Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10377 

(1) A SAR, or any information that 

would reveal the existence of a SAR, to 

FinCEN or any Federal, State, or local 

law enforcement agency, or any Federal 

regulatory authority that examines the 

housing government sponsored 

enterprise for compliance with the Bank 

Secrecy Act; or 

(2) The underlying facts, transactions, 

and documents upon which a SAR is 

based, including but not limited to, 

disclosures to another housing 

government sponsored enterprise or a 

financial institution, or any director, 

officer, employee, or agent of a housing 

government sponsored enterprise or 

financial institution, for the preparation 

of a joint SAR; or 

(B) The sharing by a housing 

government sponsored enterprise, or 

any director, officer, employee, or agent 

of the housing government sponsored 

enterprise, of a SAR, or any information 

that would reveal the existence of a 

SAR, within the housing government 

sponsored enterprise’s corporate 

organizational structure for purposes 

consistent with Title II of the Bank 

Secrecy Act as determined by regulation 

or in guidance. 

(2) Prohibition on disclosures by 

government authorities. A Federal, 

State, local, territorial, or tribal 

government authority, or any director, 

officer, employee, or agent of any of the 

foregoing, shall not disclose a SAR, or 

any information that would reveal the 

existence of a SAR, except as necessary 

to fulfill official duties consistent with 

Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act. For 

purposes of this section, ‘‘official 

duties’’ shall not include the disclosure 

of a SAR, or any information that would 

reveal the existence of a SAR, in 

response to a request for disclosure of 

non-public information or a request for 

use in a private legal proceeding, 

including a request pursuant to 31 CFR 

1.11. 

(e) Limitation on liability. A housing 

government sponsored enterprise, and 

any director, officer, employee, or agent 

of any housing government sponsored 

enterprise, that makes a voluntary 

disclosure of any possible violation of 

law or regulation to a government 

agency or makes a disclosure pursuant 

to this section or any other authority, 

including a disclosure made jointly with 

another institution, shall be protected 

from liability for any such disclosure, or 

for failure to provide notice of such 

disclosure to any person identified in 

the disclosure, or both, to the full extent 

provided by 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(3). 

(f) Compliance. Housing government 

sponsored enterprises shall be examined 

by FinCEN or its delegate for 

compliance with this section. Failure to 

satisfy the requirements of this section 

may be a violation of the Bank Secrecy 

Act and of this chapter. 

(g) Applicability date. This section is 

effective when an anti-money 

laundering program required by 

§ 1030.210 of this part is required to be 

implemented. 

§ 1030.330 Reports relating to currency in 

excess of $10,000 received in a trade or 

business. 

Refer to § 1010.330 of this chapter for 

rules regarding the filing of reports 

relating to currency in excess of $10,000 

received by housing government 

sponsored enterprises. 

Subpart D—Records Required To Be 

Maintained by Housing Government 

Sponsored Enterprises 

§ 1030.400 General. 

Housing government sponsored 

enterprises are subject to the 

recordkeeping requirements set forth 

and cross referenced in this subpart. 

Housing government sponsored 

enterprises should also refer to subpart 

D of part 1010 of this chapter for 

recordkeeping requirements contained 

in that subpart that apply to housing 

government sponsored enterprises. 

Subpart E—Special Information 

Sharing Procedures To Deter Money 

Laundering and Terrorist Activity 

§ 1030.500 General. 

Housing government sponsored 

enterprises are subject to special 

information sharing procedures to deter 

money laundering and terrorist activity 

requirements set forth and cross 

referenced in this subpart. Housing 

government sponsored enterprises 

should also refer to subpart E of part 

1010 of this chapter for special 

information sharing procedures to deter 

money laundering and terrorist activity 

contained in that subpart that apply to 

housing government sponsored 

enterprises. 

§ 1030.520 Special information sharing 

procedures to deter money laundering and 

terrorist activity for housing government 

sponsored enterprises. 

(a) Refer to § 1010.520 of this chapter. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 1030.530 [Reserved] 

§ 1030.540 Voluntary information sharing 

among financial institutions. 

(a) Refer to § 1010.540 of this chapter. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Subpart F—Special Standards of 

Diligence; Prohibitions, and Special 

Measures for Housing Government 

Sponsored Enterprises 

§§ 1030.600–1030.670 [Reserved] 

Dated: February 20, 2014. 

Jennifer Shasky Calvery, 

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04125 Filed 2–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4802–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0927; FRL–9906–67– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Nonattainment New Source 

Review; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the Virginia State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), submitted by the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) on August 25, 2011. The 

revisions pertaining to Virginia’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program are being fully approved. 

EPA is granting limited approval to the 

revisions pertaining to Virginia’s 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) program. In both cases, the 

revisions incorporate preconstruction 

permitting regulations for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) into the 

Virginia SIP. In addition, EPA is 

approving these revisions and portions 

of other related submissions for the 

purpose of determining that Virginia has 

met its statutory obligations with 

respect to the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

which relate to Virginia’s PSD 

permitting program and are necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is 

approving these revisions in accordance 

with the requirements of the CAA. A 

previous PSD program approval of 

Virginia’s Chapter 80, Article 8 

regulations was provided to the 

Commonwealth as a ‘‘limited approval’’ 

for reasons that do not impact the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10378 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 75 FR 64864 (October 12, 2010). 

2See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 3See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). 

approval of the August 25, 2011 

submission. A correction related to that 

prior limited approved is also included 

in this action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0927. 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: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

On August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, 

EPA proposed approval of amendments 

to Virginia’s major NSR permitting 

regulations under the Virginia 

Administrative Code (VAC) to 

incorporate requirements for PM2.5. 

Additionally, EPA proposed to approve 

these revisions and portions of other 

related submissions for the purpose of 

determining that Virginia has met its 

statutory obligations with respect to the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

section 110(a) which relate to Virginia’s 

PSD permitting program and are 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and the 2008 lead NAAQS. The formal 

SIP revision request was submitted by 

Virginia on August 25, 2011. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Virginia’s August 25, 2011 SIP 

submittal included revisions to the 

general definitions under Chapter 10 of 

9VAC5 (specifically 9VAC5–10–30), as 

well as revisions to Articles 8 (PSD) and 

9 (nonattainment NSR) under Chapter 

80 of 9VAC5. The following regulations 

under Article 8 are revised: 9VAC5–80– 

1615 (Definitions); 9VAC5–80–1635 

(Ambient Air Increments); 9VAC5–80– 

1695 (Exemptions); 9VAC5–80–1715 

(Source Impact Analysis); and 9VAC5– 

80–1765 (Sources Affecting Federal 

Class I Areas—Additional 

Requirements). Under Article 9, the 

regulations at 9VAC5–80–2010 

(Definitions) and 9VAC5–80–2120 

(Offsets) are amended. 

As discussed in the NPR, in light of 

litigation EPA proposed to take no 

action with regard to the Significant 

Impact Level (SIL) regulation at 

paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715 (See, 

77 FR 45523). On January 22, 2013, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Sierra 

Club v. EPA (705 F.3d 458, 469), issued 

a judgment that, inter alia, vacated and 

remanded the provisions at 40 CFR 

51.166(k)(2), which were promulgated 

as part of the October 20, 2010 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentrations 

(SMC),’’ (2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule).1 These 

provisions were the Federal 

counterparts to Virginia’s PM2.5 SIL 

regulations at paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5– 

80–1715. Additionally, the court 

vacated the provisions at section 

51.166(i)(5)(i)(c), which were the 

Federal counterparts to Virginia’s PM2.5

SMC regulations at paragraph E(1) of 

9VAC5–80–1695 (See, Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 705 F.3d at 469). EPA proposed 

approval of Virginia’s PM2.5 SMC 

provisions in our NPR. In light of the 

court’s decision, by letter dated 

February 13, 2013, Virginia officially 

withdrew from the August 25, 2011 

submittal the PM2.5 SIL regulation at 

paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715, and 

the portion of paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5– 

80–1695 pertaining to the PM2.5 SMC. 

Accordingly, EPA is not finalizing 

approval of these provisions. Therefore, 

EPA’s approval with respect to sections 

5–80–1695 and 5–80–1715 is limited to 

the remaining revisions which were not 

impacted by the court decision. 

Subsequent to publication of the NPR, 

on January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA,2 issued a decision that remanded 

the EPA’s 2007 and 2008 rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The court’s remand of EPA’s 2008 

implementation rule, ‘‘Implementation 

of New Source Review (NSR) Program 

for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (referred to herein 

as ‘‘the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule’’),3 is 

relevant to this final rulemaking. This 

rule promulgated NSR requirements for 

implementation of PM2.5 in both 

nonattainment areas (nonattainment 

NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable 

areas (PSD). The court 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 the EPA 

to ‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion,’’ 

(Id. at 437). Although the court declined 

to establish a deadline for EPA’s 

response to the remand, EPA intends to 

promulgate new generally applicable 

implementation regulations for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the 

requirements of subpart 4. In the 

interim, however, states and EPA still 

need to proceed with implementation of 

the PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and 

effective fashion in order to meet 

statutory obligations under the CAA and 

to assure the protection of public health 

intended by those NAAQS. 

As discussed in the NPR, VADEQ’s 

August 25, 2011 SIP submittal included 

revisions to Virginia’s nonattainment 

NSR program consistent with the 

provisions promulgated in the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Rule. Specifically, under 

Article 9, the state submitted 

amendments to the regulations at 

9VAC5–80–2010 (Definitions) and 

9VAC5–80–2120 (Offsets) for approval 

into the SIP, including the PM2.5

significant emission rates (SERs), 

regulation of certain PM2.5 precursors 

(SO2 and NOX), the regulation of PM10

and PM2.5 condensable emissions, and 

the emissions offset requirements. In 

light of the D.C. Circuit’s remand of the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule and for the 

reasons explained below, EPA is not 

prepared at this time to grant full 

approval to VADEQ’s August 25, 2011 

submittal as to these elements. 

EPA is in the process of evaluating the 

requirements of subpart 4 as they 

pertain to nonattainment NSR. In 

particular, subpart 4 includes section 

189(e) of the CAA, which requires the 

control of major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors (and hence under the 

court decision, PM2.5 precursors) 

‘‘except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM10 levels 

which exceed the standard in the area.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10379 

4The court’s decision with respect to the 

nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by 

the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule also does not affect the 

EPA’s proposed approval of the present 

infrastructure action. The EPA interprets the Act to 

exclude nonattainment area requirements, 

including requirements associated with a 

nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure 

SIP submissions due 3 years after adoption or 

revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or 

attainment plan elements, which would be due by 

the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 

through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years 

following designations for some elements. 

5EPA also notes there was an inadvertent, 

incorrect citation to the Virginia regional haze SIP 

approval in the NPR. The correct citation to EPA’s 

approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP is 77 FR 

35287 (June 13, 2012) (effective July 13, 2012). 

The evaluation of which precursors 

need to be controlled to achieve the 

standard in a particular area is typically 

conducted in the context of the state’s 

preparing and the EPA’s reviewing of an 

area’s attainment plan SIP. In this case, 

there is only one designated PM2.5

nonattainment area in the State, the 

Virginia portion of the Washington, DCMD-VA nonattainment area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Virginia 

submitted an attainment plan for this 

area on April 4, 2008. 

On January 12, 2009, EPA finalized a 

clean data determination for the area, 

(74 FR 1146), which suspended the 

requirement for the state to submit, 

among other things, an attainment plan 

SIP for the area. Accordingly, on 

January 23, 2012, Virginia withdrew the 

attainment plan SIP, and it is no longer 

before EPA. As EPA does not have 

before it the state’s analysis as to which 

precursors need to be controlled in the 

area as contained in the attainment plan 

SIP, it cannot fully approve as 

complying with the CAA a 

nonattainment NSR SIP that only 

addresses a subset of the scientific PM2.5

precursors recognized by EPA. 

On the other hand, while VADEQ’s 

submittal may not yet contain all of the 

elements necessary to satisfy the CAA 

requirements when evaluated under 

subpart 4, the revisions represent a 

considerable strengthening of Virginia’s 

currently approved nonattainment NSR 

SIP which does not address PM2.5 at all. 

Therefore, EPA is granting limited 

approval to the nonattainment NSR 

provisions in VADEQ’s August 25, 2011 

submittal. 

For the reasons explained above, EPA 

is not evaluating at this time whether 

Virginia’s submittal will require 

additional revisions to satisfy the 

subpart 4 requirements. Once EPA repromulgates the Federal PM2.5

regulations with respect to 

nonattainment NSR permitting in 

response to the court’s remand, EPA 

will consider whether a limited 

disapproval should also be finalized. 

Moreover, Virginia has submitted a 

request to redesignate the 

nonattainment area, which, if granted, 

would absolve the State of any further 

obligation to comply with the subpart 4 

requirements for nonattainment NSR as 

to this area. Alternatively, VADEQ can 

obtain full approval by, if necessary, 

revising its regulations accordingly to 

address EPA’s revised regulations and 

submitting them to EPA as a formal SIP 

revision. 

As previously discussed, VADEQ’s 

August 25, 2011 SIP submittal also 

includes revisions to Virginia’s PSD 

program consistent with the provisions 

promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule. Specifically, under Article 8, the 

following regulations are revised (with 

the previously noted exceptions): 

9VAC5–80–1615 (Definitions); 9VAC5– 

80–1635 (Ambient Air Increments); 

9VAC5–80–1695 (Exemptions); 9VAC5– 

80–1715 (Source Impact Analysis); and, 

9VAC5–80–1765 (Sources Affecting 

Federal Class I Areas—Additional 

Requirements). 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

attainment and unclassifiable areas are 

not affected by the D.C. 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 court’s opinion. 

Similarly, in the NPR, EPA also 

proposed to approve portions of related 

infrastructure (or CAA Section 

110(a)(2)) SIP submissions, for the 

purpose of determining that Virginia has 

met its statutory obligations with 

respect to the PSD-related infrastructure 

requirements of CAA section 110(a) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2008 lead NAAQS. Virginia 

submitted the related infrastructure SIP 

revisions on the following dates: 

November 13, 2007, December 13, 2007, 

July 10, 2008, September 2, 2008, April 

1, 2011, and March 9, 2012. For the 

reasons explained above, it is also EPA’s 

position that EPA’s approval of the 

portions of the above identified 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIPs which 

relate to compliance with the PSD 

requirements set forth in Sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) does not 

conflict with the court’s remand of the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule.4

In addition to the proposed approval 

of the PSD portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA stated in the NPR 

that: ‘‘Because Virginia has met its 

obligations with respect to the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by virtue of its 

regional haze SIP, which EPA took final 

action to approve on March 23, 2012 (77 

FR 16397), EPA is also proposing to 

approve the portions of Virginia’s 

previous infrastructure submittals 

related to the visibility requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 

lead NAAQS.’’ 

As discussed in Section III, below, 

EPA has already taken separate and 

final action to approve the portions of 

these identified SIP submittals which 

relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

visibility requirements for the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 

lead NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is taking 

no action on the proposed approval of 

the visibility requirements for these 

identified SIP submittals.5 EPA is only 

taking final action to approve the 

portions of the above identified 

infrastructure SIPs which relate to 

Virginia’s PSD program. 

Other specific requirements of 

Virginia’s August 25, 2011 SIP submittal 

and the rationale for EPA’s proposed 

action are explained in the NPR and 

will not be restated here. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Received on the Proposed Action 

EPA received two sets of comments 

on the August 1, 2012 NPR. A full set 

of these comments is provided in the 

docket for today’s final action. A 

summary of the comments and EPA’s 

responses are provided herein. 

Comment: The first commenter 

asserted simply that the Federal 

government should not be involved in 

state affairs. 

EPA Response: As Congress has 

recognized, the regulation of air 

pollution in Virginia is not a ‘‘state 

affair’’ for which Virginia bears sole 

responsibility. The CAA establishes a 

partnership between state and Federal 

entities for the protection and 

improvement of the nation’s air quality. 

Under CAA section 109, EPA is required 

to establish National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the 

protection of public health and welfare. 

Subsequent to the promulgation (or 

revision) of a NAAQS, states are 

required by CAA section 110 to adopt 

and submit to EPA for approval, a SIP 

which provides for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. Virginia’s August 25, 2011 SIP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10380 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6EPA also notes there was an inadvertent, 

incorrect citation to its approval of the Virginia 

regional haze SIP in the NPR. The correct citation 

to EPA’s approval of the Virginia regional haze SIP 

is 77 FR 35287 (June 13, 2012) (effective July 13, 

2012). 

submittal met that requirement. In 

addition, section 110(a)(2)(C) 

specifically requires that state plans 

include a PSD and nonattainment NSR 

permit program as required in parts C 

and D of Title I of the Clean Air Act. The 

action being finalized today consistent 

with EPA’s responsibilities under CAA 

section 110. 

A second commenter submitted two 

substantive comments. First, the 

commenter raised concerns regarding 

EPA’s determination that Virginia has 

met its obligations with respect to the 

visibility requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by virtue of its 

regional haze SIP. Second, the 

commenter raised several concerns 

about the legality of SILs and SMCs, as 

well as Virginia’s adoption of them. 

Comment 1: The commenter claimed 

that Virginia’s regional haze SIP is 

insufficient to ensure compliance with 

visibility requirements under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The 

commenter stated that Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP only received limited 

approval due to its reliance on the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for best 

available retrofit technology (BART) for 

electric generating units. The 

commenter alleged that EPA cannot rely 

on Virginia’s regional haze SIP for 

satisfying section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ii) 

because it did not receive full approval, 

because CAIR has been remanded by the 

D.C. Circuit, and because EPA provided 

no explanation for how the regional 

haze SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as they relate 

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. The commenter stated that 

EPA should either revoke its approval of 

the Virginia regional haze SIP or, at a 

minimum, provide an explanation for 

how the regional haze SIP ensures 

visibility will be protected for the 

aforementioned NAAQS. 

Response 1: In the NPR for this 

rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve 

the following infrastructure SIP 

submittals as meeting the infrastructure 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection): 

The November 13, 2007 Virginia 

submittal for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS; the December 13, 2007 

Virginia submittal for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS; the July 10, 2008 and 

September 2, 2008 Virginia submittals 

for the 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS; the April 

1, 2011 Virginia submittal for the 2006 

p.m.2.5 NAAQS; and, the March 9, 2012 

Virginia SIP submittal for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. The August 2012 NPR was not 

the first or the most recent proposed 

rulemaking issued by EPA relating to 

Virginia’s compliance with the visibility 

requirements set forth in Section 

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

On June 13, 2012, EPA issued a final 

rule granting limited approval to the 

Virginia regional haze SIP (See, 77 FR 

35287). In that final rulemaking action, 

EPA also approved Virginia’s regional 

haze SIP as satisfying the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J), as they relate 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Subsequently, on September 24, 2013, 

when acting upon Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS, EPA approved that SIP as 

meeting the infrastructure requirements 

of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J). 

(See, 78 FR 58462 (Sept. 24, 2013)). 

Most recently, EPA has proposed to 

approve Virginia’s infrastructure SIPs 

for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2

NAAQS as meeting the infrastructure 

requirements in sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J) (See, 78 FR 

39651 (July 2, 2013) (2008 ozone 

NAAQS) and 78 FR 47264 (August 5, 

2013) (2010 NO2 NAAQS)). 

Therefore, as part of the August 2012 

NPR for this rulemaking, EPA 

inadvertently proposed to approve 

Virginia’s previously submitted 

infrastructure SIPs as meeting the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Since final action had 

been taken for this requirement during 

June 2012, further action was not 

required. As to EPA’s approval of 

Virginia’s compliance with the 110(a)(2) 

requirements for visibility (set forth in 

sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (J)) for the 

2008 lead NAAQS, subsequent to the 

August 2012 NPR, EPA issued a final 

rulemaking on such requirements on 

September 24, 2013. Because EPA has 

already taken separate proposed and 

final rulemaking actions to approve 

these elements of the Virginia SIP, EPA 

is taking no further action on its 

proposed approval of the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as they relate to the 

aforementioned NAAQS.6 Additionally, 

EPA received and responded to similar 

comments as part of some or all of these 

previous rulemakings. Therefore, EPA is 

not responding to the comment that 

Virginia’s regional haze SIP is 

insufficient to ensure compliance with 

visibility requirements under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), as we have 

already responded to similar comments 

in our other actions (See, 77 FR 35287; 

78 FR 34970; 78 FR 39651; and 78 FR 

47263). As a result, EPA sees no need 

for further action or response as part of 

this final rulemaking. 

Comment 2: The same commenter 

argued that ‘‘Virginia’s regulations 

establishing SILs and SMCs are illegal 

under the CAA and should be 

disapproved by EPA’’ (See, Sierra Club 

Comments at 4). Here the commenter 

took issue with both EPA’s establishing 

SILs and SMCs generally, and with the 

PM2.5 SILs proposed by Virginia 

specifically. First, citing to the litigation 

in Sierra Club v. EPA (D.C. Circuit, No. 

10–1413), the commenter asserts that 

EPA lacks the authority to establish SILs 

and SMCs because they improperly 

allow sources to avoid otherwise 

applicable CAA requirements. The 

commenter asserted that, therefore, EPA 

should disapprove those portions of 

Virginia’s SIP submittal pertaining to 

the PM2.5 SILs and SMCs, rather than 

approving the SMCs and taking no 

action on the SILs, as proposed. 

Secondly, the commenter asserted 

that the specific SILs at 9VAC5–80– 

1715A and B should be disapproved 

because they do not provide VADEQ 

with sufficient discretion to require a 

cumulative impact analysis regardless of 

whether a source’s impact is below the 

SIL. In addition, the commenter asserts 

that the SIL values in paragraphs A(2) 

and B(1) of section 5–80–1715 are set at 

different levels and could lead to 

confusion. Moreover, the commenter 

asserted that the SIL values in paragraph 

5–80–1715B(1) are not sufficiently 

protective of Class I areas because, 

unlike the SIL values in paragraph A, 

paragraph B does not distinguish 

different SIL values based on area 

classifications. Finally, the commenter 

asserts that the thresholds in paragraph 

5–80–1715B(1) are improperly 

incorporated into Virginia’s SIP because 

they have as their basis Appendix S of 

40 CFR part 51, which applies in 

situations where EPA has not approved 

a state’s preconstruction review 

program. 

EPA Response 2: As previously 

discussed, in light of the D.C. Circuit’s 

vacatur of 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 

(i)(5)(i)(c), Virginia has officially 

withdrawn the corresponding state rules 

with which the commenter takes issue 

from the August 25, 2011 SIP submittal. 

Thus, there is no need to further 

consider the commenter’s assertion that 

EPA should disapprove those provisions 

in this rulemaking because Virginia no 

longer asks that EPA consider them for 

approval as part of its SIP. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10381 

As to any apparent conflict between 

the two SIL provisions in Virginia’s SIP 

submission, paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5– 

80–1715 has been withdrawn and thus 

the commenter’s concern regarding any 

potential for confusion between the two 

provisions is addressed by withdrawal 

of one provision from the SIP 

submission. 

As to the SILs in paragraph B(1), the 

commenter is incorrect in the claim that 

these SIL values were only intended to 

apply in states without an EPAapproved PSD program. While it is true 

that those SIL values are published in 

Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51, they are 

also published in section 51.165(b)(2). 

Section 51.165(b) implements section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA and applies to 

sources or modifications locating in 

attainment or unclassifiable areas that 

would cause or contribute to a violation 

of any NAAQS in any area. This is the 

basis for their inclusion in Virginia’s 

SIP. These SILs establish the threshold 

at or above which a new major 

stationary source or major modification 

will be considered to cause or 

contribute to a violation of an ambient 

air quality standard, and thus subject to 

the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(b). 

EPA has recognized that the values in 

section 51.165(b)(2) may also be used in 

the PSD program to support the 

demonstration required by 40 CFR 

51.165(k)(1) and section 165(a)(3) of the 

CAA that proposed construction will 

not cause or contribute to a violation of 

the NAAQS. However, contrary to the 

commenter’s assertion, the Federal 

regulations set forth at section 51.165(b) 

do not impede a permitting authority’s 

discretion to require a cumulative 

impact analysis to make the showing 

required by section 51.166(k)(1) and 

section 165(a)(3) of the CAA where the 

source’s impact is below a SIL value in 

section 51.165(b). Similarly, the 

corresponding state regulation at 

9VAC5–80–1715B(1) does not impede 

the state’s permitting authority 

discretion. Both provisions address the 

threshold above which a source will be 

considered to cause or contribute to a 

NAAQS violation. However, the 

provisions do not preclude a 

determination that a source may be 

considered to cause and contribute to a 

NAAQS violation even when the impact 

is below a SIL value set forth in 40 CFR 

51.165(b)(2) which is utilized by the 

permitting authority. In fact, the court in 

Sierra Club v. EPA (705 F.3d 458, 469), 

declined to vacate the PM2.5 SIL value 

at section 51.165(b)(2) because the court 

explicitly found that, unlike section 

51.166(k)(2), this provision does not 

improperly restrict permitting 

authorities’ discretion (See 705 F.3d at 

465–66). There is nothing in section 

9VAC5–80–1715B(1) that would 

preclude VADEQ from imposing 

additional requirements on any sources 

necessary to show that a source does not 

cause or contribute to a NAAQS 

violation, including those sources 

impacting Class I areas. Therefore, 

except for the exceptions noted, EPA is 

finalizing the proposal to grant approval 

to Virginia’s August 25, 2011 submittal. 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

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

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

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

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion 

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

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

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

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ Therefore, EPA 

has determined that Virginia’s Privilege 

and Immunity statutes will not preclude 

the Commonwealth from enforcing its 

PSD and nonattainment NSR programs 

consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

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

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving Virginia’s August 

25, 2011 submittal as a revision to the 

Virginia SIP, with the exception of 

paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715, and 

the portion of paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5– 

80–1695 pertaining to PM2.5 which were 

withdrawn by Virginia on February 13, 

2013. EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of the amendments to the 

nonattainment NSR regulations set forth 

at 9VAC5–80–2010 (Definitions) and 

9VAC5–80–2120 (Offsets). EPA is also 

approving the August 25, 2011 SIP 

submittal and the relevant portions of 

the above identified infrastructure SIP 

submittals which relate to the PSD 

requirements set forth in CAA sections 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10382 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 lead 

NAAQS. EPA is also approving the 

relevant portion of Virginia’s 

infrastructure submittal relating to the 

PSD permit program pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. As previously 

discussed, EPA is not taking final action 

on its proposal to approve the portions 

of the Virginia infrastructure SIP 

submittals (which were identified in the 

NPR and are identified above) related to 

the visibility requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 lead 

NAAQS, because a final rulemaking 

action has previously been taken. 

Additionally, on December 20, 2012 

(77 FR 75380), EPA approved revisions 

to Articles 8 and 9 of 9VAC5, chapter 

80. Neither that action nor the current 

action removes the pre-existing limited 

approval status of Virginia’s PSD and 

nonattainment programs (See, Section 

III: General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, 77 FR 75380–81, and 

Section IV, herein). However, the 

December 20, 2012 revisions to the table 

in paragraph 52.2420(c) inadvertently 

omitted reference to the limited 

approval status. In the interest of clarity, 

EPA is correcting that omission in this 

action. EPA is also adding a citation for 

the revised 9VAC5–80–1935 to the table 

in paragraph 52.2420(c). This revision 

was discussed in both the proposed and 

final rulemaking actions, but was 

inadvertently omitted from the table 

itself. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 28, 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 

pertaining to Virginia’s PSD and 

nonattainment NSR programs 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, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 28, 2014. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

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 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420: 

■ a. The table in paragraph (c) is 

amended by revising the entries for 

Sections 5–10–30, 5–80–1615, 5–80– 

1625, 5–80–1635, 5–80–1695, 5–80– 

1715, 5–80–1765, 5–80–1915, 5–80– 

1925, 5–80–1935, 5–80–1945, 5–80– 

1955, 5–80–1965, 5–80–2010, 5–80– 

2020, 5–80–2120, 5–80–2140, 5–80– 

2195, 5–80–2200, 5–80–2210, 5–80– 

2220, 5–80–2230, and 5–80–2240. 

■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is 

amended by revising the entries for 

section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and adding section 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS immediately 

following the previous entries. 

The amendments read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10383 

§ 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] 

*******

9VAC5, Chapter 10 ...... General Definitions [Part I] 

*******

5–10–30 ........................ Abbreviations ............... 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Revised. 

*******

9VAC5, 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 .................... 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–1625 .................... General ........................ 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–1635 .................... Ambient Air Increments 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

*******

5–80–1695 .................... Exemptions .................. 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Revised. The portion of paragraph E(1) that relates to PM2.5 is not in the SIP. Limited approval remains in effect. 

* * * * * * * 

5–80–1715 (Except 

paragraph A(2)).

Source impact analysis 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Revised. Paragraph A(2) is not in the SIP. Limited approval remains in effect. 

* * * * * * * 

5–80–1765 .................... Sources affecting Federal class I areas— 

additional requirements.

8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

* * * * * * * 

5–80–1915 .................... Actions to combine permit terms and conditions.7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 New. Limited approval. 

5–80–1925 .................... Actions to change permits.7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–1935 .................... Administrative permit 

amendments.

7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–1945 .................... Minor permit amendments.7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–1955 .................... Significant amendment 

procedures.

7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–1965 .................... Reopening for cause .... 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

* * * * * * * 

Article 9 ......................... Permits—Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport 

Region 

*******

5–80–2010 .................... Definitions .................... 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Revised. Limited approval of 9/1/06 and 8/17/11 

amendments. 

5–80–2020 .................... General ........................ 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

*******

5–80–2120 .................... Offsets .......................... 8/17/11 2/25/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Revised. Limited approval of 9/1/06 and 8/17/11 

amendments. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10384 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

*******

5–80–2140 .................... Exemptions .................. 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

* * * * * * * 

5–80–2195 .................... Actions to combine permit terms and conditions.7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 New. Limited approval. 

5–80–2200 .................... Actions to change permits.7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–2210 .................... Administrative permit 

amendments.

7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–2220 .................... Minor permit amendments.7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–2230 .................... Significant amendment 

procedures.

7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

5–80–2240 .................... Reopening for cause .... 7/23/09 12/20/12, 77 FR 75380 Revised. Limited approval remains in effect. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA 

approval date 

Additional 

explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS.

Statewide ............... 12/10/07, 12/ 

13/07, 6/8/10, 

6/9/10 

10/11/11; 76 FR 

62635.

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

................................ 11/13/07, 12/ 

13/07, 8/25/11 

2/25/14 [Insert Federal Register 

page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the PSD related 

elements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II). 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ............... 7/10/08, 9/2/ 

08, 6/8/10, 6/ 

9/10, 4/1/08 

10/11/11; 76 FR 

62635.

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

................................ 11/13/07, 7/10/ 

08, 9/2/08, 8/ 

25/11 

2/25/14 [Insert Federal Register 

page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the PSD related 

elements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), 

and (J). 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.Statewide ............... 8/30/10, 4/1/11 10/11/11; 76 FR 

62635.

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

................................ 4/1/11, 8/25/11 2/25/14 [Insert Federal Register 

page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the PSD related 

elements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), 

and (J). 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.Statewide ............... 3/9/12 9/24/13, 78 FR 

58462.

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor 

sources), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) (for the 

visibility protection portion), (D)(ii), 

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

(L), and (M). 

................................ 8/25/11 2/25/14 [Insert Federal Register 

page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the PSD related 

elements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), 

and (J). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10385 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA 

approval date 

Additional 

explanation 

*******

[FR Doc. 2014–03640 Filed 2–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0414, EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0424, EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 

0425, EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0432; FRL– 

9906–50–Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, 

and Vigo Counties; 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan Revision to 

Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving requests by 

Indiana to revise the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance air quality state 

implementation plan (SIP) for Allen, 

Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo 

Counties to replace onroad emissions 

inventories and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (budgets) with inventories and 

budgets developed using EPA’s Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 

emissions model. Indiana submitted the 

SIP revision requests for Allen, Vigo, 

Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties on 

July 2, 2013, and submitted the SIP 

revision request for Greene County on 

July 8, 2013. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective April 28, 2014, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 

27, 2014. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0414 (Vanderburgh and 

Warrick Counties), EPA–R05–OAR– 

2013–0424 (Allen County), EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0425 (Greene County), EPA– 

R05–OAR–2013–0432 (Vigo County), by 

one of the following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 

0414, EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0424, EPA– 

R05–OAR–2013–0425, EPA–R05–OAR– 

2013–0432. 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 docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Anthony 

Maietta, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, at (312) 353–8777 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, 

maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is EPA approving? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity. 

b. Prior Approval of Budgets. 

c. The MOVES Emissions Model. 

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on 

MOVES2010a. 

III. What are the criteria for approval? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

submittals? 

a. The Revised Inventories. 

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010abased Budgets. 

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-based 

Budgets. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What is EPA approving? 

EPA is approving new MOVES2010abased onroad emissions inventories and 

budgets for the Allen, Greene, 

Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo 

Counties 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance areas that will replace 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES