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

(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 (PM**  2.5**)**

**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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2006 PM 2.5 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


### 10378 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

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

2 See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 3 See 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 PM 2.5

. 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

PM 2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Rule). 1 These provisions were the Federal counterparts to Virginia’s PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 SIL regulation at paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715, and the portion of paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5– 80–1695 pertaining to the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 (PM 2.5 )’’ (referred to herein
as ‘‘the 2008 NSR PM 2.5 Rule’’), 3 is relevant to this final rulemaking. This rule promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM 2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). The court found that EPA erred in implementing the PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of subpart 4. In the interim, however, states and EPA still need to proceed with implementation of
the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 significant emission rates (SERs), regulation of certain PM 2.5 precursors (SO 2 and NO X), the regulation of PM 10 and PM 2.5 condensable emissions, and the emissions offset requirements. In light of the D.C. Circuit’s remand of the

2008 NSR PM 2.5 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

PM 10 precursors (and hence under the court decision, PM 2.5 precursors) ‘‘except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels
which exceed the standard in the area.’’


### 10379 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

4 The court’s decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by
the 2008 NSR PM 2.5 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. 5 EPA 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 PM 2.5 nonattainment area in the State, theVirginia portion of the Washington, DCMD-VA nonattainment area for the 1997
annual PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 thesubpart 4 requirements. Once EPA repromulgates the Federal PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Rule that address requirements for PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 , 2006 PM 2.5 , 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 PM 2.5 , 2006 PM 2.5 , 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


### 10380 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

6 EPA 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 PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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

PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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.


### 10381 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

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 toapply 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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


### 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 PM 2.5 , 2006 PM 2.5 , 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 PM 2.5 , 2006 PM 2.5 , 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

PM 2.5 NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006

PM 2.5 NAAQS, and adding section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS immediately following the previous entries.

The amendments read as follows:


### 10383 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

**§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.**

* * * * * (c) * * *



### EPA-A PPROVED 

### V IRGINIA 

### R EGULATIONS AND 

### S TATUTES

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 PM 2.5 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.


### 10384 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

EPA-A PPROVED 

### V IRGINIA 

### R EGULATIONS AND 

### S TATUTES

### —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 **Fed eral Register**  page number
where the document begins]. This action addresses the PSD relatedelements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II).

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 PM 2.5 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 **Fed eral Register**  page number
where the document begins]. This action addresses the PSD relatedelements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 PM 2.5 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 **Fed eral Register**  page number
where the document begins]. This action addresses the PSD relatedelements 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 **Fed eral Register**  page number
where the document begins]. This action addresses the PSD relatedelements of the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).


### 10385 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

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