58682 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Cunningham Bridge across the Trent 

River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC. The 

deviation is necessary to allow the 

annual Neuse River Bridge Run 

participants to safely complete their 

race without interruptions from bridge 

openings. This deviation allows the 

bridge draw span to remain in the 

closed-to-navigation position for three 

hours to accommodate the race. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on October 18, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2014–0845] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. You may 

also visit the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the Department of 

Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Mrs. Jessica 

Shea, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398– 

6422, email jessica.c.shea2@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The event 

director for the annual Neuse River 

Bridge Run, with approval from the 

North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, owner of the 

drawbridge, has requested a temporary 

deviation from the operating schedule to 

accommodate the Neuse River Bridge 

Run. 

The US 70/Alfred C. Cunningham 

Bridge operating regulations are set out 

in 33 CFR 117.843(a). The US 70/Alfred 

C. Cunningham Bridge across the Trent 

River, mile 0.0, a double bascule lift 

Bridge, in New Bern, NC, has a vertical 

clearance in the closed position of 14 

feet above mean high water. 

Under this temporary deviation, the 

drawbridge will be allowed to remain in 

the closed-to-navigation position from 

6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, 

October 18, 2014 while race participants 

are competing in the annual Neuse 

River Bridge Run. 

Under the regular operating schedule 

where the bridge opens on signal during 

the timeframe for the race, the bridge 

opens several times every day for 

recreational vessels transiting to and 

from the local marinas located 

upstream. Although openings occur 

throughout the day, the morning hours 

have the fewest vessel transits. 

Vessels able to pass through the 

bridge in the closed position may do so 

at any time and are advised to proceed 

with caution. The bridge will be able to 

open for emergencies and there is no 

alternate route for vessels to pass. The 

Coast Guard will also inform the users 

of the waterways through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the 

change in operating schedule for the 

bridge so that vessels can arrange their 

transits to minimize any impact caused 

by the temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: September 17, 2014. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23291 Filed 9–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0211, EPA–R03– 

OAR–2013–0510; FRL–9917–17–Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Section 110(a)(2) Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Requirements 

for the 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the Virginia State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Whenever new or revised 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA 

requires states to submit a plan for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan 

is required to address basic program 

elements, including, but not limited to, 

regulatory structure, monitoring, 

modeling, legal authority, and adequate 

resources necessary to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the standards. 

These elements are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. The 

Commonwealth of Virginia has made 

two separate submittals addressing the 

infrastructure requirements for the 2008 

ozone and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

NAAQS. This action approves the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) portions of the infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA for the 

Commonwealth’s SIP submittals for the 

2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established two 

dockets for this action under Docket ID 

Numbers EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0211 for 

the 2008 ozone docket and EPA–R03– 

OAR–2013–0510 for the 2010 NO2

docket. 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: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On May 21, 2014, EPA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for 

the Commonwealth of Virginia. 79 FR 

29142. In the NPR, EPA proposed 

approval of the infrastructure elements 

of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) 

of the CAA as they relate to Virginia’s 

PSD program for the 2008 ozone and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. The formal SIP 

revisions were submitted by Virginia on 

July 23, 2012 and May 30, 2013 for the 

2008 ozone and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 

respectively. 

The July 23, 2012 and May 30, 2013 

Virginia infrastructure SIP submissions 

indicated that the approved Virginia SIP 

(plus measures submitted but not yet 

fully approved by EPA for the SIP) 

addressed requirements for a PSD 

program as required for section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 58683 

1 Virginia’s July 23, 2012 infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS cited to 

Virginia’s existing approved PSD program to 

address section 110(a)(2) requirements for PSD. 

However, the May 30, 2013 infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS cited to 

Virginia’s existing approved PSD program plus 

additional regulatory provisions submitted to EPA 

but not yet fully approved into the SIP to address 

section 110(a)(2) requirements for PSD. 

2See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 

706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (remanding EPA’s 

rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including the 2008 rule, ‘‘Implementation of New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’), and Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (vacating 

and remanding provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5), 

(k)(2) and 52.21(i)(5), (k)(2) relating to PM2.5

significant impact levels and significant monitoring 

concentrations for PSD). 

CAA.1 In Virginia, construction and 

modification of stationary sources are 

covered under Article 8, Permits for 

Major Stationary Sources and Major 

Modifications Locating in Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Areas (9VAC5– 

80–1605 et seq.) which is included in 

the approved Virginia SIP. See 40 CFR 

52.2420(c). Article 8 also requires that 

construction and modification of major 

stationary sources will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any NAAQS 

(9VAC5–80–1635, Ambient Air 

Increments and 9VAC5–80–1645, 

Ambient Air Ceilings) and requires 

application of Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) to new or modified 

sources (9VAC5–80–1705, Control 

Technology Review). On August 5, 

2011, Virginia submitted a revision to 

its SIP which incorporated 

preconstruction permitting 

requirements for sources of fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) into Virginia’s 

PSD program. Subsequent to Virginia’s 

submittal, two decisions by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the DC 

Circuit addressed the Federal PM2.5

program and impacted EPA’s ability to 

fully approve the PSD SIP revisions 

submitted by Virginia.2 Virginia 

consequently submitted additional 

revisions to its PSD program addressing 

preconstruction permitting 

requirements for sources of PM2.5. On 

February 25, 2014, EPA fully approved 

these revisions to Virginia’s PSD 

program. 79 FR 10377. With these 

revisions fully approved, Virginia’s SIPapproved PSD program now contains all 

of the emission limitations, control 

measures, and other program elements 

required by the CAA and 40 CFR 51.166 

for all required pollutants, including 

PM2.5. Id. (also approving Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 

lead NAAQS for PSD requirements in 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA). 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA 

requires each state’s SIP to ‘‘include a 

program to provide for . . . regulation 

of the modification and construction of 

any stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

ensure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a 

permit program as required in . . . this 

subchapter.’’ Similarly, section 

110(a)(2)(J) requires that for each 

NAAQS the state’s SIP must ‘‘meet the 

applicable requirements of . . . part C 

of this subchapter (relating to 

prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality and visibility protection).’’ 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA 

requires each state’s SIP to include 

provisions which will prevent 

emissions from within the state 

interfering with the measures required 

by another state for implementing PSD. 

As discussed in EPA’s May 21, 2014 

NPR, when reviewing infrastructure SIP 

submittals, EPA focuses on the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C as well as EPA’s 

PSD regulations. These structural 

requirements call for the PSD program 

to address all NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also said that EPA could continue 

to require that PSD permits, otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. In order to act 

consistently with its understanding of 

the Court’s decision pending further 

judicial action to effectuate the decision, 

EPA is not continuing to apply EPA 

regulations that would require that SIPs 

include permitting requirements that 

the Supreme Court found 

impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not 

applying the requirement that a state’s 

SIP-approved PSD program require that 

sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs 

are the only pollutant (i) that the source 

emits or has the potential to emit above 

the major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emissions 

increase and a significant net emissions 

increase from a modification (e.g. 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a 

need to revise federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court opinion. In 

addition, EPA anticipates that many 

states will revise their existing SIPapproved PSD programs in light of the 

Supreme Court’s decision. The timing 

and content of subsequent EPA actions 

with respect to EPA regulations and 

state PSD program approvals are 

expected to be informed by additional 

legal process before the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA 

is not expecting states to have revised 

their PSD programs for purposes of 

infrastructure SIP submissions and is 

only evaluating such submissions to 

assure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s decision. 

As discussed in the May 21, 2014 

NPR and herein, EPA finds Virginia’s 

approved SIP meets the statutory 

obligations relating to a PSD permit 

program required by section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA 

for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2

NAAQS. See 79 FR 10377 (providing 

full approval to Virginia’s PSD program 

as addressing requirements in the CAA 

and in 40 CFR 51.166). The detailed 

rationale for EPA’s action is explained 

in the NPR and will not be restated here. 

With respect to GHGs, EPA has 

determined that Virginia’s SIP is 

currently sufficient to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA 

for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2

NAAQS because the PSD permitting 

program previously approved by EPA 

into the SIP continues to require that 

PSD permits (otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

BACT. Although Virginia’s approved 

PSD permitting program may currently 

contain provisions that are no longer 

necessary in light of the Supreme Court 

decision, this does not render the 

infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). As 

previously mentioned, the Virginia SIP 

currently contains the necessary PSD 

requirements and the application of 

those requirements is not impeded by 

the presence of other previously 

approved provisions regarding the 

permitting of sources of GHGs that, in 

light of the Supreme Court decision, 

EPA does not consider necessary at this 

time. Accordingly, the Supreme Court 

decision does not affect EPA’s proposed 

approval of Virginia’s infrastructure SIP 

as it relates to section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On July 2, 2013, EPA proposed 

approval of the 2008 ozone submittal for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58684 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

the following infrastructure elements: 

Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for 

enforcement and regulation of minor 

sources and minor modifications), 

(D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), 

(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) 

(relating to consultation, public 

notification, and visibility protection 

requirements), (K), (L), and (M). 78 FR 

39651. Subsequently, EPA published a 

Final Rulemaking Notice (FRN) on 

March 27, 2014, which approved the 

Virginia 2008 ozone submittal for those 

specific elements. 79 FR 17043. 

On August 5, 2013, EPA proposed 

approval of the 2010 NO2 submittal for 

the following infrastructure elements: 

Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for 

enforcement and regulation of minor 

sources and minor modifications), 

(D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), 

(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) 

(relating to consultation, public 

notification, and visibility protection 

requirements), (K), (L), and (M). 78 FR 

47264. Subsequently, on March 18, 

2014, EPA published a FRN which 

approved the Virginia 2010 NO2

submittal for those specific elements. 79 

FR 15012. 

In both EPA’s March 27, 2014 and 

March 18, 2014 FRNs, EPA indicated 

that it was taking separate action on 

certain infrastructure elements from 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

as they related to PSD and section 128 

of the CAA. This final rulemaking 

action approves the infrastructure 

elements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA as they 

relate to Virginia’s PSD program for the 

2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA 

will take later separate action on section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA as it relates 

to section 128 for the 2008 ozone and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

III. Public Comments 

EPA received two comments on the 

May 21, 2014 NPR proposing approval 

of Virginia’s July 23, 2012 and May 30, 

2013 SIP submissions addressing the 

PSD infrastructure elements for the 2008 

ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. A full set 

of the comments is provided in the 

docket for this final rulemaking action. 

A summary of each comment and the 

EPA’s response is provided in this 

section. 

Comment: One commenter stated, 

‘‘[t]hese regulations will destroy the 

cheap coal energy for our population’’ 

and requested a new President to 

reverse EPA’s climate change policies. 

The commenter also suggested EPA 

should ‘‘go through Congress,’’ 

presumably on climate change issues. 

EPA Response: EPA thanks the 

commenter for the concerns expressed. 

However, the comments are not 

germane to the present rulemaking. This 

rulemaking action approves Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS as 

fully addressing the PSD program 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA for the 2008 

ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. While 

Virginia’s SIP-approved PSD program 

includes greenhouse gases as a regulated 

pollutant, EPA is not approving those 

provisions in this rulemaking action. 

The commenter’s concerns regarding 

coal energy and EPA’s actions on 

climate change issues are irrelevant to 

this rulemaking action, and therefore no 

further response is required. 

Comment: Another commenter 

remarked on Virginia’s environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ discussed 

in Section III of EPA’s May 21, 2014 

NPR under ‘‘General Information 

Pertaining to SIP Submittals from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia,’’ which is 

also included in Section IV of this 

rulemaking action. The commenter 

stated he wrote ‘‘to support the docket 

as written’’ and stated there needs to be 

a sufficient level of disclosure of 

emissions in environmental law to 

ensure emission limits are met. The 

commenter also stated that the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s laws seem 

to meet this standard, and therefore the 

commenter supported ‘‘their proposal.’’ 

EPA Response: In this rulemaking 

action, EPA is approving Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions as 

meeting PSD requirements in section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) of the CAA 

for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2

NAAQS. EPA is not approving any 

Virginia privilege or immunity law into 

the Virginia SIP nor taking any 

rulemaking action on any such Virginia 

provisions. As discussed in the NPR and 

in Section V of this rulemaking action, 

Virginia’s law regarding an 

environmental assessment (audit) 

‘‘privilege’’ for voluntary compliance 

evaluations performed by a regulated 

entity provides a privilege that protects 

from disclosure documents and 

information that are the product of a 

voluntary environmental assessment. As 

discussed in the NPR and in Section IV 

of this rulemaking action, the Virginia 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion stated that Virginia’s audit 

privilege law is inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

program, 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.’’ EPA has 

determined that Virginia’s privilege and 

immunity statutory provision will not 

preclude the Commonwealth from 

enforcing its PSD program consistent 

with the Federal requirements, and EPA 

has also determined that a state audit 

privilege and immunity law can affect 

only state enforcement and has no 

impact on Federal enforcement 

authorities. However, in this rulemaking 

action, EPA is not approving any of 

Virginia’s privilege and immunity 

statutory provisions into the Virginia 

SIP, and our discussion merely provides 

EPA’s long-held interpretation of 

Virginia’s statutory privilege provision 

as not impacting enforcement of the 

CAA or interfering with Federally 

required programs such as a PSD 

permits program. While the commenter 

is mistaken regarding the substance of 

our rulemaking action here, the 

commenter did not disagree with EPA. 

Thus, EPA thanks the commenter for his 

input. As the comment is not related to 

this rulemaking action which approves 

Virginia’s SIP submissions as meeting 

PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2) of 

the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS, no further response is 

required. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the formal SIP 

revisions submitted by Virginia on July 

23, 2012 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 

May 30, 2013 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

as they meet the infrastructure 

requirements relating to a PSD permit 

program pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the 

CAA. 

V. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

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

a privilege that protects from disclosure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 58685 

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 PSD 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• 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 December 1, 2014. 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, 

approving Virginia’s July 23, 2012 SIP 

submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and May 30, 2013 SIP submission for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS as meeting the 

PSD elements in section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA, may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

See section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58686 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: September 9, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Therefore, 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: 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (e), revise 

the entry for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 

Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS.’’ 

■ b. In the table in paragraph (e), revise 

the entry for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS.’’ 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic 

area 

State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide NAAQS.

Statewide .................. 5/30/13 .... 3/18/14, 79 FR 15012 This action addresses the following CAA 

elements, or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

(E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M) with the exception of PSD elements. 

9/30/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the following CAA 

elements, or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to the PSD elements. 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS.

Statewide .................. 7/23/12 .... 3/27/14, 79 FR 17043 This action addresses the following CAA 

elements, or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

(E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M) with the exception of PSD elements. 

9/30/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the following CAA 

elements, or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to the PSD elements. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–23106 Filed 9–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[EPA–HQ–TRI–2012–0110; FRL–9915–59– 

OEI] 

RIN 2025–AA34 

Addition of Nonylphenol Category; 

Community Right-To-Know Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is adding a nonylphenol 

category to the list of toxic chemicals 

subject to reporting under section 313 of 

the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 

of 1986 and section 6607 of the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. 

EPA is adding this chemical category to 

the EPCRA section 313 list pursuant to 

its authority to add chemicals and 

chemical categories because EPA has 

determined that this category meets the 

EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) toxicity 

criterion. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 30, 2014, and shall apply for 

the reporting year beginning January 1, 

2015 (reports due July 1, 2016). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2012–0110. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental 

Analysis Division, Office of Information 

Analysis and Access (2842T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566– 

0743; fax number: 202–566–0677; email: 

bushman.daniel@epa.gov, for specific 

information on this notice. For general 

information on EPCRA section 313, 

contact the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll 

free at (800) 424–9346 (select menu 

option 3) or (703) 412–9810 in Virginia 

and Alaska or toll free, TDD (800) 553– 

7672, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/

contacts/infocenter/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES