Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17043 

Carter, W.P.L. (2012) Atmospheric Ozone 

Reactivity Estimates for 2-amino-2- 

methyl-1-propanol, College of 

Engineering Center for Environmental 

Research and Technology (CE–CERT) 

and Air Pollution Research Center, 

University of California, Riverside CA 

92521, September 26, 2012. 

Griffin, T. (1990). A One-Year Oral Toxicity 

Study of AMP in Dogs. Coulston 

Research Incorporated, White Sands 

Research Center, Alamogordo, NM, USA. 

Amended by the original author on April 

20, 1993. 

Gudi, R. (1998) Mammalian Erythrocyte 

Micronucleus Test (2-amino-2-methyl-1- 

propanol). Laboratory Study Number 

G97CG03.123 of MA Bioservices, Inc., 

Rockville, MD. Sponsored by Angus 

Chemical Company, Buffalo Grove, IL. 

Harris, G. and Pitts, J. (1983) Rates of 

Reaction of Hydroxyl Radicals with 2- 

(Dimethylamino) ethanol and 2-Amino2-methyl-1-propanol in the Gas Phase at 

300 ± 2 K. Environ Sci. Technol., 17: 50– 

51, 1983. 

San, R. and Clark, J. (1997) In Vitro 

Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Test 

with an Independent Repeat Assay. 

Microbiological Associates, Inc. The 

Dow Chemical Company Report No: DR– 

0309–4391–005. 

Wagner, V. (1996) Salmonella/Escherichia 

Coli Plate Incorporation Mutagenicity 

Assay with a Confirmatory Assay. Study 

Number G95BU17.502001 of 

Microbiological Associates, Inc., 

Rockville, MD. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 21, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

Subpart F—Procedural Requirements 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 51, 

Subpart F, continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 

7413, 7414, 7470–7479, 7501–7508, 7601, 

and 7602. 

§ 51.100—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 51.100, paragraph (s)(1) 

introductory text, is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’ and adding in their 

place the words ‘‘2-amino-2-methyl-1- 

propanol; and perfluorocarbon 

compounds which fall into these 

classes:’’. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06790 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0211; FRL–9908–46– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

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 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 a 

submittal addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0211. 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. Summary of SIP Revision 

On July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39671), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia proposing 

approval of Virginia’s July 23, 2012 

submittal to satisfy several requirements 

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

2008 ozone NAAQS. In the NPR, EPA 

proposed approval of the following 

infrastructure elements: Sections 

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), or portions thereof. EPA is 

taking separate action on the portions of 

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

they relate to Virginia’s prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) program 

and on section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it 

relates to section 128 (State Boards). 

Virginia did not submit section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the 

nonattainment requirements of part D, 

Title I of the CAA, since this element is 

not required to be submitted by the 

three year submission deadline of 

section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed 

in a separate process. Virginia also did 

not include a component to address 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as it is not 

required in accordance with the EME 

Homer City decision from the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit, until EPA has 

defined a state’s contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another state. See EME 

Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 

133 U.S. 2857 (2013). Unless the EME 

Homer City decision is reversed or 

otherwise modified by the Supreme 

Court, states such as Virginia are not 

required to submit section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has 

quantified their obligations under that 

section. Therefore, EPA is not acting on 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17044 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

The rationale supporting EPA’s 

proposed rulemaking action, including 

the scope of infrastructure SIPs in 

general, is explained in the NPR and the 

technical support document (TSD) 

accompanying the NPR and will not be 

restated here. The TSD is available 

online at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0211. 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s 

Responses 

EPA received three sets of comments 

on the July 2, 2013 proposed rulemaking 

action of Virginia’s 2008 ozone 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. The commenters 

include the State of Connecticut, the 

State of Maryland, and the Sierra Club. 

A full set of these comments is provided 

in the docket for today’s final 

rulemaking action. As both States and 

Sierra Club made a comment regarding 

the same subject matter of transport and 

the States did not make any additional 

comments, a summary of the three 

comments dealing with transport and 

EPA’s response to all three will be 

addressed first followed by a summary 

and responses to the remainder of Sierra 

Club’s comments. 

A. ‘‘Interstate Transport’’ Comments 

Comment: The State of Connecticut 

and the State of Maryland as well as the 

Sierra Club each assert that the ability 

of downwind states to attain the 2008 

ozone NAAQS is substantially 

compromised by interstate transport of 

pollution from upwind states. The 

States assert that they have done their 

share to reduce in-state emissions, and 

EPA should ensure each upwind state 

addresses contribution to another 

downwind state’s nonattainment. They 

state that CAA section 110(a)(1) requires 

states like Virginia to submit, within 

three years of promulgation of a new 

NAAQS, a plan which provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS within the 

state. They also argue that, under 

section 110(a)(2), Virginia was required 

to submit a complete SIP that 

demonstrated compliance with the good 

neighbor provision of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Connecticut argues 

that pursuant to section 110(k) EPA 

‘‘must make a finding that Virginia has 

failed to submit the required SIP 

elements’’ and that such a finding 

creates a two-year deadline for EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP). Maryland argues that 

‘‘[p]ursuant to the CAA section 110(k), 

the EPA must disapprove the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP portion that 

Virginia has failed to submit.’’ 

Both States further argue that the CAA 

does not give EPA discretion to approve 

a SIP without the good neighbor 

provision on the grounds that EPA 

would take separate action on Virginia’s 

obligations under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). They assert that the 

only action available to EPA is 

promulgation of a FIP under section 

110(c)(1) within two years. Connecticut 

asserts that the CAA ‘‘gives EPA no 

discretion to approve a SIP without the 

good neighbor provision on the grounds 

that it intends to address Virginia’s 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations in a 

separate action.’’ Maryland further adds 

that if EPA believes that the EME Homer 

City decision prohibits EPA from 

disapproving the SIP before quantifying 

Virginia’s significant contribution level, 

EPA should immediately promulgate 

Virginia’s significant contribution level. 

Similarly, Sierra Club argues that EPA 

cannot approve Virginia’s Infrastructure 

SIP because it does not include 

provisions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that EPA cannot 

use Homer City ‘‘as an excuse to ignore 

its obligations under Clean Air Act 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).’’ Sierra Club argues the 

relevant portion of Homer City is dicta 

and that as this rulemaking would be 

appealed to the Fourth Circuit, not the 

D.C. Circuit; EPA is under no obligation 

to follow the D.C. Circuit EME Homer 

City decision in this rulemaking. Sierra 

Club concludes that EPA must find that 

Virginia has failed to submit a section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP and that EPA must 

issue a FIP ‘‘within two years of its 

disapproval.’’ 

Response: In this rulemaking EPA is 

not taking any final action with respect 

to the provisions in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—the portion of the 

good neighbor provision which 

addresses emissions that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

another state. The Commonwealth of 

Virginia did not make a SIP submission 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and thus there is no 

such submission upon which EPA could 

take action under section 110(k). EPA 

did not propose to take any action with 

respect to Virginia’s obligations 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

is not, in this rulemaking action, taking 

any such action. Further, EPA could 

not, as Maryland urges, act under 

section 110(k) to disapprove a SIP that 

has not been submitted to EPA. EPA 

also is not taking any final action with 

respect to findings of failure to submit 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in this 

notice. On January 15, 2013, EPA 

published findings of failure to submit 

with respect to the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. See 78 FR 2882. In that action, 

EPA explained why it was not issuing 

any findings of failure to submit with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Id. at 

2884–85. In that action, EPA explained 

the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City 

Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 

(2013), ‘‘concluded that SIP cannot be 

deemed to lack a required submission or 

deemed deficient for failure to meet the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation until after 

EPA quantifies the obligation.’’ See 78 

FR at 2884–85; see also EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d at 32. Therefore, under 

the D.C. Circuit decision EME Homer 

City, states like Virginia have no 

obligation to make a SIP submission to 

address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS until EPA has first 

defined the state’s obligations. EPA 

could not, at this time, find that Virginia 

has failed to submit a required SIP 

element and as such, EPA has no 

obligation to make a finding of failure to 

submit under section 110(c)(1)(A). 

EPA further disagrees with the 

commenters’ suggestions that the 

Agency need not follow the D.C. Circuit 

opinion in EME Homer City. While the 

Supreme Court has agreed to review the 

EME Homer City decision during the 

Court’s 2013–14 term, at this time, the 

D.C. Circuit’s decision remains in place. 

EPA intends to act in accordance with 

the D.C. Circuit opinion in EME Homer 

City unless it is reversed or otherwise 

modified by the Supreme Court. 

Further, because the EPA rule known 

as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) reviewed by the court in EME 

Homer City was designated by EPA as 

a ‘‘nationally applicable’’ rule within 

the meaning of CAA 307(b)(1), all 

petitions for review of CSAPR were 

required to be filed in the D.C. Circuit. 

EPA accordingly believes the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City is 

also nationally applicable. As such, EPA 

does not intend to take any actions, 

even if they are only reviewable in 

another federal Circuit Court of 

Appeals, that are inconsistent with the 

decision of the D.C. Circuit in EME 

Homer City. EPA also finds no basis for 

one commenter’s suggestion that the 

relevant portion of the D.C. Circuit 

opinion in EME Homer City opinion is 

dicta. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenters’ argument that EPA cannot 

approve a SIP without the good 

neighbor provision. Section 110(k)(3) of 

the CAA authorizes EPA to approve a 

plan in full, disapprove it in full, or 

approve it in part and disapprove it in 

part, depending on the extent to which 

such plan meets the requirements of the 

CAA. This authority to approve the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17045 

states’ SIP revisions in separable parts 

was included in the 1990 Amendments 

to the CAA to overrule a decision in the 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

holding that EPA could not approve 

individual measures in a plan 

submission without either approving or 

disapproving the plan as a whole. See 

S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 22, 1990 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the 

express overruling of Abramowitz v. 

EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

As such, the Agency interprets its 

authority under section 110(k)(3), as 

affording EPA the discretion to approve 

or conditionally approve individual 

elements of Virginia’s infrastructure 

submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, separate and apart from any 

action with respect to the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect 

to that NAAQS. EPA views discrete 

infrastructure SIP requirements, such as 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as 

severable from the other infrastructure 

elements and interprets section 

110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on 

individual severable measures in a plan 

submission. In short, EPA believes that 

even if the SIP submission for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were now relevant, 

which it is not, it would still have 

discretion under section 110(k) to act 

upon the various individual elements of 

the state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, separately or together, as 

appropriate. The commenters raise no 

compelling legal or environmental 

rationale for an alternate interpretation. 

There is also no basis for the 

contention that EPA must issue a FIP 

within two years, as EPA has neither 

disapproved, nor found that Virginia 

failed to submit a required 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission. 

Moreover, the D.C. Circuit clearly held 

in EME Homer City that even where 

EPA had issued findings of failure to 

submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs and/or 

disapproved such SIPs, EPA lacked 

authority to promulgate FIPs under 

110(c)(1) where it had not previously 

quantified states’ good neighbor 

obligations. EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 

at 31–37. And, as explained in this 

response to comment, EPA intends to 

comply with that decision unless it is 

reversed or otherwise modified by the 

Supreme Court. See also 78 FR 14683 

(concluding that, under the D.C. Circuit 

opinion in EME Homer City, 

disapproval of a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 

submitted by Kentucky did not start a 

FIP clock). 

EPA notes, however, that it is working 

with state partners to assess next steps 

to address air pollution that crosses 

state boundaries and has begun work on 

a rulemaking to address transported air 

pollution affecting the eastern half of 

the United States. This rulemaking 

action is technically complex and must 

comply with the rulemaking 

requirements of CAA section 307(d). 

In addition, EPA notes that 

Connecticut appears to have misread 

EPA’s proposal. EPA did not, in the 

NPR, state as Connecticut appears to 

assume that it was approving the SIP 

without the good neighbor provision 

‘‘on the grounds that it intends to 

address Virginia’s section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations in a 

separate action.’’ In the NPR which 

proposed approval of portions of 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, EPA stated that its 

proposed action did not include any 

proposed action on section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for Virginia’s July 23, 

2012 infrastructure SIP submission for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS because this 

element was not required until EPA 

quantified the State’s obligations 

pursuant to the EME Homer City 

opinion. See 78 FR 39651, 39652, (July 

2, 2013). As discussed in this response 

to comment, EPA therefore has no 

obligation to find Virginia failed to 

satisfy its good neighbor obligations and 

no action is required at this time. EPA’s 

approval of the Virginia July 23, 2012 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS for the portions 

described in the NPR was therefore 

appropriate. 

B. Sierra Club Comments 

Sierra Club made several additional 

comments which are provided in the 

docket for today’s final rulemaking 

action and summarized below with 

EPA’s response to each. 

Comment 1: Sierra Club contends that 

EPA cannot approve the section 

110(a)(2)(A) portion of Virginia’s 2008 

ozone infrastructure SIP revision 

because the plain language of 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, legislative 

history of the CAA, case law, EPA 

regulations such as 40 CFR 51.112(a), 

and EPA interpretations in rulemakings, 

require the inclusion of enforceable 

emission limits in an infrastructure SIP 

to prevent NAAQS violations in areas 

not designated nonattainment. 

Specifically, Sierra Club cites air 

monitoring reports for Charles County 

indicating violations of the NAAQS 

based on 2009–2011 and 2010–2012 

design values and air quality monitoring 

reports for Chesterfield, Hanover, 

Henrico, and Stafford Counties and 

Hampton City indicating violations 

based on data from 2010–2012. The 

commenter alleges that these violations 

demonstrate that the infrastructure SIP 

fails to ensure that air pollution levels 

meet or are below the level of the 

NAAQS and thus the infrastructure SIP 

must be disapproved. Sierra Club notes 

that the violation of the NAAQS in 

Charles County based on data from 

2009–2011 was known two months 

before Virginia submitted its ozone 

infrastructure SIP in July 2012 and that 

the data indicating violations based on 

data through 2012 was available in 

January 2013, but that Virginia failed to 

address the violations by enacting 

enforceable limits. 

Furthermore, Sierra Club contends 

that the SIP must be disapproved 

because it does not include additional 

enforceable emission limits to address 

the NAAQS exceedances. Sierra Club 

contends that emission reductions from 

measures taken to meet the one-hour 

and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, do not 

ensure attainment and maintenance of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Sierra Club 

states that Virginia’s SIP provisions 

which addressed the 1-hour and 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS do not ensure 

Virginia will meet the stricter 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, especially as 

counties not designated nonattainment 

are exceeding the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The commenter also suggests 

that Virginia adopt specific controls that 

they contend are cost effective for 

reducing nitrogen oxides (NOX), a 

precursor to ozone. 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the statute is clear on its 

face that infrastructure SIPs must 

include detailed attainment and 

maintenance plans for all areas of the 

state and must be disapproved if air 

quality data that became available late 

in the process or after the SIP was due 

and submitted changes the status of 

areas within the state. The commenter’s 

specific arguments that the statutory 

language, legislative history, case law, 

EPA regulations, and prior rulemaking 

actions by EPA mandate the narrow 

interpretation they advocate are 

addressed in subsections (1) through (5) 

of this rulemaking action. EPA believes 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably 

interpreted to require states to submit 

SIPs that reflect the first step in their 

planning for attaining and maintaining 

a new or revised NAAQS and that they 

contain enforceable control measures 

and a demonstration that the state has 

the available tools and authority to 

develop and implement plans to attain 

and maintain the NAAQS. 

As an initial matter, EPA disagrees 

that air quality monitoring that became 

available four years following 

promulgation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and only shortly before the SIP was 

submitted for one area (Charles County 

for 2009–2011) and after submission for 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17046 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1While it is true that there may be some monitors 

within a state with values so high as to make a 

nonattainment designation of the county with that 

monitor almost a certainty, the geographic 

boundaries of the nonattainment area associated 

with that monitor would not be known until EPA 

issues final designations. Moreover, the six areas of 

concern to the commenter do not fit that 

description in any event. 

six counties (Chesterfield, Hanover, 

Henrico, Stafford, Hampton City, and 

Charles for 2010–2012) provides a basis 

for disapproving the Virginia ozone 

infrastructure SIP. States must develop 

SIPs based on the information they have 

during the SIP development process and 

data that becomes available near the end 

of that process or after that process is 

completed cannot undermine the 

reasonable assumptions that were made 

by the state based on the information it 

had available as it developed the plan. 

Thus, the data cited by the commenter 

should not be considered in 

determining whether the SIP should be 

approved. The suggestion that Virginia’s 

ozone infrastructure SIP must include 

measures addressing violations of the 

standard that did not occur until shortly 

before or even after the SIP was due and 

submitted cannot be supported. The 

CAA provides states with three years to 

develop infrastructure SIPs and states 

cannot reasonably be expected to 

address the annual change in an area’s 

design value for each year over that 

period, nor to predict the air quality 

data in periods after development and 

submission of the SIPs. Moreover, the 

CAA recognizes and has provisions to 

address changes in air quality over time, 

such as an area slipping from attainment 

to nonattainment or changing from 

nonattainment to attainment. These 

include provisions providing for 

redesignation in section 107(d) and 

provisions in section 110(k)(5) allowing 

EPA to call on the state to revise its SIP, 

as appropriate. 

The commenter suggests that EPA 

must disapprove the Virginia ozone 

infrastructure SIP because the fact that 

areas in Virginia now have air quality 

data slightly above the standard proves 

that the infrastructure SIP is inadequate 

to demonstrate maintenance for those 

six areas. EPA disagrees with the 

commenter because EPA does not 

believe that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

detailed planning SIPs demonstrating 

either attainment or maintenance for 

specific geographic areas of the state. 

The infrastructure SIP is triggered by 

promulgation of the NAAQS, not 

designation. Moreover, infrastructure 

SIPs are due three years following 

promulgation of the NAAQS and 

designations are not due until two years 

(or in some cases three years) following 

promulgation of the NAAQS. Thus, 

during a significant portion of the 

period that a state has available for 

developing the infrastructure SIP, it 

does not know what the designation 

will be for individual areas of the state.1

In light of the structure of the CAA, 

EPA’s long-standing position regarding 

infrastructure SIPs is that they are 

general planning SIPs to ensure that the 

state has adequate resources and 

authority to implement a NAAQS in 

general throughout the state and not 

detailed attainment and maintenance 

plans for each individual area of the 

state. 

EPA’s interpretation that 

infrastructure SIPs are more general 

planning SIPs is consistent with the 

statute as understood in light of its 

history and structure. When Congress 

enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not 

include provisions requiring states and 

the EPA to label areas as attainment or 

nonattainment. Rather, states were 

required to include all areas of the state 

in ‘‘air quality control regions’’ (AQCRs) 

and section 110 set forth the core 

substantive planning provisions for 

these AQCRs. At that time, Congress 

anticipated that states would be able to 

address air pollution quickly pursuant 

to the very general planning provisions 

in section 110 and could bring all areas 

into compliance with the NAAQS 

within five years. Moreover, at that 

time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified 

that the section 110 plan provide for 

‘‘attainment’’ of the NAAQS and section 

110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must 

include ‘‘emission limitations, 

schedules, and timetables for 

compliance with such limitations, and 

such other measures as may be 

necessary to insure attainment and 

maintenance [of the NAAQS].’’ In 1977, 

Congress recognized that the existing 

structure was not sufficient and many 

areas were still violating the NAAQS. At 

that time, Congress for the first time 

added provisions requiring states and 

EPA to identify whether areas of the 

state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., 

were nonattainment) or were meeting 

the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) and 

established specific planning 

requirements in section 172 for areas 

not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many 

areas still had air quality not meeting 

the NAAQS and Congress again 

amended the CAA and added yet 

another layer of more prescriptive 

planning requirements for each of the 

NAAQS, with the primary provisions 

for ozone in section 182. At that same 

time, Congress modified section 110 to 

remove references to the section 110 SIP 

providing for attainment, including 

removing pre-existing section 

110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and 

renumbering subparagraph (B) as 

section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, 

Congress replaced the clause ‘‘as may be 

necessary to insure attainment and 

maintenance [of the NAAQS]’’ with ‘‘as 

may be necessary or appropriate to meet 

the applicable requirements of this 

chapter.’’ Thus, the CAA has 

significantly evolved in the more than 

40 years since it was originally enacted. 

While at one time section 110 did 

provide the only detailed SIP planning 

provisions for states and specified that 

such plans must provide for attainment 

of the NAAQS, under the structure of 

the current CAA, section 110 is only the 

initial stepping-stone in the planning 

process for a specific NAAQS. And, 

more detailed, later-enacted provisions 

govern the substantive planning 

process, including planning for 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

For all of these reasons, EPA disagrees 

with the commenter that EPA must 

disapprove an infrastructure SIP 

revision if there are monitored 

violations of the standard in the state 

and the section 110(a)(2)(A) revision 

does not have detailed plans for 

demonstrating how the state will bring 

that area into attainment. Rather, EPA 

believes that the proper inquiry at this 

juncture is whether the state has met the 

basic structural SIP requirements 

appropriate at the point in time EPA is 

acting upon the submittal. 

Moreover, as addressed in EPA’s 

proposed approval for this rule, Virginia 

submitted a list of existing emission 

reduction measures in the SIP that 

control emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and NOX. Virginia’s 

SIP revision reflects several provisions 

that have the ability to reduce ground 

level ozone and its precursors. The 

Virginia SIP relies on measures and 

programs used to implement previous 

ozone NAAQS. Because there is no 

substantive difference between the 

previous ozone NAAQS and the more 

recent ozone NAAQS, other than the 

level of the standard, the provisions 

relied on by Virginia will provide 

benefits for the new NAAQS; in other 

words, the measures reduce overall 

ground-level ozone and its precursors 

and are not limited to reducing ozone 

levels to meet one specific NAAQS. 

EPA shares the commenter’s concern 

regarding areas that are monitoring 

exceedances of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and will work appropriately 

with state and local agencies to address 

such exceedances. Further, in approving 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP revision, 

EPA is affirming that Virginia has 

sufficient authority to take the types of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17047 

actions required by the CAA in order to 

bring such areas back into attainment. 

1. The Plain Language of the CAA 

Comment 2: The commenter states 

that on its face the CAA ‘‘requires I–SIPs 

to be adequate to prevent violations of 

the NAAQS.’’ In support, the 

commenter quotes the language in 

section 110(a)(1) which requires states 

to adopt a plan for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS and the language in section 

110(a)(2)(A) which requires SIPs to 

include enforceable emissions 

limitations as may be necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA and which 

commenters claimed include the 

maintenance plan requirement. Sierra 

Club notes the CAA definition of 

emission limit and reads these 

provisions together to require 

‘‘enforceable emission limits on source 

emissions sufficient to ensure 

maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ 

Response 2: EPA disagrees that 

section 110 is ‘‘clear on its face’’ and 

must be interpreted in the manner 

suggested by Sierra Club. As explained 

earlier in this rulemaking action, section 

110 is only one provision that is part of 

the complicated structure governing 

implementation of the NAAQS program 

under the CAA, as amended in 1990, 

and it must be interpreted in the context 

of not only that structure, but also of the 

historical evolution of that structure. In 

light of the revisions to section 110 

since 1970 and the later-promulgated 

and more specific planning 

requirements of the CAA, EPA 

interprets the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(A) that the plan provide for 

‘‘implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement’’ to mean that the 

infrastructure SIP must contain 

enforceable emission limits that will aid 

in attaining and/or maintaining the 

NAAQS and that the state demonstrate 

that it has the necessary tools to 

implement and enforce a NAAQS, such 

as adequate state personnel and an 

enforcement program. With regard to 

the requirement for emission 

limitations, EPA has interpreted this to 

mean for purposes of section 110, that 

the state may rely on measures already 

in place to address the pollutant at issue 

or any new control measures that the 

state may choose to submit. As EPA 

stated in ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ dated 

September 13, 2013 (Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance), ‘‘[t]he conceptual purpose of 

an infrastructure SIP submission is to 

assure that the air agency’s SIP contains 

the necessary structural requirements 

for the new or revised NAAQS, whether 

by establishing that the SIP already 

contains the necessary provisions, by 

making a substantive SIP revision to 

update the SIP, or both. Overall, the 

infrastructure SIP submission process 

provides an opportunity . . . to review 

the basic structural requirements of the 

air agency’s air quality management 

program in light of each new or revised 

NAAQS.’’ Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

at p. 2. 

The commenter makes general 

allegations that the six counties of 

concern do not have any protective 

measures addressing ozone pollution. 

EPA addressed the adequacy of 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP for 

110(a)(2)(A) purposes to meet applicable 

requirements of the CAA in the TSD 

accompanying the July 2, 2013 NPR and 

explained why the SIP includes 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures necessary for 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

throughout the state. For the six 

counties at issue, these include 

Virginia’s enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures 

at 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 (Existing 

Stationary Sources), 9 VAC 5 Chapter 50 

(New and Modified Stationary Sources), 

9 VAC 5 Chapter 91 (Motor Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance in 

Northern Virginia), 9 VAC 5 Chapter 

130 (Open Burning), and 9 VAC 5 

Chapter 140 (Emissions Trading). 

As discussed in the TSD 

accompanying the July 2, 2013 NPR, 

Virginia has also submitted 

maintenance plans, reasonable further 

action plans, and attainment 

demonstrations for the 1991 1-hour and 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Included in these plans and 

demonstrations are enforceable 

emissions limits, control measures, fees, 

and compliance schedules. These plans 

and demonstrations were prepared for 

the following areas: Hampton Roads, 

Richmond-Petersburg, Fredericksburg, 

Shenandoah National Park, and the 

Washington DC–MD–VA area. Virginia 

also submitted early action compact 

plans for the Winchester and Roanoke 

1997 ozone NAAQS early action 

compact areas. The approved plans are 

listed in 40 CFR 52.2420(e). 

2. The Legislative History of the CAA 

Comment 3: Sierra Club cites two 

excerpts from the legislative history of 

the CAA Amendments of 1970 claiming 

they support an interpretation that SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110 must 

include emissions limitations sufficient 

to show maintenance of the NAAQS in 

all areas of Virginia. Sierra Club also 

contends that the legislative history of 

the CAA supports the interpretation that 

infrastructure SIPs under section 

110(a)(2) must include enforceable 

emission limitations, citing the Senate 

Committee Report and the subsequent 

Senate Conference Report 

accompanying the 1970 CAA. 

Response 3: As provided in the 

previous response, the CAA, as enacted 

in 1970, including its legislative history, 

cannot be interpreted in isolation from 

the later amendments that refined that 

structure and deleted relevant language 

from section 110 concerning 

demonstrating attainment. In any event, 

the two excerpts of legislative history 

the commenter cites merely provide that 

states should include enforceable 

emission limits in their SIPs and they 

do not mention or otherwise address 

whether states are required to include 

maintenance plans for all areas of the 

state as part of the infrastructure SIP. As 

provided earlier in this rulemaking 

action, the TSD for the proposed rule 

explains why the SIP includes 

enforceable emissions limitations for the 

relevant areas. 

3. Case Law 

Comment 4: Sierra Club also 

discusses several cases applying the 

CAA which Sierra Club claims support 

their contention that courts have been 

clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

enforceable emissions limits in 

infrastructure SIPs to prevent violations 

of the NAAQS. Sierra Club first cites to 

language in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 

78 (1975), addressing the requirement 

for ‘‘emission limitations’’ and stating 

that emission limitations ‘‘are specific 

rules to which operators of pollution 

sources are subject, and which if 

enforced should result in ambient air 

which meet the national standards.’’ 

Sierra Club also cites to Pennsylvania 

Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 

F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for the 

proposition that the CAA directs EPA to 

withhold approval of a SIP where it 

does not ensure maintenance of the 

NAAQS and Mision Industrial, Inc. v. 

EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), 

which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the 

CAA of 1970. The commenter contends 

that the 1990 Amendments do not alter 

how courts have interpreted the 

requirements of section 110, quoting 

Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. 

EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in 

turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 

CAA and also stated that ‘‘SIPs must 

include certain measures Congress 

specified’’ to ensure attainment of the 

NAAQS. The commenter also quotes 

several additional opinions in this vein. 

Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 

F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (‘‘The 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2While the commenters do contend that the State 

shouldn’t be allowed to rely on emission reductions 

that were developed for the prior ozone standards 

(which we address above), they do not claim that 

any of the measures are not ‘‘emissions limitations’’ 

within the definition of the CAA. 

Clean Air Act directs states to develop 

implementation plans—SIPs—that 

‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of 

[NAAQS] through enforceable emissions 

limitations’’); Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 

1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘‘Each State 

must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the 

manner in which [NAAQS] will be 

achieved and maintained within each 

air quality control region in the State’’). 

Finally, the commenter cites Mich. 

Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 

F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) for the 

proposition that EPA may not approve 

a SIP revision that does not demonstrate 

how the rules would not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

Response 4: None of the cases the 

commenter cites support the 

commenter’s contention that section 

110(a)(2)(A) is clear that infrastructure 

SIPs must include detailed plans 

providing for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas 

of the state nor do they shed light on 

how section 110(a)(2)(A) may 

reasonably be interpreted. With the 

exception of Train, none of the cases the 

commenter cites concerned the 

interpretation of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of 

the pre-1990 Act). Rather, in the context 

of a challenge to an EPA action, 

revisions to a SIP that was required and 

approved as meeting other provisions of 

the CAA or in the context of an 

enforcement action, the court references 

section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 

110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the 

background section of its decision. 

In Train, 421 U.S. 60, a case that was 

decided almost 40 years ago, the Court 

was addressing a state revision to an 

attainment plan submission made 

pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the 

sole statutory provision at that time 

regulating such submissions. The issue 

in that case concerned whether changes 

to requirements that would occur before 

attainment was required were variances 

that should be addressed pursuant to 

the provision governing SIP revisions or 

were ‘‘postponements’’ that must be 

addressed under section 110(f) of the 

CAA of 1970, which contained 

prescriptive criteria. The court 

concluded that EPA reasonably 

interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict 

a state’s choice of the mix of control 

measures needed to attain the NAAQS 

and that revisions to SIPs that would 

not impact attainment of the NAAQS by 

the attainment date were not subject to 

the limits of section 110(f). Thus the 

issue was not whether a section 110 SIP 

needs to provide for attainment or 

whether emissions limits are needed as 

part of the SIP; rather the issue was 

which statutory provision governed 

when the state wanted to revise the 

emission limits in its SIP if such 

revision would not impact attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. To the 

extent the holding in the case has any 

bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) 

might be interpreted, it is important to 

realize that in 1975, when the opinion 

was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the 

predecessor to section 110(a)(2)(A)) 

expressly referenced the requirement to 

attain the NAAQS, a reference that was 

removed in 1990. 

The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of 

Envtl. Resources was also decided based 

on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. 

At issue was whether EPA properly 

rejected a revision to an approved plan 

where the inventories relied on by the 

state for the updated submission had 

gaps. The court quoted section 

110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in 

support of EPA’s disapproval, but did 

not provide any interpretation of that 

provision. Yet, even if the court had 

interpreted that provision, EPA notes 

that it was modified by Congress in 

1990; thus, this decision has little 

bearing on the issue here. 

At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 

F.2d 123, was the definition of 

‘‘emissions limitation’’ not whether 

section 110 requires the state to 

demonstrate how all areas of the state 

will attain and maintain the NAAQS as 

part of their infrastructure SIPs. The 

language from the opinion the 

commenter quotes does not interpret but 

rather merely describes section 

110(a)(2)(A). The commenters do not 

raise any concerns about whether the 

measures relied on by the state in the 

infrastructure SIP are ‘‘emissions 

limitations’’ and the decision in this 

case has no bearing here.2 In Mont. 

Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, 

the court was reviewing a federal 

implementation plan that EPA 

promulgated after a long history of the 

state failing to submit an adequate state 

implementation plan. The court cited 

generally to section 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) 

of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs 

should assure attainment and 

maintenance of NAAQS through 

emission limitations but this language 

was not part of the court’s holding in 

the case. The commenter suggests that 

Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 540 

U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that 

the 1990 CAA Amendments do not alter 

how courts interpret section 110. This 

claim is inaccurate. Rather, the court 

quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as 

noted previously, differs from the pre1990 version of that provision and the 

court makes no mention of the changed 

language. Furthermore, the commenter 

also quotes the court’s statement that 

‘‘SIPs must include certain measures 

Congress specified’’ but that statement 

specifically referenced the requirement 

in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires 

an enforcement program and a program 

for the regulation of the modification 

and construction of new sources. 

Notably, at issue in that case was the 

state’s ‘‘new source’’ permitting 

program, not its infrastructure SIP. 

Two of the cases the commenter cites, 

Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 230 F.3d 

181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret 

CAA section 110(l), the provision 

governing ‘‘revisions’’ to plans, and not 

the initial plan submission requirement 

under section 110(a)(2) for a new or 

revised NAAQS, such as the 

infrastructure SIP at issue in this 

instance. In those cases, the courts cited 

to section 110(a)(2)(A) solely for the 

purpose of providing a brief background 

of the CAA. 

4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR 

51.112(a) 

Comment 5: The commenter cites to 

40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that ‘‘[e]ach 

plan must demonstrate that the 

measures, rules and regulations 

contained in it are adequate to provide 

for the timely attainment and 

maintenance of the [NAAQS].’’ The 

commenter asserts that this regulation 

requires all SIPs to include emissions 

limits necessary to ensure attainment of 

the NAAQS. The commenter states that 

‘‘[a]lthough these regulations were 

developed before the Clean Air Act 

separated infrastructure SIPs from 

nonattainment SIPs—a process that 

began with the 1977 amendments and 

was completed by the 1990 

amendments—the regulations apply to 

I–SIPs.’’ The commenter relies on a 

statement in the preamble to the 1986 

action restructuring and consolidating 

provisions in part 51, in which EPA 

stated that ‘‘[i]t is beyond the scope of 

th[is] rulemaking to address the 

provisions of Part D of the Act. . . .’’ 51 

FR 40656, 40656 (November 7, 1986). 

Response 5: The commenter’s reliance 

on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its 

argument that infrastructure SIPs must 

contain emission limits ‘‘adequate to 

prohibit NAAQS violations’’ and 

adequate or sufficient to ensure the 

maintenance of the NAAQS is not 

supported. As an initial matter, EPA 

notes and the commenter recognizes 

this regulatory provision was initially 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17049 

promulgated and ‘‘restructured and 

consolidated’’ prior to the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, in which 

Congress removed all references to 

‘‘attainment’’ in section 110(a)(2)(A). 

And, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 

51.112 applies to plans specifically 

designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA 

interprets these provisions to apply 

when states are developing ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs such as the detailed 

attainment and maintenance plans 

required under other provisions of the 

CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in 

1990, such as section 175A and 182. 

The commenter suggests that these 

provisions must apply to section 110 

SIPs because in the preamble to EPA’s 

action ‘‘restructuring and consolidating’’ 

provisions in part 51, EPA stated that 

the new attainment demonstration 

provisions in the 1977 Amendments to 

the CAA were ‘‘beyond the scope’’ of 

the rulemaking. It is important to note, 

however, that EPA’s action in 1986 was 

not to establish new substantive 

planning requirements, but rather was 

meant merely to consolidate and 

restructure provisions that had 

previously been promulgated. EPA 

noted that it had already issued 

guidance addressing the new ‘‘Part D’’ 

attainment planning obligations. Also, 

as to maintenance regulations, EPA 

expressly stated that it was not making 

any revisions other than to re-number 

those provisions. Id. at 40657. 

Although EPA was explicit that it was 

not establishing requirements 

interpreting the provisions of new ‘‘part 

D’’ of the CAA, it is clear that the 

regulations being restructured and 

consolidated were intended to address 

control strategy plans. In the preamble, 

EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 

was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (‘‘Control 

strategy: SOx and PM (portion)’’), 51.14 

(‘‘Control strategy: CO, HC, OX and NO2

(portion)’’), 51.80 (‘‘Demonstration of 

attainment: Pb (portion)’’), and 51.82 

(‘‘Air quality data (portion)’’). Id. at 

40660. Thus, the present-day 51.112 

contains consolidated provisions that 

are focused on control strategy SIPs and 

the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan. 

5. EPA Interpretations in Other 

Rulemakings 

Comment 6: The commenter also 

references two prior EPA rulemaking 

actions where EPA disapproved or 

proposed to disapprove SIPs and 

claimed they were actions in which EPA 

relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 

CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs. 

The commenter first points to a 2006 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of revisions to Missouri’s existing plan 

addressing the sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

NAAQS. In that action, EPA cited 

section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis for 

disapproving a revision to the State plan 

on the basis that the State failed to 

demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to 

ensure maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS 

after revision of an emission limit and 

cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that 

a plan demonstrates the rules in a SIP 

are adequate to attain the NAAQS. 

Second, Sierra Club cites a 2013 

proposed disapproval of a revision to 

the SO2 SIP for Indiana, where the 

revision removed an emission limit that 

applied to a specific emissions source at 

a facility in the State. EPA relied on 40 

CFR 51.112(a) in proposing to reject the 

revision, stating that the State had not 

demonstrated that the emission limit 

was ‘‘redundant, unnecessary, or that its 

removal would not result in or allow an 

increase in actual SO2 emissions.’’ EPA 

further stated in that proposed 

disapproval that the State had not 

demonstrated that removal of the limit 

would not ‘‘affect the validity of the 

emission rates used in the existing 

attainment demonstration.’’ 

Response 6: EPA does not agree that 

the two prior actions referenced by the 

commenter establish how EPA reviews 

infrastructure SIPs. It is clear from both 

the final Missouri rule and the proposed 

Indiana rule that EPA was not reviewing 

initial infrastructure SIP submissions 

under section 110 of the CAA, but rather 

reviewing revisions that would make an 

already approved SIP designed to 

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS 

less stringent. EPA’s partial approval 

and partial disapproval of revisions to 

restrictions on emissions of sulfur 

compounds for the Missouri SIP in 71 

FR 12623 addressed a control strategy 

SIP and not an infrastructure SIP. The 

Indiana action provides even less 

support for the commenter’s position. 

As an initial matter, the Indiana action 

is a proposal and thus cannot be 

presumed to reflect the Agency’s final 

position. In any event, the review in that 

rule was of a completely different 

requirement than the 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. 

Rather, in that case, the State had an 

approved SO2 attainment plan and was 

seeking to remove from the SIP 

provisions relied on as part of the 

modeled attainment demonstration. 

EPA proposed that the State had failed 

to demonstrate under section 110(l) of 

the CAA why the SIP revision would 

not result in increased SO2 emissions 

and thus interfere with attainment of the 

NAAQS. Nothing in that rulemaking 

addresses the necessary content of the 

initial infrastructure SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS. Rather, it is simply 

applying the clear statutory requirement 

that a state must demonstrate why a 

revision to an approved attainment plan 

will not interfere with attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

Comment 7: Sierra Club contends that 

EPA should disapprove Virginia’s 2008 

8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP revision 

with regard to the visibility component 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (a)(2)(J) until 

such time that Virginia imposes best 

available retrofit technology (BART) for 

NOx and SO2 for EGUs. The commenter 

asserts that the substitution of the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for BART for 

EGUs violates the CAA including 

section 169A. The commenter asserts 

that CAIR is not permanent and 

enforceable and references litigation in 

the D.C. Circuit related to CAIR. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, on 

rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). The commenter refers to CAIR as 

‘‘vacated’’ and therefore not able to be 

considered permanent and enforceable. 

The commenter includes comments 

challenging EPA’s prior rulemakings 

that CAIR and CSAPR were ‘‘better than 

BART’’ and states that EPA could not 

rely on CAIR to support its proposed 

approval of the visibility components of 

Virginia’s 2008 8-hour ozone 

infrastructure revision. The commenter 

also cites several rulemakings and 

proposed rulemakings on attainment 

plan SIPs, redesignation requests, and 

regional haze SIPs in which EPA had 

stated it could not fully approve SIP 

revisions that relied on CAIR reductions 

or had stated CAIR reductions could be 

permanent and enforceable only in 

tandem with CSAPR reductions. 

Response 7: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter regarding the approvability 

of Virginia’s SIP for section 

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

explained in detail in EPA’s NPR related 

to today’s rulemaking action and in the 

TSD, EPA believes that in light of the 

D.C. Circuit’s decision to vacate CSAPR, 

also known as the Transport Rule (see 

EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7), and the 

court’s order for EPA to ‘‘continue 

administering CAIR pending the 

promulgation of a valid replacement,’’ it 

is appropriate for EPA to rely at this 

time on CAIR to support approval of 

Virginia’s 2008 8-hour ozone 

infrastructure revision as it relates to 

visibility. EPA has been ordered by the 

D.C. Circuit to develop a new rule, and 

to continue implementing CAIR in the 

meantime. Unless the Supreme Court 

reverses or otherwise modifies the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision on CSAPR in EME 

Homer City, EPA does not intend to act 

in a manner inconsistent with the 

decision of the D.C. Circuit. Based on 

the current direction from the court to 

continue administering CAIR, EPA 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3Under 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. Therefore, EPA 

believes it is appropriate to approve Virgina’s 2008 

ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it meets the requirements of 

that section despite the limited approval status of 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP. 

4The TSD is available online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA–R03– 

OAR–2013–0211. 

believes that it is appropriate to rely on 

CAIR emission reductions for purposes 

of assessing the adequacy of Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP revision with respect 

to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

while a valid replacement rule is 

developed and until submissions 

complying with any such new rule are 

submitted by the states and acted upon 

by EPA or until the EME Homer City 

case is resolved in a way that provides 

different direction regarding CAIR and 

CSAPR. 

Furthermore, as neither the 

Commonwealth nor EPA has taken any 

action to remove CAIR from the Virginia 

SIP, CAIR remains part of the federallyapproved SIP and can be considered in 

determining whether the SIP as a whole 

meets the requirement of prong 4 of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA is taking final 

action to approve the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to prong 4 

because Virginia’s regional haze SIP, 

which EPA has approved, in 

combination with its SIP provisions to 

implement CAIR adequately prevents 

sources in Virginia from interfering with 

measures adopted by other states to 

protect visibility during the first 

planning period.3

EPA disagrees with the commenter 

that the CAA does not allow states to 

rely on an alternative program such as 

CAIR in lieu of source-specific BART. 

EPA’s regulations allowing states to 

adopt alternatives to BART that provide 

for greater reasonable progress, and 

EPA’s determination that states may rely 

on CAIR to meet the BART 

requirements, have been upheld by the 

D.C. Circuit as meeting the requirements 

of the CAA. In the first case challenging 

the provisions in the regional haze rule 

allowing for states to adopt alternative 

programs in lieu of BART, the court 

affirmed EPA’s interpretation of CAA 

section 169A(b)(2) as allowing for 

alternatives to BART where those 

alternatives will result in greater 

reasonable progress than BART. Center 

for Energy and Economic Development 

v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 

2005) (finding reasonable EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA section 169(a)(2) 

as requiring BART only as necessary to 

make reasonable progress). In the 

second case, Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 

2006), the court specifically upheld 

EPA’s determination that states could 

rely on CAIR as an alternative program 

to BART for EGUs in the CAIR-affected 

states. The court concluded that EPA’s 

two-pronged test for determining 

whether an alternative program achieves 

greater reasonable progress was a 

reasonable one and also agreed with 

EPA that nothing in the CAA required 

EPA to ‘‘impose a separate technology 

mandate for sources whose emissions 

affect Class I areas, rather than piggybacking on solutions devised under 

other statutory categories, where such 

solutions meet the statutory 

requirements.’’ Id. at 1340. 

EPA also notes that CAIR has not been 

‘‘vacated’’ as stated in Sierra Club’s 

comment. As mentioned in EPA’s TSD, 

CAIR was ultimately remanded by the 

D.C. Circuit to EPA without vacatur, and 

EPA continues to implement CAIR. EPA 

further notes that all of the rulemaking 

actions and proposed rulemaking 

actions cited by the commenter which 

discussed limited approvability of SIPs 

or redesignations due to the status of 

CAIR were issued by EPA prior to the 

vacatur of CSAPR when EPA was 

implementing CSAPR. Since the vacatur 

of CSAPR in August 2012 and with 

continued implementation of CAIR per 

the direction of the D.C. Circuit in EME 

Homer City, EPA has approved 

redesignations of areas to attainment of 

the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS in which states have relied on 

CAIR as an enforceable measure. See 77 

FR 76415, December 28, 2012 

(redesignation of Huntington-Ashland, 

West Virginia for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

which was proposed 77 FR 68076, 

November 15, 2012); 78 FR 59841, 

September 30, 2013 (redesignation of 

Wheeling, West Virginia for 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, which was proposed 77 FR 

73575, December 11, 2012); and 78 FR 

56168, September 12, 2013 

(redesignation of Parkersburg, West 

Virginia for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, which 

was proposed 77 FR 73560, December 

11, 2012). 

More fundamentally, EPA disagrees 

with the commenter that the adequacy 

of the BART measures in the Virginia 

regional haze SIP is relevant to the 

question of whether the 

Commonwealth’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the CAA with respect to visibility. EPA 

interprets the visibility provisions in 

this section of the CAA as requiring 

states to include in their SIPs measures 

to prohibit emissions that would 

interfere with the reasonable progress 

goals set to protect Class I areas in other 

states. The regional haze rule includes 

a similar requirement. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). EPA notes that on June 13, 

2012, EPA determined that Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP adequately prevents 

sources in Virginia from interfering with 

the reasonable progress goals adopted 

by other states to protect visibility 

during the first planning period. See 77 

FR 35287. See also 77 FR 3691, 3709 

(January 25, 2012) (proposing approval 

of Virginia’s regional haze SIP). As 

EPA’s review of the Virginia regional 

haze SIP explains, the Commonwealth 

relied on enforceable emissions 

reductions already in place to address 

the impacts of Virginia on out-of-state 

Class I areas. The question of whether 

or not CAIR satisfies the BART 

requirements has no bearing on whether 

these measures meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility. 

In addition, with regard to the 

visibility protection aspect of section 

110(a)(2)(J), as discussed in the TSD 

accompanying the NPR for this 

rulemaking action, EPA stated that it 

recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act. In 

the establishment of a new NAAQS 

such as the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

however, the visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C 

of Title I of the CAA do not change and 

there are no applicable visibility 

obligations under part C ‘‘triggered’’ 

under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new 

NAAQS becomes effective. Therefore, 

EPA appropriately proposed approval of 

Virginia’s 2008 8-hour ozone 

infrastructure SIP revision for section 

110(a)(2)(J). As discussed for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) earlier in this 

rulemaking action, and in the TSD for 

this rulemaking action, Virginia has 

submitted SIP revisions to satisfy the 

requirements of part C of Title I of the 

CAA.4 In summary, EPA believes that it 

appropriately proposed approval of 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP revision for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 

structural visibility protection 

requirements in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Comment 8: Sierra Club states that 

EPA should disapprove Virginia’s 2008 

8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP revision 

under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

(visibility prong) and 110(a)(2)(J) 

because, as the commenter asserts, 

Virginia failed to submit its ‘‘5-year 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17051 

Regional Haze Progress Report’’ 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) by the 

required date. Sierra Club references a 

July 17, 2008 SIP submittal from 

Virginia as the basis for determining 

when the five year progress report for 

regional haze was due. 

Response 8: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that Virginia’s five year 

progress report was overdue at the time 

EPA proposed to approve Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. On July 2, 2013, the date of the 

proposed approval of Virginia’s SIP, 

Virginia was under no obligation to 

submit a five year progress report to 

meet the requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(g). On October 4, 2010, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted as 

a SIP revision a comprehensive regional 

haze plan consisting of the following: 

Reasonable progress goals, calculations 

of baseline and natural visibility 

conditions, a long-term strategy for 

regional haze, BART determinations, 

and a monitoring strategy as required by 

40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). Previously, on 

July 17, 2008, Virginia had submitted to 

EPA the first of five SIP revisions 

containing a permit and a BART 

determination addressing 40 CFR 

51.308(e) for the control of visibilityimpairing emissions from a BARTeligible source in Virginia. Virginia 

submitted three additional SIP revisions 

containing permits and BART 

determinations addressing 40 CFR 

51.308(e) on March 6, 2009, January 14, 

2010, and November 19, 2010. A May 6, 

2011 SIP revision also included a permit 

for a source for Virginia’s reasonable 

progress goals required by 40 CFR 

51.308(d). Although the July 2008, 

March 2009, January 2010, November 

2010, and May 2011 SIP revision 

submittals from Virginia included BART 

determinations or a permit for 

reasonable progress goals for specific 

sources in Virginia as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(e) (and 40 CFR 51.308(d) for 

one source in the May 2011 SIP 

revision), EPA does not believe these 

five submittals were comprehensive 

regional haze SIP submittals intended to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d) as well as (e). However, the 

October 4, 2010 SIP submittal from 

Virginia did contain such a 

comprehensive regional haze plan 

addressing reasonable progress goals, 

visibility conditions, a long-term 

strategy for regional haze, and a 

monitoring strategy as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(d). 

EPA believes the appropriate regional 

haze SIP submission which Virginia 

should be evaluating for its reasonable 

progress as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(g) is the October 4, 2010 

submission. Consequently, Virginia’s 

five year progress report for 40 CFR 

51.308(g) is not due until October 4, 

2015, five years from the first regional 

haze SIP submittal which 

comprehensively addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(d) and (e). 

Finally, EPA notes that on November 

8, 2013 Virginia submitted its five year 

progress report for 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

significantly in advance of its October 4, 

2015 due date. On February 11, 2014, 

EPA signed a separate rulemaking 

action proposing approval of that report. 

EPA’s review of emissions data from 

Virginia’s five year progress report 

shows that emissions of the key 

visibility-impairing pollutant for the 

southeast, SO2, continued to drop from 

428,070 tons per year (tpy) in 2002 to 

268,877 tpy in 2007 to 115,436 tpy in 

2011. The emissions inventories also 

show similar substantial declines in 

other pollutants, particularly NOX, 

between 2007 and 2011. 

In summary, EPA believes that it 

appropriately proposed approval of 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP revision for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 

structural requirements in 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because the progress 

report was not yet due on the date of 

EPA’s publication of the proposal. 

Therefore, EPA finds Virginia has met 

the basic structural visibility protection 

requirements in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Additionally, as stated previously, the 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of Title I of 

the CAA do not change with the 

establishment of a new NAAQS such as 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and there are 

no applicable visibility obligations 

under part C ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. Therefore, Virginia’s 

obligation to submit a progress report in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g) is 

unrelated to 110(a)(2)(J), and EPA finds 

Virginia’s 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP 

meets the obligations for 110(a)(2)(J). 

While considering this comment, EPA 

became aware of an inadvertent error in 

the table contained in 40 CFR 51.2420(e) 

which incorrectly referred to Virginia’s 

SIP submission on January 14, 2010 as 

January 14, 2012. EPA is correcting that 

error through this rulemaking action. 

EPA is also clarifying in the table in 40 

CFR 51.2420(e) that Virginia’s regional 

haze SIP submission was the October 4, 

2010 submission as amended by the 

May 6, 2011 SIP submission. EPA is 

correcting the table to indicate that the 

other four SIP submissions pertained to 

BART determinations as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(e). For further clarification, 

EPA is adding to the table in 40 CFR 

51.2420(d) the BART permits submitted 

on July 17, 2008, March 6, 2009, January 

14, 2010, and November 19, 2010 and 

the May 6, 2011 permit implementing 

requirements for reasonable progress as 

these permits are source-specific 

requirements which were previously 

approved and incorporated into the 

Virginia SIP but were inadvertently not 

added to the table in 40 CFR 51.2420(d) 

when approved with the regional haze 

SIP. See 77 FR 35287. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

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

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

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

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion 

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

therefore, documents or other 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17052 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 

NSR, or Title V program consistent with 

the Federal requirements. In any event, 

because EPA has also determined that a 

state audit privilege and immunity law 

can affect only state enforcement and 

cannot have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

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

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the following 

infrastructure elements or portions 

thereof of Virginia’s SIP revision: 

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), or 

portions thereof as a revision to the 

Virginia SIP. EPA is taking separate 

rulemaking action on the portions of 

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

they relate to Virginia’s PSD program 

and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates 

to section 128 (State Boards). This 

rulemaking action does not include 

section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which 

pertains to the nonattainment 

requirements of part D, Title I of the 

CAA, since this element is not required 

to be submitted by the three year 

submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a 

separate process. This rulemaking 

action also does not include proposed 

action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

because this element, or portions 

thereof, is not required to be submitted 

by a state until the EPA has quantified 

a state’s obligations. See EME Homer 

City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 133 U.S. 

2857 (2013). In addition, EPA is 

clarifying the table at 40 CFR 52.2420(e) 

to indicate the date of the regional haze 

SIP submission and dates of 

supplemental SIP submissions for BART 

provisions. 

V. 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 May 27, 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, which 

satisfies certain infrastructure 

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

CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17053 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Ozone. 

Dated: March 7, 2014. 

W. C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. Section 52.2420 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (d), adding the entries 

for Georgia Pacific Corporation, 

MeadWestvaco Corporation, and O–N 

Minerals Facility at the end of the table. 

■ b. In paragraph (e): 

■ i. Revising the table entry for Regional 

Haze Plan, 

■ ii. Adding an entry for Regional Haze 

Plan Supplements and BART 

determinations after the existing entry 

for Regional Haze Plan, 

■ iii. Adding an entry for Section 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS at the end 

of the table. 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Source name Permit/Order or 

registration No. 

State effective date EPA Approval date 40 CFR Part 52 citation 

*******

Georgia Pacific Corporation ...................... Registration No. 

30389.

6/12/08 6/13/12 

77 FR 35287 

§ 52.2420(d); BART determination and permit. 

MeadWestvaco Corporation ...................... Registration No. 

20328.

2/23/09 

5/6/11 

6/13/12 

77 FR 35287 

§ 52.2420(d); BART and Reasonable Progress 

determinations and permit. 

O–N Minerals Facility ................................ Registration No. 

80252.

12/28/09 

11/19/10 

6/13/12 

77 FR 35287 

§ 52.2420(d); BART determination and permit. 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic or area 

State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ................................ Statewide ........ 10/4/10 6/13/12 ...........................

77 FR 35287 ..................

§ 52.2452(d); Limited Approval 

Regional Haze Plan Supplements and 

BART determinations: 

Statewide ........ 6/13/12 ...........................

77 FR 35287 ..................

§ 52.2452(d); Limited Approval 

1. Georgia Pacific Corporation; ............... ......................... 7/17/08 

2a. MeadWestvaco Corporation; ............ ......................... 5/6/11 

b. MeadWestvaco Corporation; .............. ......................... 3/6/09 

3. O–N Minerals Facility; ......................... ......................... 1/14/10 

4. Revision to the O–N Minerals Facility 

permit.

......................... 11/19/10 

* * * * * * * 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.Statewide ........ 6/23/12 3/27/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document 

begins and date].

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. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06586 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES