**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III**  **1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103**  **DATE: SUBJECT:**  Technical Support Document for the Virginia State Implementation Plan for

Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act In frastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards **FROM:** Ellen Schmitt , Environmental Scientist

Office of Air Program Planning **TO:** File **THRU:** Cristina Fernandez , Associate Director /s/ 5/7/2013

Office of Air Program Planning
**A. INTRODUCTION** The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on a submittal made by the Commonwealth of Virginia to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2) requirements of the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS ).
**B . BACKGROUND**  On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based on 8

- hour average concentrations
. EPA revised the level of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million (ppm)
. Pursuant to section 110(a)( 1) of the CAA, states are required to submit State Implementation Plans ( SI Ps ) meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three ye ars after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe
. Sec tion 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS
. States were required to submit such SI Ps for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 2011
. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three y ears following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe
. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances
. Inparticular, the data and anal yt ical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission
.2

The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state’s existing SI P alread y contains
. Inthe case of the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, states ty picall y have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1997 8

- hour oz one NAAQS. More specificall y, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs
. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS
. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. **C. EPA REQUIREMENTS** As di scussed above, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, s tates must provide SI P submissions , or provide certification that the existing SI P contains provisions addressing relevant infrastructure SIP elements from s ection s 110(a)(2) (A) through (M) of the CAA
. **D . STAT**  **E ’S**  **SUBMITTAL** On July 23 , 2012 , Virginia provided a submittal to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a) (2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
. Th is submittal addressed the following infrastructure elements that EPA is proposing to approv e : section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) ( for enforcement and regulation of minor sources ) , (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA , or portions thereof
. EPA is taking separate action on the porti ons of (C), (D) (i)(II), and (J) as they relate to Virginia’s prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program . This submittal d id n ot include element (I) which pertain s to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title Iof the CAA, since this eleme nt is not required to be submitted by the 3

- ye ar submission deadlin e of CAA se ction 110(a)( 1 ) , and will be addressed in a separate process
. This submittal also d id not include element (D)(i)(I) , because this element, or portions thereof, is not required to be submitted by a state to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until the EPA has quantified a state’s obligations under that section. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA , 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reh’g denied 2013 U.S. App. LEX I S 1623 (Jan. 24., 2013)
. **E. EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL 1.**  **Section 110(a)(2)(A)** Virginia’s enforceable emission limitations and other control measures are included in 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 (Existing Stationary Sources), 9VAC5 Chapter 50 (New and Modified Stationary

Sources), 9VAC5 Chapter 91 (Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance in Northern Virginia), 9VAC5 Chapter 130 (Open Burning), and 9VAC5 Chapter 140 (Emissions Trading).3

Virginia has also submitted maintenance plans, reasonable further action plans, and attainment demonstrations for the 1991 1

- hour and the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. Included in these plans and demonstrations are enforceable emissions limits, control measure s, fees, and compliance schedules. These plans and demonstrations were prepared for the following areas: Hampton Roads, Richmond

- Petersburg, Fredericksburg, Shenandoah National Park, and the Washington DC

- MD
- VA area. Virginia also submitted early action compact plans for the Winchester and Roanoke 1997 ozone NAAQS early action compact areas. The approved plans are listed in 40 CFR 52.2420(e). EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) through the measures in these regulations. EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be governed b y the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Nevertheless, the Commonwealth of Virginia may have incl uded some previous EPA

- approved SIP provisions originally submitted in response to part D in its submission documenting its compliance with the requirements of sections 110(a)(l) and (2) of the CAA
. For the purposes of this action, EPA has reviewed certai n Virginia 110(a)(2) submittals, including any rules originall y submitted in response to part D, or references thereto, solel y for the purposes of determining whether such submittals support a finding that the state has met the basic infrastructure require ments under section 110(a)(2). In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove an y existing Virginia provisions with regard to excess emissions during Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility
. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (August 11, 1999 Steven Herman and Robert Perciasepe Guidance Memorandum, “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown”), and the Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future
. In the meantime, EPA encourages an y s tate having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it as soon as possible. Also in this action, EPA is not proposi ng to approve or disapprove an y existing Virginia rules with regard to director’s discretion or variance provisions
. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (see 52 FR 45109, Novemb er 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations
. In the meantime, EPA encourages an y s tate having director’s discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to corr ect the deficiency

as soon as possible.
**2. Section 110(a)(2)(B)**  Virginia has established and currently operates appropriate devices, methods, sy stems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and anal yz e data on ambient air quality
. Virginia maintains and operates a multi

- station network of ambient monitors throughout the Commonwealth to measure ambient air quality levels for comparison to each NAAQS as required b y 40 CFR part 58. The locations of these monitoring stations can be found in4

Vir ginia’s Annual Network R eview for 2012, the most recent ye ar available at the time of this notice, and has been provided for reference in the docket. Virginia provides such ambient air quality data to EPA and keeps EPA informed of changes to the sampling network b y providing prior notification of an y planned changes and seeking approvals of the changes
. Virginia sends EPA an annual summary of all changes to the network, which includes a description, explanation , and other relevant information regarding ea ch change. All data is measured using EPA approved methods as either Reference or Equivalent monitors. All monitors are subjected to the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR p art 58, Appendix A, and all samplers are located at s ites that have met the minimum s iting requirements of 40 CFR p art 58, Appendix E. The data is submitted to EPA’s Air Quality S ys tem (AQS) sy stem, in a timel y manner in accordance with the scheduled prescribed b y EPA in 40 CFR p art 58. EPA finds Virginia’ s infrastructure SI P meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B).
**3. Se**  **ction 110(a)(2)(C)** Virginia has established and currently operates a program to provide for the e nforcement of the enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and time tables for the compliance, as may be necessary

or appropriate, to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA and to regulate modification and construction of any stationary source within areas covered b y its SIP as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved. Virginia has an EPA
- approved minor NSR program located in 9VAC5

- 80
- 10 (New and Modified Stationary

Sources) and 9VAC5

- 80
- 11 (Stationary source permit exemption levels)
. EPA will take sep arate action on this portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as it relates to Virginia’s major source PSD permitting program as required b y Part C of Title Iof the CAA
. **4. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)**  In accordance with the Homer City decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a state is not required to submit a SI P pursuant to s ection 110(a) which addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has defined a state’s contribution to nonattainment or interfer ence with maintenance in another state. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA , 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reh’g denied 2013 U.S. App. LEXI S 1623 (Jan. 24., 2013). Unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Co urt, states such as Virginia are not required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SI Ps until the EPA has quantified their obligations under that section. Virginia’s July 23, 2012 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS did not include a component to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, in5

this notice, EPA is not proposing to act on 1 10(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for Virginia’s July 23, 2012 infrastructure SI P submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
. **5 .**  **Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II)**  S ection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II) consists of what the EPA refers to as prong 3 (interference with PSD) and prong 4 (interference with visibility protection). EPA will take separate action on prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as it relates to Virginia’s major source PSD permitting
. With respect to prong 4, S ection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II) requires that SI Ps include provisions prohibiting an y source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures to protect visibility required to be included in another state’s SIP. Indescribing how its submission meets this requirement, the Commonwealth referred to its October 4, 2 012 Regional Haze SIP submittal which included reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for electrical generating units (EGUs). 1 EPA granted limited approval and limited disapproval of Vir ginia’s regional haze SIP
. See 77 FR 35287 (June 13, 2012). Although Virginia’s regional haze SIP has not been fully approved, EPA believes that the infrastructure SIP submission together with previousl y approved SIP provisions , specificall y those provisions that require EGUs to comply

with CAI R and the additional measures in the regional haze SI P addressing best available retrofit technology (BART) and reasonable progress requirements for other sources or pollutants , are adequate to demonstrate compliance with s ection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II) , thus , EPA is proposing to full y approve this aspect of the submission. Virginia ’s regional haze SIP relied on Virginia ’s previous incorporation of the CAI R into the EPA

- approved SI P for Virginia as an alternative to the requirement that the regional haze SIPs provide for source

- specific BART emission limits for SO 2 and NOx emissions from EGUs. At the time the Virginia regional haze SIP was being developed, the Commonwealth ’ s reliance on CAI R was fully

consistent with EPA’s regulations. CAI R, as originall y promulgated, requires significant reductions in emissions of SO 2 and NOx to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants, and EPA’s determination that states could rel y on CAIR as an alternative to requiri ng BART for CAIR

- subject EGUs had specificall y been upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA , 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Moreover, the states with Class Iareas affected by emissions from sources in Virginia had adopted reasonable progress goals for visibility protection that were consistent with the EGU emission limits resulting from CAI R. In 2008, however, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA , 550 F.3d 1176 (D
. C
. Cir. 2008). The court found CAI R to be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but

1 On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significant reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from EGUs to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter they f orm in the atmosphere. 70 FR 25162.6

ultimately

remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur because it found that “allowing CAI R to remain in effect until it is replaced b y a rule consistent with [the court ’ s] opinion would at least temporaril y preserve the environmental values covered b y CAIR.” North Carolin a , 550 F.3d at 1178. After the remand of CAIR by the D.C. Circuit and the promulgation b y EPA of a new r ule

– the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

– to replace CAIR , EPA issued a limited disapproval of Virginia ’s regional haze SIP (and other states’ regional haze SIPs that relied similarly on CAI R) because EPA believed that full approval of the SIP was not appropriate in light of the court’s remand of CAIR and the uncertain but limited remaining period of operation of CAI R. EPA finalized a limited approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP, indicating that except for its reliance on CAI R, the SIP met C AA requirements for the first planning period of the regional haze program. See 77 FR 35287 ( June 13 , 2012). 2 EPA also finalized a limited FIP for Virginia, which merely substituted reliance on EPA’s more recent CSAPR NOx and SO 2 trading programs for EGUs for the SIP’s reliance on CAI R. See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). Since the above

- described developments with regard to Virginia’s regional haze SI P, the situation has changed. InAugust 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR
. EME Home r City Generation , LP v. EPA , 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) , reh’g denied 2013 U.S. App. L EXI S 1623 (Jan. 24., 2013)
. In this decision, the c ourt ordered EPA to “continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.” Thus, EPA has been ordered b y the court to develop a new rule, and to continue implementing CAIR in the meantime , and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new rule EPA must provide states an opportunity

to draft and submit SI Ps to implement that rule. Implementation of CAI R thus cannot be replaced until EPA has promulgated a final rule through a notice

- and

- comment rulemaking process; states have had an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs; EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be app roved; and EPA has taken action on the SI Ps, including promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan ( FIP ) , if appropriate. B ased on the current direction from the court to continue administering CAIR, EPA believes that it is appropriate to rel y on CAIR emi ssion reductions as permanent and enforceable for purposes of assessing the adequacy of Virginia ’s infrastructure SIP with respect to prong 4 while a valid replacement rule is developed and until implementation plans complying with any new rule are submitt ed by the states and acted upon by EPA or until an y s ubsequent litigation provides different direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR
. Inaddition, EPA believes that based on the court’s decision on CSAPR it would be appropriate to propose to rescind its limit ed disapproval of Virginia’s regional haze SI P and propose a full approval, but EPA will proceed to do so in a separate action.

2 Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA’s long

- standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions , EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I

- X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.go v/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf
.7

As neither Virginia nor EPA has taken an y action to remove CAIR from the Virginia SI P, CAI R remains part of the EPA

- approved SI P and can be considered in determining whether the SIP as a whole meets the requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II) . EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SI P submission with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II) prong 4 because Virginia ’s regional haze SIP which EPA has given a limited approval in combination with its SIP provisions to implement CAIR adequatel y prevent sources in Virginia from interfering with measures adopted b y other states to protect visibility during the first planning period . While EPA is not at this time proposing to change the June 13, 2012 , limited approval and limited disapproval of Virginia ’s regional haze SIP, EPA expects to propose an appropriate action regarding Virginia’s regional haze SIP in a separate action
. **6 .**  **Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)**  Virginia has demonstrated that it has met its obligations pursuant to CAA section 126(a), that it has no currentl y pending obligations pursuant to CAA Section 126(b), and has made the necessary submittals to demonstrate that the Commonwe alth has adequate provisions insuring future compliance with the requirements of sections 1 26 and 115 of the CAA
. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SI P meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)( D ) (ii)
. **7 .**  **Section 110(a)(2)(E) (i)**  The Code of Virginia Title 10.1 Chapter 13, “Air Pollution Control Board” gives broad authority to develop, implement and enforce the implementation p lan
. The resources to carry out the implementation plan are provided through General Funds, Tit le V funds , and the section 103 and 105 grant process
. Title V fees are collected under the authorit y of Code of Virginia Title 10.1
- 1322
. Virginia’s submittal provide s assurance s that that it has adequate personnel to carry out the SIP with respect to the 2008 oz one NAAQS. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SI P meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
**8 .**  **Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)** EPA will taken separate action on this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as it relates to CAA section 128, “State Boards.”
**9 .**  **Section 110(a)(2)(E) (iii)**  Virginia does not rel y on localities for specific SIP implementation. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infras tructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) (iii )
.8

**10 .**  **Section 110(a)(2)(F)** Specific monitoring requirements are found throughout the Virginia Administrative Code governing the Control of Air Pollution, includ ing 9VAC5 Chapters 20, 40, and 50
. These regulations are included in Virginia ’s approved SIP and are listed in 40 CFR 52. 2 420 and also apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Requirements for periodic reports on the nature , amounts of emissions , and emissions

related data are included in 9VAC5

- 20
- 160 (Registration). This data is also required b y Part I of 9VAC5 Chapter 40 (Existing Stationary Sources) as well as Parts I and II of 9VAC5 Chapter 50 (New and Modified Stationary Sources)
. Part II of 9VAC5 Chapter 170 (Regulation for General Administration) requires that these report s be publicly available
. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F).
**1 1**  **. Section 110(a)(2)(G)**  Section 10.1

- 1309 B under Code of Virginia, Title 10.1, Chapter 13, Air Pollution Control Board, authorizes the board to declare a state of emergency and issue without hearing an emergency

special order directing the owner to cease such pollution immediately upon finding that any owner is unreasonably

affecting the public health, safet y or welfare; th e health of animal or plant life; or property
. Section 10.1

- 1309.1 authorizes the board to issue special orders requiring plans to abate, control, prevent, remove, or contain an y substantial and imminent threat to public health or the environment that is reasonably likel y to occur if such source ceases operations. Virginia’s emergency plans are found in 9VAC5 Chapter 70 (Air Pollution Prevention) and are approved in 40 CFR 52.2420. Therefore , Virginia has authority comparable to that in section 303 of th e CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority
. Accordingl y, EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)( G ).
**1 2**  **. Section 110(a)(2)(H)**  Virginia has demonstrated that it has adequate authority to revise the SIP under the Code of Virginia, Title 10.1, Chapter 13, Air Pollution Control Board, specifically 10.1
- 1306
. This provision provides authority for the board to act reasonabl y to achieve and maintai n levels of air quality that will protect human health, welfare, and safet y . Also, section 10.1
- 1307 provides for the development of a comprehensive program for the study , abatement, and control of all sources of air pollution in the Commonwealth
. Sectio n 10.1
- 1308 provides authority to promulgate regulations to abate, control, and prohibit air pollution throughout the Commonwealth in accordance with the provisions of Virginia’s Administrative Process Act. These submissions also provide EPA with adequate assurances that Virginia will review and revise its SI P from time to time as may be necessary

to take account of revisions of such primary or secondary

NAAQS or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of9

attaining such standard s and, when ever the Administrator finds, on the basis of information available to the Administrator, that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements, or to otherwise compl y with any additional requirements established under the CAA. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).
**1 3**  **. Section 110(a)(2)(I)**  This submission did n ot include section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertain s to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA
. EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address this element because n onattainment area plans required under part D are required on a different schedule from the CAA section 1 10(a)(2) infrastructure elements and, thus, will be reviewed and acted upon through a separate process.
**1 4.**  **S ection 110(a)(2)(J)**  Section 121 (relating to c onsultation ). All SIP revisions undergo public notice and hearing upon request , which provides for comment by the public and includes local political subdivisions
. Further, all regulations promulgated in Virginia are subject to the Administrative Process Act (Code of Virginia, Title 2.2, Administration of Government, Chapter 40). Regulatio ns promulgated by the State Air Pollution Control Board are also governed b y 9VAC5 Chapter 5, Public Participation Guidelines. During attainment and maintenance plan development, local planning organizations (LPOs) are organized as the forum for consultation and cooperative air quality planning decision making. The organizations include elected officials of local governments in the affected nonattainment area, and representatives of VA DEQ, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the metropolitan pl anning organizations (MPOs) for the affected area, and other agencies and organizations that have responsibilities for developing, submitting, or implementing any of the plan revisions. Consultation for transportation and general conformity purposes is go verned b y 9VAC5 Chapter 151 (Regulation for Transportation Conformity) and 9VAC5 Chapter 160 (Regulation for General Conformit y) , respectivel y . Section 127 (relating to public notification). Air quality data from Virginia’s monitoring network is publi shed on the Department of Environmental Quality website
. As part of the section 105 grant process, Virginia is required to submit monitoring data to the Air Quality Sy stem (AQS) in a timely manner . Virginia publishes an annual summary of all monitoring d ata on the DEQ website, including monitoring locations, exceedances, and violations of standards. The Virginia Department of Transportation and metropolitan planning organizations also use electronic signs in the nonattainment and maintenance areas to ale rt motorists to predicted air quality values so that mitigating episodic measures can be implemented. Part C (relating to visibility protection). With regard to the visibility protection aspect of10

110(a)(2)(J) , EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there are no applicable visibility obligation s under part C “triggered” under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. Virginia has submitted SIP revisions to satisfy the r equirements of the CAA Section 169A and 169B, and the regional haze and BART rules contained in 40 CFR 51.308. On June 13 , 2012, EPA published a final rulemaking regarding Virginia ’s regional haze program, consisting of a limited approval and a limited disapproval. See 77 FR 35287 . In EPA’s view, the current status of Virginia ’s regional haze SIP as having not been fully approved is not a bar to full approval of the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to the visibility protection aspect of 110(a )(2)(J), and EPA is proposing to fully approve the infrastructure SIP for this aspect. While EPA is not at this time proposing to change the June 13, 2012, limited approval and limited disapproval of Virginia’s Regional haze SIP itself, EPA expects to address the approval status of the regional haze SI P in a separate action
. EPA is taking separate action on the portion of section 110(a)(J) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as it relates to Virginia’s PSD permit program.
**1 5**  **. Section 110(a)(2)(K** **)** Virginia has the authority and technical capability

to conduct air qualit y modeling in order to assess the effect on ambient air quality relevant pollutant emissions and will continue to perform modeling. Article 8, Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas (9VAC5

- 80
- 1605 et seq.) of 9VAC5

- 80 (Permits for Stationary Sources) contains requirements for pre

- construction and post

construction monitoring and modeling. This regulation is inclu ded as part of the Virginia SIP as noted in 40 CFR 52.2420. Virginia will continue to submit to EPA the air quality modeling data as part of Virginia’s relevant SIP submissions, permit actions, and through Federal grant commitments or in other way s that E PA may request. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SI P meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K)
. **1 6**  **. Section 110(a)(2)(L**  **)** Virginia’s submission adequatel y address es this requirement by explaining that these requirements are located in Article 2, Permit Program Fees for Stationary Sources (9VAC5

- 80
- 310 et seq.) of 9VAC5

- 80 (Permits for Stationary Sources)
. These regulations are part of Virginia’s federall y approved Title V program and are codified in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 70, Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2 ) ( L ).11

**1 7**  **. Section 110(a)(2)(M)**  All SIP revisions undergo public parti cipation following 40 CFR 51.102 and provid e for comment by

the public includ ing local planning organizations
. The se organizations include elected officials of local governments in the affected nonattainment area, and representatives of VA DEQ, VDOT, the M POs for the affected area, and other agencies and organizations that have responsibilities for developing, submitting, or implementing an y of the plan revisions. Additionally , the Code of Virginia under § 10.1

- 1307A requires advising, consulting, and cooperating with all agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions, private industries, and an y other affected groups when developing programs to improve or mai ntain air quality
. Further, all regulations in Virginia are subject to the Administrative Process Act (Code of Virginia, Title 2.2, Administration of Government, Chapter 40). Regulations promulgated b y the State Air Pollution Control Board are also gover ned by 9VAC5 Chapter 5, Public Participation Guidelines. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2 ) ( M ).
**F .**  **CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND**  **ED AGENCY ACTION** EPA’s anal ys is of Virginia’s infrastructure su bmittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS concludes that Virginia’s submittals meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2 )(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor sources) , (D) (i)(II) (for visibility protection) , (D)(ii), (E) (i), (E)(iii) , (F), (G), (H) , (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof. It is recommended that a notice of proposed rulemaking be prepared approving Virginia’s infrastructure submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.