2832 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.332 is amended by 

adding paragraph (u) to read as follows: 

§ 52.332 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(u) Revisions to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan, PM10 Revised 

Maintenance Plan for Steamboat 

Springs, as adopted by the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission on 

December 15, 2011, State effective on 

January 30, 2012, and submitted by the 

Governor’s designee on May 11, 2012. 

The revised maintenance plan satisfies 

all applicable requirements of the Clean 

Air Act. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00780 Filed 1–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0494; FRL–9921–71– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revisions to the State Implementation 

Plan Approved by EPA Through Letter 

Notice Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the Virginia 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) which 

EPA had previously approved through a 

Letter Notice action. The revision will 

allow the Commonwealth of Virginia to 

submit SIP revision requests to EPA via 

electronic submission, with a caveat. 

EPA has approved this revision which 

allows electronic submission of SIP 

revision requests from Virginia. The 

Commonwealth will continue to supply 

additional paper copies as currently 

described in, and in accordance with, 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) until such time as EPA amends 

the Federal regulations to allow sole 

electronic submissions of SIP requests. 

EPA has determined that this action 

falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption 

in the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), which authorizes agencies to 

dispense with public participation and 

which allows an agency to make an 

action effective immediately (thereby 

avoiding the 30-day delayed effective 

date otherwise provided for in the 

APA). 

DATES: This action is effective January 

21, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0494. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., 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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon McCauley, (215) 814–3376, or by 

email at mccauley.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

EPA is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the Virginia 

SIP. On February 11, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a 

SIP revision requesting that EPA allow 

for the electronic transmission of SIP 

requests from the Commonwealth. EPA 

determined that the revision was a 

minor SIP revision without any 

substantive changes and complied with 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

EPA regulation concerning transmission 

of SIP revisions as long as the 

Commonwealth continued to submit 

paper copies as referenced in 40 CFR 

part 51.103 until such time that EPA has 

implemented planned regulatory 

changes which will allow for sole 

electronic submission of SIP requests. 

EPA had approved this revision with 

the caveat as described above through 

Letter Notice to Virginia dated July 17, 

2014 consistent with the procedures 

outlined in EPA’s Notice of Procedural 

Changes on SIP processing published on 

January 19, 1989 at 54 FR 2214 and 

consistent with the procedures outlined 

in an April 6, 2011 memo from Janet 

McCabe, Deputy Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Air and 

Radiation, regarding Regional 

Consistency for the Administrative 

Requirements for State Implementation. 

A copy of this memo is included within 

the Docket for this SIP revision. Today’s 

action completes the July 17, 2014 

administrative amendment to the SIP by 

amending 40 CFR 52.2420(c) to include 

new terms for defining certified mail 

and mail by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. 

II. EPA Action 

EPA is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the Virginia 

SIP. EPA has determined that today’s 

action falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ 

exemption in the section 553(b)(3)(B) of 

the APA which, upon finding ‘‘good 

cause,’’ authorizes agencies to dispense 

with public participation and section 

553(d)(3) which allows an agency to 

make an action effective immediately 

(thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed 

effective date otherwise provided in the 

APA). With respect to the SIP revision 

described above, today’s administrative 

action simply codifies provisions which 

are already in effect as a matter of law 

in Federal and state programs. Under 

section 553 of the APA, an agency may 

find good cause where procedures are 

‘‘impractical, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Public comment 

for this administrative action is 

‘‘unnecessary’’ because the revisions are 

administrative and non-substantive in 

nature. Immediate notice of this action 

in the Federal Register benefits the 

public by providing the public notice of 

the updated Virginia SIP. Approval of 

these revisions will ensure consistency 

between the Commonwealth and 

Federally-approved rules. EPA has 

determined that these changes will not 

relax the SIP or adversely impact air 

emissions. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2833 

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. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (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. 

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 March 23, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action which 

approves electronic transmittal 

submission of SIP revision requests 

from the Commonwealth of Virginia 

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
2834 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 16, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding the entry in 

the chart below as the last entry for 

‘‘Terms Defined’’ under State citation 5– 

10–20. The additional text reads as 

follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State 

citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

9 VAC 5, Chapter 10 General Definitions [Part 1] 

*******

5–10–20 .. Terms Defined .................................. 08/28/13 [01/21/15] [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Terms Added—Certified Mail, Mail. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–00639 Filed 1–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0342; FRL–9921–66– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; 

Pennsylvania Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan Revision— 

Particulate Matter Best Available 

Retrofit Technology Limit for the 

Cheswick Power Plant in Allegheny 

County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the Pennsylvania State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP). 

This SIP revision addresses an error in 

the Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements for Boiler Number 

1 of the Cheswick Generating Station 

(Cheswick) in Allegheny County. EPA is 

approving the portion of Pennsylvania’s 

SIP revision addressing the particulate 

matter (PM) BART requirements as it is 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s 

rules for BART. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0342. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., 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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia 

(NH3) and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in 

the atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. Section 169A of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution’’ and requires 

SIPs for states whose emissions may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas to contain emission limits, 

compliance schedules and other 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. A regional 

haze SIP generally must include, among 

other measures, source-specific BART 

emission limits for each source subject 

to BART. A detailed discussion of the 

requirements of the regional haze 

program can be found in our earlier 

notice proposing action on 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP. See 77 

FR 3984 (January 26, 2012). 

On December 20, 2010, PADEP 

submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania 

SIP to address regional haze 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES