealth adequately 

demonstrated that there are no 

significant changes in emissions of SO2, 

PM2.5, or NOX that have impeded 

progress in reducing emissions and 

improving visibility in the Class I areas 

within Virginia or impacted by Virginia 

sources. The Commonwealth provided 

data demonstrating present emission 

reductions of SO2 from EGUs were 

greater than originally projected for 

2018 in the State’s regional haze SIP and 

showing an overall significant 

downward trend in emissions over the 

period 2002 to 2011. Furthermore, the 

progress report SIP shows that the 

Commonwealth is on track to meeting 

its 2018 RPGs for James River and 

Shenandoah. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of 

whether the current regional haze SIP is 

sufficient to enable the state, or other 

states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by emissions from the state. In 

its progress report SIP, Virginia states 

that it believes that the elements and 

strategies outlined in its original 

regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable 

Virginia and other neighboring states to 

meet all the established RPGs. To 

support this conclusion, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia notes that 

Virginia’s actual 2012 EGU emissions of 

SO2 are already below the 2018 

projected emissions of SO2, with further 

decreases expected. Virginia expects 

that the reduction of SO2 emissions will 

in fact be even greater than originally 

anticipated, particularly for the EGU 

sector as previously discussed in this 

rulemaking notice. In particular, the 

Commonwealth notes the emissions 

reductions already achieved between 

2007 and 2012 and the additional 

reductions projected for 2018 which 

were not included in the original 

regional haze SIP (as discussed 

previously for purposes of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1)) further support the 

Commonwealth’s conclusion that the 

regional haze SIP’s elements and 

strategies are sufficient to meet the 

established RPGs. Virginia also provides 

information on all the Class I areas 

where any Virginia point source was 

found to have contributed to the 

calculated sulfate visibility impairment 

in 2018 and shows each Class I area has 

made significant progress toward 

improving visibility. Virginia’s progress 

report SIP contains visibility data 

supporting the conclusion that each 

Class I area impacted by sources in 

Virginia is meeting or below its 

‘‘glidepath,’’ making reasonable progress 

towards achieving natural visibility 

conditions. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Virginia has adequately addressed 

under the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(6). EPA views this 

requirement as a qualitative assessment 

that should evaluate emissions and 

visibility trends and other readily 

available information, including 

expected emissions reductions 

associated with measures with 

compliance dates that have not yet 

become effective. The Commonwealth 

referenced the improving visibility 

trends with appropriately supported 

data and referenced the downward 

emissions trends in the Commonwealth, 

with a focus on SO2 emissions from 

Virginia EGUs, that support the 

Commonwealth’s determination that the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze SIP is 

sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I areas 

within and outside the Commonwealth 

impacted by Virginia sources. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(7) require a review of a state’s 

visibility monitoring strategy and an 

assessment of whether any 

modifications to the monitoring strategy 

are necessary. In its progress report SIP, 

Virginia summarizes the existing 

monitoring network at James River and 

Shenandoah and discusses its intended 

continued reliance on the IMPROVE 

monitoring network for its visibility 

planning. Virginia also expresses its 

continued commitment to operate 

monitors supporting regional haze 

investigations where appropriate and 

when support is available. Virginia also 

encourages VISTAS and other regional 

planning organizations to maintain 

support of the existing data management 

system or an equivalent to facilitate 

availability analysis of IMPROVE and 

visibility-related data. Virginia 

concludes that the existing network is 

adequate and that no modifications to 

the Commonwealth’s visibility 

monitoring strategy are necessary at this 

time. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Virginia has adequately addressed the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10457 

sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as 

required by the provisions under 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(7). The Commonwealth 

reaffirmed its continued reliance upon 

the IMPROVE monitoring network and 

discussed its additional PM2.5

monitoring network used to further 

understand visibility trends in the 

Commonwealth. Virginia also explained 

the importance of the IMPROVE 

monitoring network for tracking 

visibility trends at James River and 

Shenandoah and identified no expected 

changes in this network. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to take one of four possible 

actions based on the information 

gathered and conclusions made in the 

progress report SIP. The following 

section summarizes: the action taken by 

Virginia under 40 CFR 51.308(h); 

Virginia’s rationale for the selected 

action; and EPA’s analysis and proposed 

determination regarding the 

Commonwealth’s action. 

In its progress report SIP, Virginia 

submitted a negative declaration that it 

had determined that the existing 

regional haze SIP requires no further 

substantive revision to achieve the RPGs 

for Class I areas affected by Virginia’s 

sources. The basis for the 

Commonwealth’s negative declaration is 

the findings from the progress report (as 

discussed in section III of this 

rulemaking action), including the 

findings that: Visibility data has 

improved at James River and 

Shenandoah; SO2 emissions from the 

Commonwealth’s sources have 

decreased beyond original projections; 

additional EGU control measures not 

relied upon in the Commonwealth’s 

regional haze SIP have been 

implemented or will occur in the 

implementation period; and the EGU 

SO2 emissions in Virginia are already 

below the levels projected for 2018 in 

the regional haze SIP and are expected 

to continue to trend downward for the 

next five years, as will the SO2

emissions from EGUs in the other 

VISTAS states. EPA proposes to 

conclude Virginia has adequately 

addressed under the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility 

data trends at the Class I areas impacted 

by the Commonwealth’s sources and the 

emissions trends of the 

Commonwealth’s largest emitters of 

visibility-impairing pollutants both 

indicate that the Commonwealth’s RPGs 

for 2018 will be met or exceeded. 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal counterparts 

. . . .’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 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. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Virginia’s regional haze five-year 

progress report SIP revision, submitted 

by the Commonwealth of Virginia on 

November 8, 2013, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10458 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule to 

approve Virginia’s regional haze 

progress report SIP revision 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 11, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III 

[FR Doc. 2014–04087 Filed 2–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0008; FRL–9906–77] 

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions 

Filed for Residues of Pesticide 

Chemicals in or on Various 

Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of several initial filings 

of pesticide petitions requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the pesticide petition 

number (PP) of interest as shown in the 

body of this document, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois 

Rossi, Registration Division (RD) 

(7505P), email address: RDFRNotices@

epa.gov; main telephone number: (703) 

305–7090; Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. As part of the mailing 

address, include the contact person’s 

name, division, and mail code. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS