AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision formally submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard), the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. Virginia has formally submitted a SIP revision addressing the following infrastructure elements, or portions thereof, of section 110(a) of the CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA.

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before January 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0162 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/​dockets/​commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sara Calcinore, 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) 814-2043. Ms. Calcinore can also be reached via electronic mail at calcinore.sara@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Under the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for criteria pollutants to protect human health and the environment. In response to scientific evidence linking ozone exposure to adverse health effects, EPA promulgated the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 parts per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS, in 1979. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). The CAA requires EPA to review and reevaluate the NAAQS every five years in order to consider updated information regarding the effects of the criteria pollutants on human health and the environment. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 1997 ozone NAAQS, of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 62 FR 38855. This 8-hour ozone NAAQS was determined to be more protective of public health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm, referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). On October 26, 2015, EPA issued a final rule strengthening both the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS for ground-level ozone to 0.070 ppm, based on the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration per year, averaged over three years. 80 FR 65291.

Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP.” These submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and through regional actions on infrastructure submissions.^[1] Unless otherwise noted below, EPA is following that existing approach in acting on Virginia's submission. In addition, in the context of acting on such infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state's SIP for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, not for the state's implementation of its SIP.^[2] EPA has other authority to address any issues concerning a state's implementation of the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

On January 28, 2019, the Commonwealth of Virginia formally submitted, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), a SIP revision to satisfy the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (referred to as “Virginia's submittal”). Virginia's submittal addresses the following infrastructure elements, or portions thereof, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

Virginia's January 28, 2019 submittal does not address the following elements of CAA section 110(a)(2): The portion of element (C) referring to permit programs known as nonattainment new source review (NNSR); sub-element (D)(i)(I) related to interstate transport; and element (I), which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. According to EPA's 2013 Infrastructure Guidance, both element (I) and the portion of element (C) related to NNSR pertain to part D of title I of the CAA, which addresses SIP requirements and submission deadlines for areas designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. Both elements pertain to SIP revisions that are collectively referred to as nonattainment SIPs or attainment plans. Such SIP revisions are required if an area is designated nonattainment and, if required, would be due to EPA by the dates statutorily prescribed in CAA part D, subparts 2 through 5. Because the CAA directs states to submit these plan elements on a separate schedule, EPA does not believe it is necessary for states to include these elements in the infrastructure SIP submission due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Virginia's submittal also did not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to interstate transport for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is not proposing any action related to Virginia's obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA will take separate action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS once Virginia submits a SIP revision addressing this sub-element.

Based upon EPA's review of Virginia's January 28, 2019 SIP revision, EPA is proposing to determine that Virginia's submittal satisfies the infrastructure elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving Virginia's submittal may be found in the technical support document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action included in the docket for this rulemaking action available at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0162.

III. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to find that Virginia's January 28, 2019 submittal satisfies the following infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As discussed previously, Virginia's submittal did not address the following infrastructure elements: The portion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) related to NNSR; CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to interstate transport; and CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) pertaining to the nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is not taking action on these elements. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

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 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.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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 proposed 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• 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 proposed for approval 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 proposing to approve Virginia's submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

• Environmental protection
• Air pollution control
• Incorporation by reference
• Intergovernmental relations
• Nitrogen dioxide
• Ozone
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Volatile organic compounds

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

Footnotes