**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 Lead 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 P lanning
**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 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS ).
**B . BACKGROUND**  On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary

lead NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) to 0.15 μg/m 3 . Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of new or revised NAAQS within three ye ars following the promulgation of such NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS. For the 2008 lead NAAQS, states ty picall y have met man y of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA through earlier SIP su

bmissions in connection with previous lead standards. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists specific elements that states must meet or continue to meet in these SIP submissions. The requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as requirements for m odeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA infrastructure elements (A) through (M) are listed in EPA’s memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1

- 10 , “ Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan ( SIP ) Elements Required Under Section s 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 L ead (Pb) National Ambient Air Qua lity Standards ( NAAQS ) , ” October 14, 2011, ( hereafter referred to as “Lead Infrastructure Guidance”).2

**C. EPA REQUIREMENTS** As discussed above, for the 2008 lead NAAQS, s tates must provide SI P submissions , or provide certification that the existing SIP contains provisions addressing relevant infrastructure SIP elements from s ection s 110(a)(2) (A) through (M) of the CAA

. To help s tates meet this statutory requirement, EPA issued the Lead Infrastructure Guidance, which listed the basic elements that s tates should include in their SIPs.
**D . STATE**  **’S SUBMITTAL**  On March 9, 2012 , Virginia provided a submittal to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a) (2) of the CAA for the 2008 lead 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)(I), (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 portions 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 incl ude element (I) which pertain s to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, since this element 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

. In accordance with the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion, the EPA at this time is not treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from the Commonwealth of Virginia as a required SIP submission. See EME Homer 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). However, even if the submission is not considered to be “required,” the EPA must act on the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Virginia because section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to act on all SIP submissions. Unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court, states are not required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified their o bligations under that section. In this notice, EPA is proposing to act on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submission.

**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

The measures in these regulations include provisions that are adequate to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(A). EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D of Ti tle I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Nevertheless, the Commonwealth of Virginia may have included some previous EPA

- approved SIP provisions originally submitted in response to part D in its submission documentin g its compliance with the requirements of sections 110(a)(l) and (2) of the CAA. For the purposes of this action, EPA has reviewed certain Virginia 110(a)(2) submittals, including an y 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 requirements under section 110(a)(2). In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove an y existing Virginia pro visions 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 He rman 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 encourag es 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 proposing to appr ove or disapprove any 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, November 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encour ages an y s tate having director’s discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency

as soon as possible.
**2. Section 110(a)(2)(B)**  Virginia has established and currently operates approp riate 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 in Virginia’s Annual Network R eview for 2012, the most recent ye ar available at the time of this not ice, and has been provided 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 approval of the changes. Virginia sends EPA an annual summary of all changes to the4

network, which includes a description, explaination , and other relevant information regarding each 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 it ing 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 schedule prescribed b y EPA in 40 CFR p art 58. EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the nece ssary requirements for 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

. Virginia has a minor new source review (NSR) program located in 9VAC5

- 80

- 10 (New and Modified Stationary Sources) and 9VAC5

- 80

- 11 (Stationary source permit exemption levels) which has been approved into the Virginia SIP
. EPA will take separate action on the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to Virginia’s PSD permit program. Virgi nia ’s revised PSD permit program approval has been proposed by EPA in the federal register on August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523 )

. **4. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i**  **)** In accordance with the Homer City opinion from the U .S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the EPA at this time is not treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SI P submission from the Commonwealth of Virginia as a required SIP submission. See EME Homer 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). However, even if the submission is not considered to be “required,” the EPA must act on the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Virginia because section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to act on all SIP submissions. Unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court, states are not required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified their obligations under that section. In this notice, EPA is proposing to act on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submission. The phy sical properties of lead prevent lead emissions from experiencing a significant degree of travel in the ambient air. No complex chemistry is needed to form lead or lead compounds in the ambient air; th erefore, concentrations of lead are t ypically highest near lead sources. More specifically , there is a significant decrease in lead concentrations as the distance from a lead source increases. According to EPA’s report “Latest Findings on National Air5

Qu ality : Status and Trends Through 2006,” lead monitoring data shows that the ty pical lead concentration near a source is approximately 10 times the ty

pical lead concentration for sites that are not near a source ( EPA

- 454/R

- 07

- 007) . Accordingl y, in order for a source to emit lead that may contribute significantly

to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance b y, an y other state, the source would need to be a very large source (emitting more than 0.5 t ons p er y ear of lead) that is located in close prox imity to state boundaries. See Lead Infrastructure Guidance. To satisfy the interstate transport requirement of this element, Virginia made an assessment as to whether any lead emitting sources in the Commonwealth would contribute significantl y to nonatt ainment in, or interfere with maintenance by , any other state with respect the 2008 lead NAAQS. See Virginia’s Annual Network Review. Because of the ph ys ical properties of lead, and the fact that there are not any nonattainment areas for the 2008 lead NAAQS within close proximity of the source s , Virginia expects that th e s e lead source s do not contribute significantly

to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in , any other state with regard to the 2008 lead NAAQS. With regard to visibility

prot ection, lead

- related visibility effects from Virginia are insignificant to other Class Iareas . See memorandum from Mark Schmidt, OAQPS to File, dated November 7, 2011, entitled, “ The Estimated Contribution of Ambient Lead to Class I Area Visibility Impairment. ” EPA also published a final rulemaking regarding Virginia’s regional haze SIP on June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35287). Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SI P as submitted meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 11 0(a)(2)( D ) (i)(I)

. S ection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II) requires that SI Ps include provisions prohibiting any source or other ty pe of emissions activity

in one state from interfering with measures to protect visibility required to be included in another state’s SIP. In describing how its submission meets this requirement, the Commonwealth referred to its October 4, 2012 Regional Haze SI P 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 full y approved, EPA believes that the infrastructure SIP submission together with previously approved SIP provisions , specifically those provisions that require EGUs to comply with CAIR and the additional measures in the regional haze SIP addressing best available retrofit technology (BART) and reasonable progress requirements for other sources or pollutants , are adequate to demonstrate compliance with prong 4, 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.

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

At the time the Virginia regional haze SIP was being developed, the Commonwealth ’ s reliance on CAI R was fully

consistent with EPA’s regulatio ns. 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 requiring BART for CAIR

- sub ject 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 prot ection that were consistent with the EGU emission limits resulting from CAIR. 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 requ irements of the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but 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 rule

– 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 CAI R 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 CAA requirements for the first planning period o f 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 336 42 (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 Homer 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 CAIR thus cannot be replaced unt il 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

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.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf

.7

the SIPs to determine if they can be approved; and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including pr omulgating 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 emission reductions as permanent and enforceable for purpose s 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 submitted by the states and acted upon by EPA or until an y s ubse quent 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 limited disapproval of Virginia’s regional haze SI P and propos e a full approval, but EPA will proceed to do so in a separate action. As neither Virginia nor EPA has taken an y action to remove CAIR from the Virginia SI P, CAIR remains part of the EPA

- approved SIP and can be considered in determining whether the SIP as a whole meets the requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II) (for visibility protection) . EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II) because Virginia ’s regional haze SIP which EPA has given a limited approva l in combination with its SIP provisions to implement CAI R adequately 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 cha nge 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

. EPA is taking separate action on the portion of sect ion 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to Virginia’s PSD permit program

. EPA proposed approval of the revisions to Virginia’s PSD permit program on August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523).
**5 .**  **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 Commonwealth has adequate provisions ins uring future compliance with the requirements of sections 1 26 and 115 of the CAA as may be necessary in accordance with EPA’s L ead Infrastructure Guidance

. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SI P meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)( D ) (ii)

. **6 .**  **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 Title8

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 lead NAAQS. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
**7 .**  **Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)** EPA will take separate action on this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 lead NAAQS as it relates to CAA section 128, “State Boards.”
**8 .**  **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 necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) (iii)

. **9 .**  **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 lead NAAQS. Requirements for periodic reports on the nature , amounts of emissions , and emissions

related data are included i n 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)

. 9VAC5

- 170

- 60 (Availability of information) of Part II of 9VAC5 Chapter 170 (Regulation for General Administration) requires that these reports be publicly available. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(F).
**10 .**  **Section 110(a)(2)(G )**  Virginia has authorit y comparable to that in section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency

plans to implement such authorit y. 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; the health of animal or pl ant 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 threat9

to public health or the environment that is reasonably likel y to occ ur if such source ceases operations. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)( G ).
**11 .**  **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 section 10.1

- 1306

. This provision provides authority for the board to act reasonabl y to achieve and maintain levels of air qualit y that will pr otect 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. Inaddition, s ection 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 Virg inia will review and revise its SIP 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 of attaining such standard s and, whenever the Administrato r 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 necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)( H ).
**12 .**  **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 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements and, thus, will be reviewed and acted upon through a separate process.
**13 .**  **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). Regulations promulgated by the State Air Pollution Control Board are also governed b y 9VAC5 Chapter 5, Public Participation Guidelines. Section 127 (relating to public notification). Air quality data from Virginia’s monitoring10

network is published 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 data on the DEQ website, including monitoring locations, exceedances, and violations of standards. Part C (relating to visibility protection). With regard to the visibility protection aspect of 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. Virgi nia has submitted SIP revisions to satisfy the requirements of the CAA s ection 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 resp ect 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 Virgini a’s Regional haze SI P 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 lead NAAQS as it relates to Virginia’s PSD permit program. EPA proposed approval of the revisions to Virginia’s PSD permit program on August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523)

. **1 4**  **. 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 SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(K).
**1 5**  **. Section 110(a)(2)(L**  **)** Virginia’s submission adequatel y address es this requirement by explaining that these11

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 necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2 ) ( L ).
**1 6**  **. Section 110(a)(2)(M)**  All SIP revisions undergo public notice and hearing, providing for comment by the public that includes local political subdivisions. 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 maintain air quality

. Further, all regulations in Virginia are subject to the Administrative Process Act (Code of Virginia, Title 2.2, Administration o f Government, Chapter 40). Regulations promulgated b y the State Air Pollution Control Board are also governed b y 9VAC5 Chapter 5, Public Participation Guidelines. Therefore , EPA finds Virginia’s infrastructure SIP meets the necessary requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2 ) ( M ).

**F .**  **CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND**  **ED AGENCY ACTION** EPA’s anal ys is of Virginia’s infrastructure submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS concludes that Virginia’s submittals meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2 )(A), (B), (C) (for enforcem ent and regulation of minor sources) , (D) (i)(I), (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 lead NAAQS.