Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1068-0006
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-02-26T05:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1068; FRL-        ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the White Top
Mountain, Smyth County, Virginia 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision
pertains to a 10-year maintenance plan for the White Top Mountain 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area located in Smyth County, Virginia.  This action
is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].  

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1068 by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

      B.    E-mail:    HYPERLINK "mailto:fernandez.cristina@epa.gov" 
fernandez.cristina@epa.gov .

      C.    Mail:   EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1068, Cristina Fernandez, Chief,
Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.

     D.   Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III
address.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket(s normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1068.  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
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK "mailto:shandruk.irene@epa.gov" 
shandruk.irene@epa.gov .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On August 6, 2007, the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to its (SIP) for
approval of the section 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
White Top Mountain, Smyth County, Virginia.  

I.    Background 

Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires that areas
that were either nonattainment or attainment/unclassifiable with an
approved 175A maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS), and attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.  These plans were due to EPA on June 15, 2007, three years
after the effective date of the initial 8-hour ozone designations.

On May 20, 2005, EPA issued the Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for
Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act. 
The purpose of the guidance is to assist the states in the development
of a SIP which addresses the maintenance requirements found in section
110(a)(1) of the CAA.  There are five components of the section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan which are: (1) An attainment inventory, which
is based on actual typical summer day emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for a ten-year period from
a base year as chosen by the state; (2) a maintenance demonstration
which shows how the area will remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone
standard for 10 years after the effective date of designations (June 15,
2004); (3) a commitment to continue to operate air quality monitors; (4)
a contingency plan that will ensure that a violation of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is promptly addressed; and (5) an explanation of how the State
will track the progress of the maintenance plan.

II.   Summary of SIP Revision

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan addresses the components of the section 110(a)(1)
8-hour ozone maintenance plan as outlined in EPA’s May 20, 2005
guidance.  Virginia has requested approval of a revision consisting of a
10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) for the White Top
Mountain 1-hour ozone nonattainment area located in Smyth County,
Virginia.  

VADEQ addressed the section 110(a)(1) guidance components as follows:

Emissions Inventory:  VADEQ provided an explanation describing that
White Top Mountain has no anthropogenic emissions, and since the
guidance document states that projecting emissions and demonstrating
maintenance for 10 years is not required for areas where there are
essentially no anthropogenic emissions, emissions projections are not
necessary, and thereby, not included in this maintenance plan.

Maintenance Demonstration and Tracking Progress:  The demonstration
should show how the area will remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone
standard for 10 years following the base year following the effective
date of designation (June 15, 2004).  This is usually accomplished by a
demonstration that the area will have emissions that are equal to or
below the emissions inventories of VOC and NOx for this 10 year period. 
Since White Top Mountain has no anthropogenic emissions, and since the
guidance indicates that a maintenance demonstration is not necessary for
areas with essentially no anthropogenic emissions, a maintenance
demonstration has not been included in this maintenance plan.

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring:  The state should continue to operate
air quality monitors in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard.  Virginia, however, has never
operated monitors on White Top Mountain.  All of the monitors at this
site were part of studies either managed by the Tennessee Valley
Authority or EPA’s Office of Research and Development, but these
monitoring studies have ceased since 1999.  Virginia does not have any
monitors in place to operate nor does the Commonwealth plan on
establishing a monitoring site.  This is so for reasons which include
the following: (1) there are no anthropogenic emissions at this site,
(2) the very remote location of this nonattainment area, and (3)
establishing a monitoring site would be cost-prohibitive.

Contingency Measures:  The guidance indicates that most areas must
develop a contingency plan that will ensure any violation of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is promptly corrected.  The guidance also states that for
areas that have essentially no anthropogenic emissions, having a
maintenance plan with contingency measures would be an “absurd”
outcome.  Therefore, contingency measures are not necessary, and
thereby, not included in this maintenance plan.

Verification of Continued Attainment:  Since emissions projections
depend on assumptions of point, area, and mobile sources emissions, the
guidance indicates that the state should indicate how it will track the
progress of the maintenance plan.  However, since the guidance
specifically notes that emissions inventories and contingency measures
are not necessary for areas where there are essentially no anthropogenic
emissions, verification of these requirements is also not necessary, and
therefore, not included in the maintenance plan.

The VADEQ is requesting approval of their SIP revision which consists of
a 10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) for the White Top
Mountain 1-hour ozone nonattainment area located in Smyth County,
Virginia.

  

III.  General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virgina 

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 (1) that are generated or developed before the
commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are
prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) that 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 program
consistent with the Federal requirements.  In any event, because EPA has
also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect
only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA,
including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce
the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any
state enforcement effort.  In addition, citizen enforcement under
section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
audit privilege or immunity law.

III.   Proposed Action

EPA's review of this material indicates that Virginia has addressed the
components of a maintenance plan pursuant to EPA’s May 20, 2005
guidance.  EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia SIP revision for
White Top Mountain, Smyth County, Virginia, which was submitted on
August 6, 2007.  EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document.  These comments will be considered before
taking final action. 

IV.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews   

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore
is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For
this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
"Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use"  (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).  This action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  
Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).  This proposed
rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a
Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.  This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.  In this context, in
the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use
voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove
a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be inconsistent
with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use
VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions
of the CAA.  Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply.  As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken
the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct.  EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March
15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in
accordance with the (Attorney General(s Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings( issued under
the executive order.  

This action proposing approval of Virginia’s SIP revision request
consisting of a 10-year maintenance plan under §110(a)(1) for the White
Top Mountain 1-hour ozone nonattainment area located in Smyth County,
Virginia does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52  

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 



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

February 12, 2008						/s/

___________________________          		 ____________________________

Dated:                                                      		Donald S.
Welsh,

                                                                 	
Regional Administrator,

                                                                 	
Region III.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2 

 PAGE  11