Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19541 

[FR Doc. 2015–08182 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0593; FRL–9925–96– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Virginia—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Amendment to the 

Definition of ‘‘Regulated NSR 

Pollutant’’ Concerning Condensable 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a July 25, 2013 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. The 

revision includes a correction to the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR [New 

Source Review] pollutant’’ as it relates 

to condensable particulate matter under 

Virginia’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. The 

revision also includes the correction of 

a minor typographical error. EPA is 

approving these revisions to the Virginia 

SIP in accordance with the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 12, 

2015 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

May 13, 2015. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0593 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: campbell.dave@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0593, 

David Campbell, Associate Director, 

Office of Permits and Air Toxics, 

Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0593. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

DOCKET: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy 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: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 25, 2013, VADEQ submitted 

a formal revision to the Virginia SIP. 

The SIP revision consists of an 

amendment to the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ for VADEQ’s 

PSD program under Article 8 of Chapter 

80 of the Virginia Administrative Code 

(VAC), as well as a correction of a minor 

typographical error. The definition 

revision pertains to the regulation of 

particulate matter, specifically, gases 

that condense to form particles 

(condensables). 

‘‘Particulate matter’’ (PM) is a term 

used to define an air pollutant that 

consists of a mixture of solid particles 

and liquid droplets found in the 

ambient air. PM occurs in many sizes 

and shapes and can be made up of 

hundreds of different chemicals. As 

explained further in the discussion that 

follows, EPA has regulated several size 

ranges of particles under the CAA, 

referred to as indicators of particles, 

namely PM, coarse PM (PM10), and fine 

PM (PM2.5). 

Initially, EPA established a National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for PM on April 30, 1971, under 

sections 108 and 109 of the CAA. See 

36 FR 8186. Compliance with the 

original PM NAAQS was based on the 

measurement of particles in the ambient 

air using an indicator of particles 

measuring up to a nominal size of 25 to 

45 micrometers (mm). EPA used the 

indicator name ‘‘total suspended 

particulate’’ or ‘‘TSP’’ to define the 

particle size range that was being 

measured. Total suspended particulate 

remained the indicator for the PM 

NAAQS until 1987 when EPA revised 

the NAAQS in part by replacing the TSP 

indicator for both the primary and 

secondary standards with a new 

indicator that includes only those 

particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to a nominal 10 mm 

(PM10). 

On July 18, 1997, the EPA made 

significant revisions to the PM NAAQS 

in several respects. While the EPA 

determined that the PM NAAQS should 

continue to focus on PM10, EPA also 

determined that the fine and coarse 

fractions of PM10 should be considered 

separately. Accordingly, on July 18, 

1997, the EPA added a new indicator for 

fine particles with a nominal mean 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 2.5 mm (PM2.5), and continued to use 

PM10 as the indicator for purposes of 

regulating the coarse fraction of PM10. 

See 62 FR 38652. 

On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
19542 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. 

2See 40 CFR part 51, appendix S. 

3See 77 FR 65107 (October 25, 2012) 

(‘‘Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) 

Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5): Amendment to the Definition 

of ‘Regulated NSR Pollutant’ Concerning 

Condensable Particulate Matter’’). 4See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule) to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including changes to the NSR program. 

See 73 FR 28321. The 2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule revised the NSR program 

requirements to establish the framework 

for implementing preconstruction 

permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

both attainment and nonattainment 

areas. Among other requirements, the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule required states 

and sources to account for condensables 

in PM2.5 emission limits. 

The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule contained 

an error in the regulations for PSD 1 and 

in the EPA’s Emission Offset 

Interpretative Ruling.2 This error was 

introduced in the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ that was 

revised as part of the final rulemaking. 

The wording of that revised definition 

had the effect of requiring that PM 

emissions, PM10 emissions, and PM2.5

emissions—representing three separate 

size ranges or indicators of particles— 

must all include condensables. EPA did 

not intend in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule 

that the term ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ be listed with ‘‘PM2.5

emissions’’ and ‘‘PM10 emissions’’ in 

requirements to include the 

condensable fraction of primary PM. 

Historically, for ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ often only the filterable 

fraction had been considered for NSR 

purposes, consistent with the applicable 

New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for PM and the corresponding 

compliance test method. On October 25, 

2012, EPA promulgated a final rule 3

which revised the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ to correct the 

error and remove the unintended new 

requirement on state and local agencies 

and the regulated community that 

‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ must 

include condensables in all cases. EPA’s 

October 25, 2012 action ensured that the 

originally-intended approach for 

regulating the three indicators for 

emissions of particulate matter under 

the PSD program was codified. Thus, 

‘‘PM10 emissions’’ and ‘‘PM2.5

emissions’’ are regulated as criteria 

pollutants (that is, under the portion of 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ that refers to ‘‘[a]ny pollutant 

for which a national ambient air quality 

standard has been promulgated. . .’’ 

and are required to include the 

condensable PM fraction emitted by a 

source. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 

52.21(b)(50)(i). In contrast, ‘‘particulate 

matter emissions’’ is regulated as a noncriteria pollutant under the portion of 

the definition that refers to ‘‘[a]ny 

pollutant that is subject to any standard 

promulgated under section 111 of the 

Act,’’ where the condensable PM 

fraction generally is not required to be 

included in measurements to determine 

compliance with standards of 

performance for PM. See 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(ii) and 52.21(b)(50)(ii). 

Virginia submitted and EPA 

previously approved a SIP revision to 

address the provisions of the 2008 PM2.5

NSR Rule which included the errant 

language relating to ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions.’’ See 79 FR 10377 (February 

25, 2014). This direct final rulemaking 

action makes Virginia’s PSD SIP 

consistent with EPA’s original intent, as 

well as consistent with the corrected 

Federal requirements that only PM10

and PM2.5 consider condensables, unless 

a specific NSPS or SIP provision 

requires otherwise. Additional 

discussion on EPA’s requirements to 

consider condensables for PM10 and 

PM2.5 for PSD is available in the 

preamble to EPA’s October 25, 2012 

rulemaking action, which is included in 

the docket for this action. 

EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit), in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA 4 (hereafter, NRDC v. EPA), issued 

a decision that remanded the EPA’s 

rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, including the 2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule. The DC Circuit’s remand of the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule is relevant to this 

direct final rulemaking. As previously 

discussed, this rule promulgated NSR 

requirements for implementation of 

PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/

unclassifiable areas (PSD). The DC 

Circuit found that EPA erred in 

implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS 

pursuant to the general implementation 

provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title 

I of the CAA, rather than pursuant to the 

additional implementation provisions 

specific to particulate matter 

nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The 

court ordered EPA to ‘‘repromulgate 

these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 

consistent with this opinion.’’ Id. at 437. 

However, as the requirements of subpart 

4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, it 

is EPA’s position that the portions of the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 in attainment 

and unclassifiable areas are not affected 

by the DC Circuit’s opinion in NRDC v. 

EPA. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate 

the need to revise any PSD requirements 

promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule in order to comply with the court’s 

decision. Accordingly, EPA’s approval 

of Virginia’s SIP as to the PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Rule does not conflict with 

the DC Circuit’s opinion. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

This action amends the previously 

approved definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ under 9VAC5–80–1615 to be 

consistent with the Federal definition 

and requirements for condensable PM. 

Additionally, 9VAC5–80–1615(B) is 

revised to correct a minor typographical 

error (a regulatory citation to an 

incorrect section of the VAC). The 

revisions being approved were effective 

in the Commonwealth of Virginia on 

May 22, 2013. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of revisions 

to the definitions under 9VAC5–80– 

1615 as described in Section II of this 

notice. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving VADEQ’s July 25, 

2013 submittal as a revision to the 

Virginia SIP. EPA is publishing this rule 

without prior proposal because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal to 

approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on June 12, 2015 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by May 13, 2015. If 

EPA receives adverse comment, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19543 

V. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

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

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

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 section 10.1–1198, 

precludes granting a privilege to 

documents and information ‘‘required 

by law,’’ including documents and 

information ‘‘required by Federal law to 

maintain program delegation, 

authorization or approval,’’ since 

Virginia must ‘‘enforce Federally 

authorized environmental programs in a 

manner that is no less stringent than 

their Federal counterparts. . . .’’ The 

opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding 

§ 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or 

other information needed for civil or 

criminal enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 

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

consistent with requirements imposed 

by Federal law,’’ any person making a 

voluntary disclosure of information to a 

state agency regarding a violation of an 

environmental statute, regulation, 

permit, or administrative order is 

granted immunity from administrative 

or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s 

January 12, 1998 opinion states that the 

quoted language renders this statute 

inapplicable to enforcement of any 

Federally authorized programs, since 

‘‘no immunity could be afforded from 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

penalties because granting such 

immunity would not be consistent with 

Federal law, which is one of the criteria 

for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

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

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
19544 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 70 / Monday, April 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

circuit by June 12, 2015. 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register, rather than file 

an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. 

This action pertaining to Virginia’s 

PSD program may not be challenged 

later in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 25, 2015. 

William 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. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

Section 5–80–1615 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/Subject State effective 

date EPA Approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

*******

9 VAC 5, Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII] 

*******

Article 8 Permits—Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas 

*******

5–80–1615 .............................. Definitions .............................. 5/22/13 4/13/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation].Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–08417 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0832; FRL–9925–33– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra 

Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Northern Sierra Air Quality 

Management District (NSAQMD or the 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

submitted SIP revision contains the 

District’s demonstration regarding 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) requirements for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The submitted SIP revision 

also contains negative declarations for 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

source categories for the NSAQMD. We 

are approving the submitted SIP 

revision under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 12, 

2015 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 13, 

2015. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0832, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES