DATE: SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:
THRU: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Technical Support Documentfor the Virginia State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate MatterNational Ambient Air Quality Standards
Ellen Schmitt, Life Scientist Office ofAir Program Planning
File 

### r 

# n / >-...

**~ ~**  f-.JA-IC.C, tfistinaFernandez Associate Director Office ofAir Program Planning

A. INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on a submittal made by the Commonwealth ofVirginiato meet the Clean AirAct (CAA) section 110(a)(2) requirements of the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2

.s) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

B. BACKGROUND
OnJanuary 15,2013, EPApromulgated a revised NAAQS for the annual primary and secondary PM2.s standard at a level of 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter

**(~-tg/m ),**  based onthe annual arithmetic mean, averaged overthree years. 78 FR 3086.
Section llO(a) ofthe CAArequires states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofa newor revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation ofsuch NAAQS or within such shorterperiod as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) ofthe CAA imposes the obligationupon states to make a SIP submission to EPAfor a new orrevised NAAQS, but the contents ofthat submission may vary depending uponthe facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new orrevised NAAQS affects the content ofthe submission. The contents ofsuch SIP submissions may also vary depending upon provisions already contained in the state's existing SIP. More specifically, section 110(a)(l) ofthe CAAprovides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) ofthe CAA lists specific elements that states must meet for "infrastructure" SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. For the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS,states typically have met many ofthe basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) ofthe CAAthrough earlier SIP submissions in connection withprevious particulate matter standards.

C. EPAREQUIREMENTS
As discussed above, for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS, states must provide SIP submissions, or provide certification that the existing SIP contains provisions addressing relevant infrastructure SIP elements from sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) ofthe CAA.

D. STATE'S SUBMITTAL
On July 16, 2015, Virginiaprovided a submittal to satisfy the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2) ofthe CAA for the 2012 PM2

.sNAAQS

. This submittal addressed the following infrastructure elements: Section 11O(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) ofthe CAA. EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's July 16, 2015 SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2

.sNAAQS withthe exception ofthe portion ofthe submittal addressing (D)(i)(II) (visibility protection). EPA will take separate action onthe portion ofthe submittal addressing section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as itrelates to visibility protection. The Commonwealth's infrastructure SIP submittal did not address element (I) which pertains to the nonattainment requirements ofpart D, title I ofthe CAA, since this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline ofsection 110(a)(l) ofthe CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process ifapplicable and necessary. Virginia's submittal did not address section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport ofemissions) ofthe CAA; therefore, EPA will take later, separate action on section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS for Virginia.

E. EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL
1. Section 110(a)(2)(A) Virginia's June 16, 2015 SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2

.sNAAQS cites several state regulations relevant to PM2

.sand its precursorsthat provide for enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance for these pollutants. These regulations include the following 9 VAC 5 chapters: 40 (Existing Stationary Sources), 45 (Commercial and Consumer Products), 50 (New and Modified Stationary Sources), and 91 (MotorVehicle Inspection and Maintenance inNorthern Virginia), all ofwhich have been approved into the Virginia SIP at 40 CFR 52.2420(c). 1 EPA finds that Virginiahas established laws and regulations inits SIP applicable to the 2012 PM2

.sNAAQS to meet the applicable requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe CAAthrough the measures in these regulations

. Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012

1 9 V AC 5 chapter40 includes emission standards for PM25 for many source categories including, butnot limited to, coke ovens, asphalt concrete plants, chemical fertilizer manufacturing operations, petroleum refmery operations, primary and secondary metal operations, coal preparation plants, woodworking operations, and lightweight aggregate process operations.

2PM2.s NAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe CAA.
EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment areamandates in part D oftitle I ofthe CAAto be governed by the submission deadline ofsection 110(a)(1). Nevertheless, the Commonwealth ofVirginia may have included some previously EPA approved SIPprovisions originally submitted in response to part D in its submission documenting its compliance with the requirements ofsections 110(a)(l) and (2) ofthe CAA. For the purposes of this action, EPA has reviewed Virginia's 110(a)(2) SIP submittal, which may include rules originally submitted in response to part D, or references thereto, solely for the purposes of determining whether such submittals support a finding that the Commonwealthhas met the basic infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2) ofthe CAA.

In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Virginia provisions with regard to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. EPA also does not intend to reapprove any existing Virginia SIP provisions which may address excess emissions during SSM by this infrastructure SIP rulemaking. EPA believes that a number ofstates have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance. On June 12, 2015, EPA issued a finding that certain SIP provisions in 36 states (applicable in 45 statewide and localjurisdictions) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus issued a "SIP call" for each ofthose 36 states. 80 FR 33840. See also 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013) (proposed finding for SIP call). Virginia was among the 36 states for the SIP call based onone regulatory provision in its SIP. EPA established a due date for states subject to the SIP call action to submit corrective SIP revisions. The June 12,2015 final action also embodied EPA's updated SSMpolicy (2015 SSM Policy) as it applies to SIP provisions.2 The 2015 SSM Policy provides guidance to states for compliance with CAArequirements for SIP provisions applicable to excess emissions during SSM events. Thus the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate rulemaking and not during review ofinfrastructure SIP submittals. Inthe meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
Also in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Virginia rules (nor reapprove any such rules already in the Virginia SIP) with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number ofstates have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (see 80 FR 33840) and EPA is addressing such state regulations in a separate rulemaking viaits June 12, 2015 SIP call. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contraryto the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.



### 2. Section 110(a)(2)(B)
Section 110(a)(2)(B) ofthe CAA requires each plan to provide for the establishment and

2 Previous EPA guidance on SSM in SIPs was in the August 11, 1999 Steven Herman and Robert Perciasepe

Guidance Memorandum, "State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown."


### 3operation ofappropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures to monitor, compile and analyze data on ambient air quality and to make such data available to EPAupon request. EPA has determined that Virginiahas established and currently operates appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality. Virginia maintains and operates a multistation network ofambient monitors throughout the Commonwealth to measure ambient air quality levels for comparisonto each NAAQS as required by 40 CFR 58. The locations ofthesemonitoring stations can be found in Virginia's Annual Network Review for 2015, the most recent year available at the time ofthis evaluation. EPA approved Virginia's 2015 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Design Plan as meeting 40 CFR 58.10 on November 12, 2015. Virginiaprovides ambient air quality datato EPA and keeps EPA informed ofchanges to the sampling network byproviding prior notification ofany planned changes and seeking approvals ofthe changes. Virginia sends EPA an annual summary ofall changes to the network, which includes a description, explanation, and otherrelevant information regarding each change. All data is measured using EPA approved methods as either reference or equivalent monitors. All monitors are subjected to the quality assurance requirements of40 CFR 58, appendix A, and all samplers are located at sites that have met the minimum siting requirements of40 CFR 58, appendix E. The data is submitted to the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) system, in a timely manner in accordance withthe scheduled prescribed bythe EPA in 40 CFR 58. Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 11O(a)(2)(B) the CAA.



### 3. Section 110(a)(2)(C)
Section 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe CAA requires a state's planto include a program to provide for enforcement ofmeasures in 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe CAA and for regulation ofmodification and construction ofstationary sources, including a permit program as required inparts C and D of title I ofthe CAA.
EPA finds that Virginia has established and currently operates a program in orderto meet the applicable requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe CAA. This program provides for the enforcement, as may be necessary or appropriate, ofthe emission limitations and other control measures, means, ortechniques, as well as schedules and time tables for compliance as previously discussed for section 11O(a)(2)(A). Virginia states in its infrastructure SIP submittal that enforcement provisions andpermitprovisions are found in those portions of9 VAC 5 chapter 80 (Permits for Stationary Sources) and part V (Enforcement) of9 VAC 5 chapter 170 (General Administration) which are both identified as part ofthe federally approved Virginia SIP at 40 CFR 52.2420. Other aspects for enforcement are found in the source monitoring, source testing and test methods, and record keeping and reporting provisions of9 VAC 5 chapters 40 (Existing Stationary Sources), and 50 (New and Modified Stationary Sources), which are also part ofthe federally approved Virginia SIP.

4Virginia also has an EPA SIP approved minor new source review (NSR) program located in 9 VAC 5-80-10 (New and Modified Stationary Sources) and 9 VAC 5-80-11 (Stationary source permit exemption levels) which regulate certain modifications and construction of stationary sources within areas covered by its SIP as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved. EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2

.sNAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe CAA for enforcement and regulation ofminor sources and minor modifications.
In addition, section 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe CAA requires each state's SIP to include a program to provide for the regulation ofthe modification and construction ofany stationary source within the areas covered by the plan including a permitprogram as required inpart C of title I ofthe CAA. In Virginia, construction and modification ofstationary sources are covered under article 8, Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Areas (9 VAC 5-80-1605 et seq.) which is included in the federally approved Virginia SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2420(c). Article 8 also provides that construction and modification ofmajor stationary sources will not cause or contribute to a violation ofany NAAQS (9 VAC 5-80-1635, Ambient Airlncrements and 9 VAC 5-80-1645, Ambient Air Ceilings) and requires application ofbest available control technology (BACT) to new or modified sources (9 VAC 5-80-1705, Control Technology Review).
OnFebruary 25,2014, EPA approved revisions to Virginia's prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) permitprogrampertaining to preconstructionpermitting requirements for sources ofPM2.s. See 79 FR 10377. With these revisions fully approved, EPA finds Virginia's SIP approved PSD program now contains all ofthe emission limitations, control measures, and other program elements required bythe CAA inpart C oftitle I and by40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 for all required pollutants (and "regulatedNSRpollutants"), including PM2.s. 

### !d.
With respect to element C, EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new orrevised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the currentrequirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. Virginiahas shown that it currently has a PSD program inplace that covers all regulatedNSRpollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
OnJune 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application ofPSDpermitting requirements to GHG emissions. UtilityAirRegulatory Group v. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an airpollutant for purposes ofdetermining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions ofpollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based onthe application ofBACT. In order to act consistently with its understanding ofthe Court's decision pending furtherjudicial actionto effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirementthat a state's SIP approved PSD programrequire that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the onlypollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant



### 5

## . :

emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a needto revise federal PSD rules in light ofthe Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP appruwd PSD programs in light ofthe Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit. At thisjuncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes ofinfrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state'sprogram correctly addresses GHGs consistent withthe Supreme Court's decision.
Atpresent, EPAhas determined the Virginia's SIP is sufficient to satisfy element C with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSDpermits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based onthe application ofBACT. Although the approved Virginia PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light ofthe Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy element C. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application ofthose requirements is not impeded bythe presence ofother previously approved provisions regarding the permitting ofsources ofGHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light ofthe Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval ofVirginia's infrastructure SIP as required by 110(a)(2)(C) and part C oftitle I ofthe CAA. Based upon EPA's review ofthe infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.sNAAQS, EPA finds thatthe Virginia SIP meets the obligations in section 11O(a)(2)(C) ofthe CAA because the Virginia SIP includes a fully approved minorNSRprogram and a PSD permittingprogram meeting requirements inthe CAA and 40 CFRpart 51, subpart I (including, inter alia, 40 CFR 51.160, 51.1.61, 51.165 and 51.166) and because the SIP includes provisions for enforcement of measures identified for 11O(a)(2)(A).



### 4. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) Virginia's July 16, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 

### PMz.s NAAQS did not include a component to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ofthe CAArelating to interstate transport ofemissions. Therefore, inthis rulemaking action, as there is no SIP submission for EPAto review for this element, EPA is notproposing to act onelement (D)(i)(I) for Virginia's July 16, 2015 submission for the 2012 PMz.s NAAQS. EPA will take later, separate action with respect to this element and any potential obligation Virginiamay have.



### 5. Section 110(a)(2}(D)(i)(Il)
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ofthe CAA consists ofwhatEPA refers to as prong 3 (interference with PSD) and prong 4 (interference with visibility protection). Prong 3 requires that each state's SIP must include provisions which will prevent emissions from sources within

6

## .I

# i

·1 I the state from interfering with the measures required to be in SIP by another state for implementing PSD.
Under 40 CFR 51.166(k)(1), each state's SIP must include requirements for a source impact analysis which requires the owner/operator ofeach proposed source ormodification to demonstrate that the allowable emissions increase from the proposed project will not cause or contribute to air pollution in violation ofany NAAQS in any air quality control region. The requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(1) are consistent with, and sufficient to meet, the requirements ofprong 3. InVirginia, the equivalent requirement to 40 CFR 51.166(k)(1) is codified at 9 VAC 5-80-1715, whichhas been incorporated into the federally enforceable Virginia SIP. In addition, as discussed above in detail for section 110(a)(2)(C), Virginia has an approved PSD permitting program in its SIP which meets requirements ofthe CAA and 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 for a permitprogram meeting part C oftitle I ofthe CAA. Thus, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS meets requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ofthe CAA for PSD.
With respect to prong 4, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ofthe CAA requires that SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other type ofemissions activity in one state from interfering with measures to protect visibility required to be included in another state's SIP. In a previous SIP revision addressing regional haze requirements, submitted on October 4, 2010, Virginia relied upon the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for best available retrofit technology (BART) and regional progress for electrical generating units (EGUs) in order to meetthe regulatory requirements set forth in sections 169A and 169B ofthe CAA. 3 Because the United States Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) had remanded CAIR to EPA in 2008 and EPA had promulgated the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in response, EPA finalized a limited approval ofthe October 2010 Virginiaregional haze SIP, indicating that, except for its reliance on CAIRfor BART, the SIP met CAA requirements for the first planning period ofthe regional haze program.4 See 77 FR 35287 (June 13, 2012). EPA issued a limited disapproval of Virginia's regional haze SIP (and other states' regional haze SIPs that similarly relied on CAIR) because EPA believed that full approval ofthe SIP was not appropriate in light oftheD.C. Circuit's remand ofCAIRand the uncertain remaining period ofoperation ofCAIR. EPA also finalized a limited federal implementation plan (FIP) for Virginia, which merely substituted reliance on EPA's more recent CSAPR nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfurdioxide (S02) trading programs for EGUs for the SIP'sreliance on CAIR. See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
In describing howits infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS meets prong 4, the Commonwealthreferred to a separate SIP submittal (also dated July 16, 2015) regarding regional haze in which Virginia states its intentionto revise its regional haze SIP. In the July 16, 2015 regional haze SIP revision submittal, Virginia seeks to replace its regional haze

3 On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significantreductions in emissions ofSOz and NOx from

EGUs to limit the interstate transport ofthese pollutants and the ozone and fme particulate matterthey form in the atmosphere. 70 FR25162. 4 SeeNorth Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remanding CAIR). In 2011, CSAPRwas

issued by EPA to replace CAIR and to help states reduce air pollution and attain CAA standards. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (fmal rule). CSAPR requires substantial reductions ofSOz and NOx emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the eastern United States that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment ofthe 1997 PMz

.sand ozone NAAQS and 2006 PMz.s NAAQS.

7SIP reliance upon CAIR for certain CAA haze requirements withreliance upon CSAPRfor the same requirements. EPAhas notyet acted upon the July 16, 2015 Virginiaregional haze SIP revision. Thus, the 2010 regional haze SIP from Virginia still has limited approval. Atthis time, therefore, EPA is not reviewing the Virginia infrastructure SIP submission for ihe prong 4 element (110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(visibility protection)) for the 2012 PMz

.sNAAQS.
In conclusion, EPA is not proposing action at this time on Virginia's infrastructure SIP submission regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ofthe CAA for visibility protection for the 2012 PMz

.sNAAQS. Although Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2

.sNAAQS contains provisions addressing this element, EPA will take separate action onVirginia's infrastructure submittal for this specific portion ofelement (D)(i)(II) at a later date. EPA however does find the Virginia infrastructure SIP submissionmeets requirements regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ofthe CAA for PSD (prong 3) for the 2012 PMz.s NAAQS.

6. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) ofthe CAA requires the SIP to contain adequate provisions to ensure compliance with applicable requirements ofsections .115 and 126 ofthe CAArelating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
EPA finds that the Virginia infrastructure SIP submission meets obligations for section 126 ofthe CAA, "Interstate Pollution Abatement," which directs each SIP to include provisions requiring a new or modified source to notify neighboring states ofpotential impacts from that source. Major stationary sources ofPMz

.sin Virginia are currently subjectto PSD and NSR permitting programs which are included inthe Virginia SIP and have been approved by EPA as meeting CAA requirements for parts C and D permit programs. The provisions to implement PSD for part C oftitle I ofthe CAA are in article 8 (Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Areas) ofpart II of9 VAC 5 chapter 80 (Permits for Stationary Sources) and in 9 VAC 5 chapter 85 (Permits for Stationary Sources Subjectto Regulation), which have both been approved inVirginia's SIP in 40 CFR 52.2420(c). Additionally, 9 VAC 5-80-1775 specifically requires notification to local air pollution control agencies and any state whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification.
EPA concurs with Virginiathatthe Commonwealth has no currently pending obligations pursuantto section 126(b) ofthe CAArelated to the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS. Additionally, there are no findings under section 115 ofthe CAA, "International Air Pollution", against Virginia with respect to the 2012 PMz.s NAAQs. EPA finds the approved Virginia SIP has adequate provisions insuring future compliance withthe requirements ofsections 126 and 115 ofthe CAA as may be necessary. Based upon EPA'sreview ofthe submittal, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) ofthe CAA.

87. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
Pursuantto section 110(a)(2)(E) ofthe CAA, a SIP should provide: (1) Necessary assurances the state has adequate personnel, funding and authority to carry out the SIP; (2) requirements that the state complies with section 128 ofthe CAA regarding state boards; and (3) necessary assurances the state has responsibility to ensure adequate implementation ofthe SIP where the state relies on a local orregional government or agency for implementing any SIP prOVISIOn.
EPA finds Virginia has demonstrated it has adequate personnel to carry out its implementationplan with respect to the 2012 PMz.s NAAQS. The Code ofVirginiatitle 10.1 chapter 13, "AirPollution Control Board" gives broad authority to develop, implement and enforce the SIP. The resources to carry outthe SIP are provided through Virginia's General Funds, title V funds, and the section 103 and 105 grant process. Title V fees are collected under the authority ofCode ofVirginiatitle 10.1-1322. Virginia's title V fee requirements are located in article 2 (Permit Program Emissions Fees for Stationary Sources) of9 VAC 5-80 (Permits for Stationary Sources). These regulations are part ofVirginia's federally approved title V program and are codified in appendix A of40 CFRpart 70, Approval Status ofState and Local Operating Permits Programs. Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PMz

.sNAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(E)(i) ofthe CAA.

8. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
EPA finds thatthe Commonwealth complies withthe requirements respecting state boards under section 128 ofthe CAA. Section 128(a) requires SIPs to containprovisions that: (1) Any board orbody which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority ofits members represent the public interest and not derive any significant portion oftheir income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflict ofinterest by members ofsuch board orbody or the head ofan executive agency with similarpowers be adequately disclosed.
For section 128(a)(1) ofthe CAA, Virginiapreviously submitted the provisions ofsection 10.1-1302 ofthe Code ofVirginia as a SIP revision on June 11, 2010; this SIP revision was subsequently approved by EPA on October 11, 2011. See 76 FR 62635.
To address requirements in section 128(a)(2) ofthe CAA, Virginia submitted the provisions of9 VAC 5-170-210 in a SIP revision submitted onDecember 22,2014. This regulation requires members ofVirginia's State Air Pollution Control Board (or designated representatives) andthe director ofVADEQ (or a designated representative) to disclose any potential conflicts ofinterest. The regulation also requires that such disclosures be made annually throughthe applicable forms set forth in section 2.2-3100 etseq. ofthe Code of Virginia. EPA approved 9 VAC 5-170-210 for the Virginia SIP as addressing requirements in sections 128(a)(2) and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) ofthe CAA onApril2, 2015. 80 FR 17692.



### 9EPA finds that the Virginia infrastructure SIP submittal adequately addresses all requirements ofsection 128 and section 11O(a)(2)(E)(ii) ofthe CAA.

9. Section 110(a)(2)(E}(iji) Virginia states in its infrastructure SIP submittal that the Commonwealthdoes notrely on localities for specific SIP implementation. Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 11O(a)(2)(E)(iii) ofthe CAA.

10. Section 110(a)(2)(F) According to section 110(a)(2)(F) ofthe CAA, a SIP shall require as prescribed by EPA the installation, maintenance and replacement ofequipmentto monitor emissions by owners or operators ofstationary sources, periodic reports on emissions from such sources, and correlation ofsuch emissionreports bythe state with emission limitations established by the CAA. According to Virginia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS, the Virginia SIP includes provisions addressing requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(F) ofthe CAA. Specific monitoring requirements governing the control ofair pollution are found throughoutthe VirginiaAdministrative Code, including 9 VAC 5 chapters 20, 40, 50, and 80. These regulations are included inVirginia's approved SIP and are listed in 40 CPR 52.2420 and also apply to the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS. Requirements for periodic reports onthe nature and amount ofemissions, as well as other emissions related data are included in 9 VAC 5-20-160 (Registration). This data is also required by part I of9 VAC 5 chapter40 (Existing Stationary Sources) as well as parts I and II of9 VAC 5 chapter 50 (New and Modified Stationary Sources). The correlation ofsuchreports is included inpart I of9 VAC 5 chapter40 and part II of9 VAC 5 chapter 50. In addition, 9 VAC 5-170-60 (Availability ofInformation) ofpart II of9 VAC 5 chapter 170 (Regulation for General Administration) requires thatthese reports bepublicly available. These SIP provisions are approved under 40 CFR 52.2420 as part ofthe Virginia SIP. Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(F) ofthe CAA.

11. Section 110(a)(2)(G)
Section 110(a)(2)(G) ofthe CAA requires states to provide its authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. According to Virginia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS, the Commonwealthhas provisions addressing requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(G) ofthe CAA.

10.Section 10.1-1309 B under the Code ofVirginia, title 10.1, chapter 13, Air Pollution Control Board, authorizes the board to declare a state ofemergency and issue, without hearing, an emergency special order directing the owner to cease suchpollution immediately upon finding that any owner is umeasonably affecting the public health, safety orwelfare; the health ofanimal orplant life; orproperty. Section 10.1-1309.1 authorizes the board to issue special orders requiring plans to abate, control, prevent, remove, orcontain any substantial and imminentthreat to public health or the environment that is reasonably likely to occur ifsuch source ceases operations.
EPA's regulations at 40 CFRpart 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150-.153) provide specific ambient levels for contingency planpurposes for mostNAAQS. Virginia's emergency plans are found in 9 VAC 5 chapter 70 (Air Pollution Prevention) and are SIP approved in 40 CFR 52.2420. These plans meet currentrequirements as promulgated in 40 CFRpart 51, subpart H. Forthe 2006 PM2.s NAAQS, EPA had notpromulgated regulations thatprovide the ambient levels to classify differentpriority levels, and thus EPArecommended these levels through guidance.5 In promulgating the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS, EPA retained the pre-existing level of500 flg/m3

, 24-hour average, for the Air Quality Index (AQI) value of500 and did not establish a significant harm level (SHL) for PM2.s. In the absence ofa SHL, EPA continues to believe that the central components ofa contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the PM2

.s source(s) at issue and public communication as needed. In addition, ifan air agency believes, based onits inventory ofPM2.s sources and historic ambient monitoring data, that it does not need a more specific contingency planbeyond having authority to restrain any source from causing or contributing to an imminent and substantial endangerment, then the·air agency could provide such a rationale as part ofits infrastructure SIP submission.
In the September 25, 2009 guidance for the 2006 PM2.s NAAQS, EPA suggested that states that had monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.s levels greaterthan 140.4 flg/m3

, using the most recent three years ofdata, should develop emergency episode plans for the areas with the monitored values. EPA also suggested that, ifthese levels had notbeenexceeded, states could certify that they had adequate general emergency authority to address PM2.s episodes.
In its July 16, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS, the Commonwealth indicates that it has never monitored and recorded a 24-hour PM2.slevel greater than 140.4 f.t.g/m3 since 2006. Virginia asserts thatbecause section 10.1-1309 underthe Code of Virginiaprovides the Commonwealth with sufficient emergencypower, Virginia does not need specific emergency episode plans for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS.
In this rulemaking action, in reviewing specifically Virginia's infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS for element G ofsection 110(a)(2) ofthe CAA, EPAreviewed ambient PM2.s monitor data for Virginia for years 2006-2015. EPA agrees that Virginiahas not

5 See Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office ofAir Quality and

Planning Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I through X, "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections IIO(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 Fine Particle (PM2.s) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." (September 25,2009 Guidance). This guidance can be found at: www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/ tl/memoranda/20090925 harnett pm25 sip 11Oa12.pdf

.
11

### . . . 

## · 

# ..

monitored any values above the 140.4

**~-tg/m level**  for PM2.s for the pastten years. Because this level was not exceeded in any area ofthe Commonwealth and because Virginiahas demonstrated that ithas appropriate general emergency powers to address PM2

.srelated episodes and PM2

.s somces, EPA finds no specific emergency episode plans are necessary at this time for PM2.s. Based upon EPA's review ofthe above referenced infrastructure SIP submittal, and air quality data (put into record), EPA finds that the Commonwealth's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements in 110(a)(2)(G) ofthe CAA for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS.



### 12. Section 110(a)(2)(H)
Section 110(a)(2)(H) ofthe CAA requires that SIPs provide for the revision ofthe plan from time to time as may be necessary to take account ofrevisions ofthe NAAQS or the availability ofimproved or more expeditious methods ofattaining the standards and to revise the plan whenever EPA finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA. Virginiahas demonstrated that it has adequate authority to revise the SIP under the Code ofVirginia, title 10.1, chapter 13, Air Pollution Control Board, specifically 10.1-1306. This provisionprovides authority for the board to actreasonably to achieve and maintain levels ofair quality that will protect humanhealth, welfare, and safety. Also, section 10.1-1307 provides for the development ofa comprehensive program for the study, abatement, and control ofall sources ofair pollution in the Commonwealth. Section 10.1-1308 provides authority to promulgate regulations to abate, control, and prohibit air pollution throughout the Commonwealth in accordance with the provisions ofVirginia's Administrative Process Act. The infrastructure SIP submission also provides EPA with adequate assurances that Virginia will review and revise its SIP from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions ofsuch primary or secondaryNAAQS or the availability ofimproved ormore expeditious methods ofattaining such standards and, whenever the Administrator finds, on the basis ofinformation available to the Administrator, that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements, or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements established under the CAA. Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(H) ofthe CAA.



### 13. Section 110(a)(2)(1) Virginia's July 16, 2015 SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS did not include or address section 110(a)(2)(I) ofthe CAA whichpertains to the nonattainment requirements ofpart D, title I ofthe CAA. EPAdoes not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address this element because nonattainment areaplans required underpart D are required on a different schedule from section 110(a)(2) ofthe CAA infrastructure elements and, thus, will be reviewed and acted upon through a separate process as required.

1214. Section 110(a)(2)(J)
Section 110(a)(2)(J) ofthe CAA states that eachplan shall meetthe applicable requirements ofsection 121 (relating to consultation), section 127 (relating to public notification) and part C (relating to PSD and visibility control).
In regards to meeting section 121 ofthe CAA, relating to consultation, all Virginia SIP revisions undergo public notice and opportunity for public hearing, which provides for comment by the public and includes local political subdivisions. Further, all regulations promulgated in Virginia are subjectto the Administrative Process Act (Code ofVirginia, title 2.2, Administration ofGovernment, chapter 40). Regulations promulgated by the State Air Pollution Control Board are also governed by 9 VAC 5 chapter 5, Public Participation Guidelines. Virginia also provides opportunity for consultation with federal land managers through article 8 (Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Areas), part II of9 VAC 5 chapter 80 (Permits for Stationary Sources) specifically through 9 VAC 5-80-1765 (Sources Affecting Federal Class I AreasAdditional Requirements). Regarding section 127 ofthe CAA, relating to public notification, air quality datafrom Virginia's monitoring network is published on the VADEQ website. As part ofthe section 105 grantprocess, Virginia is required to submitmonitoring datato the AQS in a timely manner. Virginiapublishes an annual summary ofall monitoring data onthe DEQ website, including monitoring locations, exceedances, and violations ofstandards.
As discussed in more detail for section 110(a)(2)(C) requirements, in Virginia, construction and modification ofstationary sources are covered under article 8, Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Areas (9 VAC 5-80-1605 et seq.) which is included inthe approved federally approved Virginia SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2420(c). Article 8 also provides that construction and modification ofmajor stationary sources will not cause or contribute to a violation ofany NAAQS (9 VAC 5-80-1635, Ambient Air Increments and 9 VAC 5-80-1645, Ambient Air Ceilings) and requires application ofBACTto new or modified sources (9 VAC 5-80-1705, Control Technology Review). EPA finds Virginia's SIP approved PSD program contains all of the emission limitations, control measures, and other program elements required by the CAA in part C oftitle I and by 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 for all required pollutants (and "regulated NSRpollutants"), including PM2.s. See 79 FR 10377 (approving revisions to Virginia's PSD program related to requirements for PM2.s).
With respect to element J, EPA interprets the CAAto require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new orrevised NAAQS that demonstrates thatthe air agency has a complete PSD permittingprogram meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. Virginiahas shown that it currently has a PSD program inplace that covers all regulated NSRpollutants, including GHGs.

13

### .·

On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application ofPSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. UtilityAirRegulatory Group v. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said thatthe EPAmay not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes ofdetermining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions ofpollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based onthe application ofBACT. In order to act consistently with its understanding ofthe Court's decision pending furtherjudicial action to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements thatthe Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirementthat a state's SIP approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the onlypollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for whichthere is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules in light ofthe Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP approved PSD programs in light ofthe Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPAregulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by·additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit. At thisjuncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes ofinfrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure thatthe state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
Atpresent, EPAhas determinedthe Virginia's SIP is sufficient to satisfy elementJ with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions ofpollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based onthe application ofBACT. Although the approved VirginiaPSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light ofthe Supreme Court decision, this does notrender the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy element J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application ofthose requirements is not impeded bythe presence ofother previously approved provisions regarding the permitting ofsources ofGHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light ofthe Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval ofVirginia's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements ofelement J.
With regard to the visibility protection aspect ofsection 110(a)(2)(J) ofthe CAA, EPA recognizes that states are subjectto visibility and regional haze program requirements underpart C ofthe CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). Inthe event ofthe establishment ofa newNAAQS, however, the visibility andregional haze programrequirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds thatthere are no applicable visibility obligations underpart C "triggered" under section 110(a)(2)(J) ofthe CAA when a newNAAQS becomes effective. On September 13, 2013, EPA issued the Guidance on Irifrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CleanAirActSections IIO(a)(J) andJIO(a)(2) (Infrastructure Guidance). According to the Infrastructure Guidance, EPA explained state air agencies do not need to

14address the visibility subelement ofelement J in an infrastructure SIP submission. Infrastructure Guidance at p. 55. Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PMz

.sNAAQS appropriately did not address requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J) ofthe CAArelating to visibility in accordance with EPA's Infrastructure Guidance.
EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PMz.s NAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(J) ofthe CAA relating to consultation, public notification, and part C oftitle I ofthe CAA.

15. Section 110(a)(2)(K)
Section 110(a)(2)(K) ofthe CAA requires that each SIP provide for: (i) The performance ofsuch air quality modeling as EPA may prescribe for the purpose ofpredicting the effect on ambient air quality ofany emissions ofany air pollutant for which EPA has established a NAAQS; and (ii) the submission, upon request, ofdata related to such air quality modeling to EPA.
EPA finds Virginiahas the authority and technical capability to conduct air quality modeling in order to assess the effect on ambient air quality relevant pollutant emissions and will continue to perform such modeling. Article 8, Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating inPrevention ofSignificantDeterioration Areas (9 VAC 5-80-1605 et seq.) of9 VAC 5-80 (Permits for Stationary Sources) contains requirements for pre-construction and post-construction monitoring and modeling. 9 VAC 5-80-1715 (Source Impact Analysis), 9 VAC 5-80-1725 (Air Quality Models),
· and 9 VAC 5-80-1735 (Air Quality Analysis) provide detail on modeling requirements

. Article 8 is included as part ofthe Virginia SIP as noted in 40 CFR 52.2420. Virginia will continue to submit to EPA the air quality modeling data as part of Virginia's relevant SIP submissions, permit actions, and through federal grant commitments or in other ways that EPA may request. Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PMz.sNAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 11O(a)(2)(K) ofthe CAA.

16. Section 110(a)(2)(L)
Section 110(a)(2)(L) ofthe CAA requires SIPs to require the owner or operator ofeach major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition ofany permit by the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover: (i) The reasonable costs ofreviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit; and (ii) ifthe owner or operator receives a permitfor such source, the reasonable costs ofimplementing and enforcing the terms and conditions ofany suchpermit, until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by EPA's approval ofa fee program under title V ofthe CAA.
EPA finds Virginia's submission adequately addresses this requirement by explaining that these requirements are located in article 2, PermitProgram Fees for Stationary Sources (9 VAC 5-80-310 et seq.) of9 VAC 5-80 (Permits for Stationary Sources). These regulations are part ofVirginia's federally approved title V program and are codified in appendix A of40 CFR

15part 70, Approval Status ofState and Local Operating Permits Programs. Virginia's title V program fees are used to fund programs such as the permitting ofnew and existing sources ofair pollution, compliance and enforcement ofsources ofair pollution including program development and PM2.s plan implementation as discussed above in section 110(a)(2)(E). These fees coverthe reasonable costs ofreviewing and acting uponpermits and implementing and enforcing the permit conditions. Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS meets the requirements ofsection 11O(a)(2)(L) ofthe CAA.

17. Section 110(a)(2)(M)
Section 110(a)(2)(M) ofthe CAArequires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected bythe SIP. According to Virginia's infrastructure SIP submission, all ofVirginia's SIP revisions undergo public participation following 40 CFR 51.102 and provide for comment bythe public including local political subdivisions. Additionally, the Code ofVirginiaunder section 10.1- 1307Arequires advising, consulting, and cooperating with all agencies ofthe Commonwealth, political subdivisions, private industries, and any other affected groups when developing programs to improve or maintain air quality. Further, all regulations in Virginia are subject to the Administrative Process Act (Code ofVirginia, title 2.2, Administration ofGovernment, chapter 40). Regulations promulgated by the State Air Pollution Control Board are also governed by 9 VAC 5 chapter 5, Public Participation Guidelines. Therefore, EPA finds Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.sNAAQS meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) ofthe CAA.

F. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION
EPA's analysis ofVirginia's infrastructure submittal for the 2012 PM2

.sNAAQS concludes that Virginia's submittal meets the requirements ofsections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (for PSD), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) ofthe CAA. Itis recommended that a notice ofproposed rulemaking beprepared approving Virginia's infrastructure submittal for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS for the elements listed above and discussed herein. As discussed above in detail, EPA will take later, separate action onthe following infrastructure SIP submission elements for the 2012 PM2.s NAAQS for Virginia: Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport), and (D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) ofthe CAA.

16