Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0596-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Virginia; Revised Reasonably Available Control Technology Permit for Roanoke Electric Steel/Steel Dynamics, Inc.
Posted Date: 2021-06-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30545-30548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11923]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0596; FRL-10024-43-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Revised RACT Permit for Roanoke 
Electric Steel/Steel Dynamics, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state 
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. The revision consists of amendments to a federally 
enforceable state operating permit (FESOP) which was previously 
incorporated into the Virginia SIP in order to implement reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) for nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
emissions from Steel Dynamics, Inc. (hereafter ``SDI,'' formerly 
Roanoke Electric Steel). This action is being taken under the Clean Air 
Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0596. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 through 
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in 
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Planning & 
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at 
talley.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 8, 2021 (86 FR 13254), EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA 
proposed approval of Virginia's submittal. The formal SIP revision was 
submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 
on behalf of the Commonwealth on April 14, 2020.
    Prior to the establishment of nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), EPA 
developed a program to allow these potential nonattainment areas to 
voluntarily adopt local emission control programs to avoid air quality 
violations and mandated nonattainment area controls. Areas with air 
quality meeting the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS were eligible to 
participate. In order to participate, state

[[Page 30546]]

and local governments and EPA developed and signed a memorandum of 
agreement that describes the local control measures the state or local 
community intends to adopt and implement to reduce ozone emissions in 
advance of air quality violations. In this agreement, also known as an 
Early Action Compact (EAC), the state or local communities agree to 
prepare emission inventories and conduct air quality modeling and 
monitoring to support its selection of emission controls. Areas that 
participated in the EAC program had the flexibility to institute their 
own approach in maintaining clean air and protecting public health. 
Several localities in the Winchester and Roanoke areas elected to 
participate in the EAC program. The areas that signed an EAC were the 
City of Winchester and Frederick County, which comprised the Northern 
Shenandoah Valley EAC; and the cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the 
counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, which comprised the Roanoke EAC. 
VADEQ's approach to implementing the EAC was that RACT be applied to 
sources of NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) within 
those localities that were otherwise not subject to RACT. The Roanoke 
Electric Steel Corporation, currently SDI, was one such source. On 
April 27, 2005, EPA approved a SIP revision for the Commonwealth of 
Virginia which incorporated provisions from a federally enforceable 
state operating permit into the Virginia SIP in order to apply RACT to 
several units at SDI (Virginia permit registration No. 20131, issued 
December 22, 2004; hereafter, ``2004 Permit''). See 70 FR 21621.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Virginia's April 14, 2020 submittal includes a revised operating 
permit for SDI which amends the 2004 permit to account for changes in 
operation at the facility, including the shut-down of a number of 
units. Since the issuance of the 2004 permit (and EPA's subsequent SIP 
approval), operations at the facility have changed, requiring a 
revision of both the operating permit and the operating permit 
provisions incorporated into the SIP. The only remaining units at the 
facility that are subject to the source specific NOX RACT 
limits of the 2004 permit are Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) #5 and the 
Ladle Metallurgical Station (LMS) #5. The other units have been 
removed, replaced with equipment that was not subject to RACT, or never 
constructed. The RACT limits for those remaining units have not 
changed, and there are no emissions increases associated with either 
the revised permit, or Virginia's proposed SIP revision. The permit, 
and ultimately the SIP, are simply being revised to account for the 
removal of provisions related to emissions units that no longer exist. 
Other specific requirements of and the rationale for EPA's proposed 
action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received one comment in response to the proposed rulemaking. 
The comment was supportive of EPA's proposed action and will not be 
addressed here but is provided in the docket for this rulemaking. No 
adverse comments were received.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving VADEQ's April 14, 2020 submittal as a revision to 
the Virginia SIP.

V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the 
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden 
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information about the content of those documents that are the product 
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not 
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed 
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or 
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege law, Va. Code 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 Sec.  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.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation

[[Page 30547]]

by reference of the unredacted portions of Virginia stationary source 
permit to operate, registration number 20132, issued to Roanoke 
Electric Steel (D/B/A Steel Dynamics, Inc.) on December 22, 2004, and 
revised on March 25, 2020. EPA has made, and will continue to make, 
these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov 
and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified 
in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for 
more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA 
for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA 
into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 
113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of 
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next 
update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. 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 Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as 
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian 
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).

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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency 
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect 
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

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 August 9, 2021. 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 source specific NOX limits 
at SDI 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 28, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing 
the entry ``Roanoke Electric Steel Corp'' and adding the entry 
``Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation D/B/A Steel Dynamics, Inc.--
Roanoke Bar Division'' in its place to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

[[Page 30548]]

                                   EPA--Approved Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Permit/order
                                             or             State                                 40 CFR part 52
             Source name                registration   effective date      EPA approval date         citation
                                             No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation D/           20131         3/25/20  6/9/21, [Insert Federal     52.2420(d)(7)
 B/A Steel Dynamics, Inc.--Roanoke                                      Register citation].
 Bar Division.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-11923 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P