Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42219 

TABLE 3—EPA-APPROVED ARIZONA STATUTES—NON-REGULATORY—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

49–104 subsections (A)(3) 

and (B)(1) only.

Powers and duties of the 

department and director.

December 3, 2015 ............ August 21, 2018, [INSERT 

Federal Register CITATION].

Arizona Revised Statutes 

(Thomson Reuters, 

2015–16 Cumulative 

Pocket Part). Adopted 

by the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality on December 3, 

2015. 

*******

■ 3. Section 52.121 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.121 Classification of regions. 

The Arizona plan is evaluated on the 

basis of the following classifications: 

AQCR (constituent counties) 

Classifications 

PM SOX NO2 CO O3

Maricopa Intrastate (Maricopa) ................................................................ I III III I I 

Pima Intrastate (Pima) ............................................................................. I III III III I 

Northern Arizona Intrastate (Apache, Coconino, Navajo, Yavapai) ........ I III III III III 

Mohave-Yuma Intrastate (Mohave, Yuma) .............................................. I III III III III 

Central Arizona Intrastate (Gila, Pinal) .................................................... I IA III III III 

Southeast Arizona Intrastate (Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Santa 

Cruz) ..................................................................................................... I IA III III III 

■ 4. Section 52.123 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (l) through (p), and 

adding paragraphs (q) and (r) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.123 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(l) 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The 

SIPs submitted on October 14, 2009 and 

August 24, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(m) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 14, 2009 and 

August 24, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) 

for all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(n) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 14, 2009 and 

August 24, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

and (J) for all portions of the Arizona 

SIP. 

(o) 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The 

SIPs submitted on October 14, 2011, 

December 27, 2012, and December 3, 

2015 are fully or partially disapproved 

for Clean Air Act (CAA) elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(p) 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 14, 2011 and 

December 27, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(q) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS: 

The SIPs submitted on January 18, 2013 

and December 3, 2015 are fully or 

partially disapproved for CAA elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(r) 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS: The 

SIPs submitted on July 23, 2013 and 

December 3, 2015 are fully or partially 

disapproved for CAA elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17931 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0601; FRL–9982– 

32—Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Regional 

Haze Plan and Visibility for the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide and 2012 Fine 

Particulate Matter Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia (the Commonwealth or 

Virginia) on July 16, 2015. This SIP 

submittal changes Virginia’s reliance on 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to 

reliance on the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) for certain elements of 

Virginia’s regional haze program. EPA is 

approving the visibility portion of 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) and approving element (J) for 

visibility of Virginia’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA is also converting the Agency’s 

prior limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Virginia’s regional haze 

program to a full approval and 

withdrawing the federal implementation 

plan (FIP) provisions addressing our 

prior limited disapproval. This action is 

being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42220 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). 

2 Virginia was included in the CSAPR federal 

trading programs on August 8, 2011. 76 FR 48208. 

3See 82 FR 45481 (September 29, 2017) 

(affirming the validity to EPA’s determination that 

participation in CSAPR satisfies the criteria for an 

alternative to BART following changes to the 

program.) 

4 Virginia’s 2010 SO2 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions relied on 

the Commonwealth having a fully approved 

regional haze program to satisfy its prong 4 

requirements. However, at the time of both 

infrastructure SIP submittals, Virginia did not have 

a fully approved regional haze program as the 

Agency had issued a limited disapproval of the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze plan on June 7, 

2012, due to its reliance on CAIR. 

5 83 FR 8814 (March 1, 2018). 

6 83 FR 20002 (May 7, 2018). 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0601. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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 through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

16, 2015, the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) 

submitted a revision to its SIP to update 

the Commonwealth’s regional haze plan 

and to meet the visibility requirements 

in section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for 

the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

I. Background 

On March 1, 2018 (83 FR 8814), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) addressing SIP 

revisions from the Commonwealth. In 

the NPR, EPA proposed to take the 

following actions: (1) To approve 

Virginia’s July 16, 2015 SIP submission 

that changed Virginia’s reliance on 

CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain 

elements of Virginia’s regional haze 

program; (2) to convert EPA’s limited 

approval/limited disapproval 1 of 

Virginia’s regional haze program to a 

full approval; and (3) to approve 

portions of Virginia’s June 18, 2014 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS and its July 16, 2015 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS addressing the 

visibility provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. EPA 

subsequently published a second, 

supplemental NPR proposing to remove 

the FIP for the Commonwealth that 

addressed the issues associated with the 

Agency’s prior limited disapproval. 83 

FR 20002 (March 1, 2018). The 

supplemental NPR also proposed 

approval of the provisions in Virginia’s 

June 18, 2014 infrastructure SIP 

submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

addressing the requirements of section 

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

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

In order to correct the deficiencies 

identified in the June 7, 2012 limited 

disapproval of Virginia’s regional haze 

program by EPA, the Commonwealth 

submitted a SIP revision to the Agency 

on July 16, 2015 to replace reliance on 

CAIR with reliance on CSAPR in its 

regional haze SIP.2 Specifically, the July 

16, 2015 SIP submittal changes the 

Virginia regional haze program to 

specify that the Commonwealth is 

relying on CSAPR in its regional haze 

SIP to meet the best available retrofit 

technology (BART) for certain electric 

generating units (EGUs) and reasonable 

progress requirements to support 

visibility improvement progress goals 

for Virginia’s Class I areas, Shenandoah 

National Park and the James River 

Wilderness Area. 

As did EPA’s partial regional haze FIP 

for Virginia, the Commonwealth’s July 

16, 2015 regional haze SIP revision 

relies on CSAPR to address the 

deficiencies identified in EPA’s June 

2012 limited disapproval of Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP. As discussed in the 

NPR in greater detail, EPA finds that 

this revision satisfies Virginia’s BART 

requirements for its EGUs and 

reasonable progress requirements and 

therefore allows for a fully approvable 

regional haze program. With today’s 

final approval, the Commonwealth has 

a SIP in place to address all of its 

regional haze requirements. EPA finds 

that Virginia’s reliance in its SIP upon 

CSAPR for certain BART and reasonable 

progress requirements is in accordance 

with the CAA and regional haze rule 

requirements (including 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)), as EPA has recently 

affirmed that CSAPR remains an 

appropriate alternative to sourcespecific BART controls for EGUs 

participating in CSAPR.3 Because the 

deficiencies in Virginia’s regional haze 

SIP associated with the 

Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR that 

were identified in EPA’s prior limited 

disapproval are addressed through the 

Commonwealth’s revised SIP, the 

Agency is now fully approving 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP. 

Additionally, EPA finds that the prong 

4 portions of Virginia’s infrastructure 

SIP submittals for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS are fully 

approvable as Virginia now has a fully 

approved regional haze SIP.4

The specific details of Virginia’s July 

16, 2015 SIP revision and the rationale 

for EPA’s approval are discussed in the 

NPR5 and supplemental NPR6 and will 

not be restated here. Thirteen public 

comments were submitted to the docket 

identified in EPA’s proposed actions; 

however, none of the comments were 

specific to the rulemaking and thus are 

not addressed here. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is taking the following actions: 

(1) Approving Virginia’s July 16, 2015 

SIP submission that changed Virginia’s 

reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR 

for certain elements of Virginia’s 

regional haze program; (2) converting 

EPA’s limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Virginia’s regional haze 

program to a full approval; (3) 

withdrawing the FIP provisions that 

address the limited disapproval of 

Virginia’s regional haze program; (4) 

approving the portions of Virginia’s 

June 18, 2014 infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

and its July 16, 2015 infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

addressing the visibility provisions of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i); (5) and 

approving the portion of Virginia’s June 

18, 2014 infrastructure SIP for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(J). 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42221 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

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

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

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

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their federal 

counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on federal enforcement 

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 

its authority under the CAA, including, 

for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 

or 213, to enforce the requirements or 

prohibitions of the state plan, 

independently of any state enforcement 

effort. In addition, citizen enforcement 

under section 304 of the CAA is 

likewise unaffected by this, or any, state 

audit privilege or immunity law. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 regulatory action because this 

action is not significant under Executive 

Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities because small entities are not 

subject to the requirements of this rule. 

83 FR 8814 (March 1, 2018) and 83 FR 

20002 (May 7, 2018). 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments. 

There are no Indian reservation lands in 

Virginia. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this rule. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes that this action does not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

L. Determination Under Section 307(d) 

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), 

this action is subject to the requirements 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42222 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c). 

M. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

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). 

N. 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 October 22, 2018. 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 may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See CAA 

section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Visibility. 

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

Dated: August 8, 2018. 

Andrew R. Wheeler, 

Acting Administrator. 

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. Section 52.2420 is amended by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Regional Haze 

Plan’’, ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS’’, and ‘‘Section 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2012 Particulate Matter NAAQS’’ 

in the table in paragraph (e)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval 

date 

Additional 

explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ................ Statewide .......... 7/16/15 8/21/18, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Full Approval. 

See §§ 52.2452(g). 

* * * * * * * 

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

2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 6/18/14 3/4/15, 80 FR 11557 ........ Docket #2014–0522. This action addresses 

the following CAA elements, or portions 

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

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

(consultation, notification, and PSD), (K), 

(L), and (M). 

12/22/14 4/2/15, 80 FR 17695 ........ Docket #2015–0040. Addresses CAA element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

7/16/15 8/21/18, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Docket #2017–0601. This action addresses 

the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(D)(I)(II) for visibility and 

110(a)(2)(J) for visibility. 

* * * * * * * 

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

2012 Particulate Matter 

NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 7/16/15 6/16/16, 81 FR 39210 ...... Docket #2015–0838. This action addresses 

the following CAA elements, or portions 

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

(PSD), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M). 

7/16/15 8/21/18, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Docket #2017–0601. This action addresses 

the following CAA element: 

110(a)(2)(D)(I)(II) for visibility. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.2452 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs (d), 

(e), and (f) and by adding paragraph (g) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.2452 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(g) EPA converts its limited approval/ 

limited disapproval of Virginia’s 

regional haze program to a full approval. 

This SIP revision changes Virginia’s 

reliance from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule to the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule to meet the regional haze SIP best 

available retrofit technology 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42223 

1For the initial PM area designations in 2009 (for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA used a 

designation category of ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ 

for areas that had monitors showing attainment of 

the standard and were not contributing to nearby 

violations and for areas that did not have monitors 

but for which EPA had reason to believe were likely 

attaining the standard and not contributing to 

nearby violations. EPA used the category 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ for areas in which EPA could not 

determine, based upon available information, 

whether or not the NAAQS was being met and/or 

EPA had not determined the area to be contributing 

to nearby violations. EPA reserves the ‘‘attainment’’ 

category for when EPA redesignates a 

nonattainment area that has attained the relevant 

NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan. 

2Although Alabama requested redesignation of 

the Area to ‘‘attainment,’’ EPA is redesignating the 

area to ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ because, as 

noted above, EPA reserves the ‘‘attainment’’ 

category for when EPA redesignates a 

nonattainment area that has attained the relevant 

NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan. 

requirements for certain sources and to 

meet reasonable progress requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17448 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0173; FRL–9982– 

71—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality 

Designation; AL; Redesignation of the 

Etowah County Unclassifiable Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2018, the State 

of Alabama, through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), submitted a 

request for the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate 

the Etowah County, Alabama fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) unclassifiable 

area (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Etowah County Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to 

attainment for the 2006 primary and 

secondary 24-hour PM2.5 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

EPA is approving the State’s request and 

redesignating the Area to unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 2006 primary and 

secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based 

upon valid, quality-assured, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

showing that the PM2.5 monitor in the 

Area is in compliance with the 2006 

primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

September 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2018–0173. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that 

if at all possible, you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Sanchez can 

be reached by telephone at (404) 562– 

9644 or via electronic mail at 

sanchez.madolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On September 21, 2006, EPA revised 

the primary and secondary 24-hour 

NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 35 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

based on a 3-year average of the annual 

98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 

(October 17, 2006). EPA established the 

standards based on significant evidence 

and numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with exposures to 

particulate matter. 

The process for designating areas 

following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS is contained in section 

107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

EPA and state air quality agencies 

initiated the monitoring process for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 1999, and 

deployed all air quality monitors by 

January 2001. On October 8, 2009, EPA 

designated areas across the country as 

nonattainment, unclassifiable, or 

unclassifiable/attainment 1 for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air 

quality monitoring data from these 

monitors for calendar years 2006–2008. 

See 74 FR 58688. The monitor in the 

Etowah County Area had incomplete 

data for the 2006–2008 timeframe. 

Therefore, EPA designated Etowah 

County as unclassifiable for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. 

On March 22, 2018, Alabama 

submitted a request for EPA to 

redesignate the Etowah County Area to 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS now that there is 

sufficient data to determine that the 

Area is in attainment. In a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published 

on June 1, 2018 (83 FR 25422), EPA 

proposed to approve the State’s 

redesignation request. The details of 

Alabama’s submittal and the rationale 

for EPA’s actions are further explained 

in the NPRM. EPA did not receive any 

adverse comments on the proposed 

action. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is approving Alabama’s 

redesignation request and redesignating 

the Etowah County Area from 

unclassifiable to unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.2

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to unclassifiable/attainment is an 

action that affects the status of a 

geographical area and does not impose 

any additional regulatory requirements 

on sources beyond those imposed by 

state law. A redesignation to 

unclassifiable/attainment does not in 

and of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, this action 

merely redesignates an area to 

unclassifiable/attainment and does not 

impose additional requirements. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because redesignations are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES