[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22789-22792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9603]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA024-5042; FRL-6318-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Sources of 
Nitrogen Oxides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision establishes 
and requires the implementation of reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) on major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
in the Virginia portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. serious 
ozone nonattainment area. The intended effect of this action is to 
grant conditional limited approval of Virginia's regulations to impose 
RACT on major sources of NOX.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on May 28, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristeen Gaffney, (215) 814-2092. Or 
by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3891), EPA 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. The NPR proposed conditional limited approval of Virginia's 
NOX RACT regulations for the Virginia portion of the 
Metropolitan Washington D.C. serious ozone nonattainment area. No 
comments were received on the proposal.

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act requires states to submit rules to implement RACT 
on major sources of NOX in ozone nonattainment areas 
designated as moderate or above and throughout the Ozone Transport 
Region. The definition of major source is determined by the 
classification of the nonattainment area and whether or not it is 
located in the Ozone Transport Region. A portion of Virginia is part of 
the Metropolitan Washington D.C. serious ozone nonattainment area and 
that same portion of Virginia is in the Ozone Transport Region. 
Therefore, sources in the Virginia portion of the Washington D.C. 
nonattainment area which emit or have the potential to emit 50 tons or 
more of NOX per year are considered major and are subject to 
the NOX RACT requirements of the Act.
    On November 9, 1992, the Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to its SIP consisting of adopted 
regulations to impose NOX RACT on major sources in the 
nonattainment area, known in state regulations as the Northern Virginia 
Emissions Control Area. The VADEQ supplemented its November 1992 
submittal on December 11, 1992. On August 11, 1998, the VADEQ made 
another submittal to EPA withdrawing certain provisions of the November 
9, 1992 submittal, and forwarding revisions that corrected 
typographical errors and recodified and renumbered one of the relevant 
regulations, Appendix T (now 9 VAC 5-40-311).
    The November 9, 1992 submittal consisted of revisions to Virginia 
Regulation 120-01, Part IV, Emission Standards for General Process 
Operations (Rule 4-4) and Appendix T, entitled ``Reasonably Available 
Control Technology Guidelines for Stationary Sources of Nitrogen 
Oxides''. Rule 4-4 was amended to insert a new section, 120-04-0408, 
entitled ``Standard for nitrogen oxides''. To accommodate the insertion 
of section 120-04-0408, the revision also renumbered the previously 
existing sections 120-04-0408 through 120-04-0418, inclusive, as 
sections 120-04-0409 through 120-04-0419, inclusive. On April 11, 1998, 
the VADEQ submitted a revised version of Appendix T to correct a 
technical error in the Virginia Register version of the final rule 
dated November 30, 1992. This error was corrected by Virginia in the 
Virginia Register on June 23, 1997. On April 11, 1998, the Commonwealth 
submitted the corrected version of Appendix T. In addition to the 
typographical correction, the Commonwealth also recodified Appendix T 
and renumbered it as 9 VAC 5-40-311.
    Virginia's rule 120-04-0408 requires certain sources to comply with 
the applicable emission limits established in Appendix T (now known as 
9 VAC 5-40-311); or to apply for an alternative emission limit through 
a source-specific RACT determination process. The emission limits of 
section C of 9 VAC 5-40-311 do not cover all categories of 
NOX sources. Section C specifically enacts emission limits 
for boilers/steam generating units, process heaters and gas turbines. 
Other source categories, such as incinerators, reciprocating internal 
combustion engines, cement manufacturing and iron/steel manufacturing 
are not covered in 9 VAC 5-40-311. Therefore, not all potential major 
NOX sources are subject to specific, presumptive ``up-
front'' (i.e. immediately ascertainable) emission limits. Instead, the 
regulations establish a process for the Commonwealth to review and 
approve individual RACT emission limitations proposed by the sources, 
which are then to be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions. Additionally, 
subsection 120-04-0408(B) of Virginia's rule allows sources subject to 
the presumptive limits in Appendix T (now known as 9 VAC 5-40-311) to 
propose alternative RACT on a case-by-case basis provided they submit 
the proposal by January 1, 1994. The proposal must include technical 
and economic support documentation for the proposed RACT and include a 
schedule for compliance as expeditiously as practical but no later than 
May 31, 1995.
    The Clean Air Act requires states to implement RACT on all major 
stationary sources. Process-oriented generic regulations, such as those 
submitted by Virginia, which do not include specific and ascertainable 
emission limits for all major sources, do not by themselves provide 
standards for EPA to approve or disapprove as satisfying the definition 
of RACT. Therefore, the Act's RACT requirements are satisfied only 
after the specific limits imposed by the Commonwealth on its major 
sources have been submitted to EPA as SIP revisions and approved by EPA 
as RACT for the subject sources.
    In a November 7, 1996 policy memo from Sally Shaver, Director, Air 
Quality Strategies and Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, EPA issued guidance for approving state generic 
RACT regulations, like Virginia's, provided certain criteria are met. 
This guidance does not exempt any major source from RACT requirements 
but instead

[[Page 22790]]

provides for a de minimis deferral of RACT only for the purposes of 
approving the state's generic RACT regulation. The de minimis deferral 
level is determined by using the 1990 NOX emissions, 
excluding the utility boiler NOX emissions. The remaining 
1990 non-utility boiler emissions are then compared with the amount of 
non-utility NOX emissions that have yet to have RACT 
approved into the SIP. Generally, EPA expects that all utility boiler 
RACTs will be approved prior to application of this de minimis deferral 
policy and possible conversion of the generic RACT conditional approval 
to full approval. EPA does not expect to defer more than 5 percent of 
the emissions calculated in this manner in order to fully approve 
Virginia's generic NOX RACT regulation. In accordance with 
the November 1996 policy, EPA is requiring that all utility boiler RACT 
determinations be approved by EPA and all but a de minimis level of 
non-utility boiler RACT determinations be approved into the SIP before 
the limited approval can be converted to full approval. Full approval 
of a generic RACT regulation under this policy does not change the 
Commonwealth's statutory obligation to implement RACT for all major 
sources. No major NOX source is being exempted from RACT 
requirements through this policy or today's rulemaking.
    Because EPA has not received SIP revisions from the Commonwealth 
for all source-specific RACT determinations, EPA can at best, according 
to the November 7, 1996 policy memorandum, grant conditional limited 
approval of Virginia's NOX RACT generic rule. In a letter to 
EPA dated April 11, 1998, the VADEQ committed to submit, as SIP 
revisions, RACT determinations for all sources either not subject to 
the presumptive emission limits in Appendix T or electing alternative 
source-specific RACT requirements. The VADEQ committed to submit these 
RACT determinations within 12 months of EPA's final conditional limited 
approval of its generic rule.
    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, 1997, 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, 
1997 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 Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act is likewise 
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

II. Terms of and Rationale for Conditional Limited Approval

    EPA is conditionally approving Virginia's NOX RACT 
regulations based upon VADEQ's April 11, 1998 commitment to submit, as 
SIP revisions, RACT determinations for all currently known major 
sources subject to source-specific NOX RACT requirements. In 
accordance with section 110(k)(4) the Act (and consistent with the 
VADEQ's commitment letter of April 11, 1998), these RACT determinations 
must be submitted by May 30, 2000.
    EPA is also granting limited approval of Virginia's NOX 
RACT regulations, rule 120-08-0408, and the provisions of 9 VAC 5-40-
311 (formerly Appendix T) as submitted by the VADEQ. The current 
Virginia SIP does not contain a general requirement that all major 
sources of NOX in the nonattainment area must implement 
RACT. While EPA does not believe that the Virginia NOX RACT 
regulations fully satisfy the requirements of the Act because of the 
generic provisions allowing for source-specific determinations, EPA is 
limitedly approving portions of Virginia's NOX RACT 
regulations on the basis that they strengthen the SIP. The purpose of 
the limited approval of the requirement to implement RACT and the 
presumptive emission limits on certain categories of sources is because 
they strengthen the Virginia SIP by adding RACT standards for sources 
of NOX in the Virginia portion of the Metropolitan 
Washington D.C. ozone nonattainment area where none existed before.
    Other specific requirements of Virginia's NOX RACT 
requirements and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and will not be restated here. No public 
comments were

[[Page 22791]]

received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

III. Final Action

    EPA is granting conditional limited approval of the Commonwealth's 
November 9, 1992 NOX RACT SIP submittal, as modified on 
December 11, 1992 and April 11, 1998. EPA's conditional approval is 
based upon the April 11, 1998 commitment made by VADEQ to submit, 
within 12 months of EPA's final rulemaking of this NOX RACT 
SIP, source-specific RACT determinations for all currently known major 
sources subject to source-specific NOX RACT requirements. 
EPA is also granting limited approval because adding RACT standards for 
major sources of NOX in the Northern Virginia Emissions 
Control Area where none existed before strengthens the SIP.
    To fulfill the conditions of this approval, the Commonwealth must, 
by May 30, 2000: (1) Certify that it has submitted, as SIP revisions, 
RACT proposals for all sources subject to source-specific 
NOX RACT requirements; or (2) demonstrate that the emissions 
from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of 
emissions (as described above). Once EPA has determined that the 
Commonwealth has satisfied this condition, EPA shall remove the 
conditional nature of its approval and the Virginia NOX RACT 
regulations will, at that time, retain limited approval status. Should 
the Commonwealth fail to meet the conditions specified above, the final 
conditional limited approval of the NOX RACT regulations SIP 
revision shall convert to a disapproval.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from review under E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. requires EPA to 
provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the 
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, 
copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is ``economically 
significant,'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) the environmental 
health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866, 
and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that 
would have a disproportionate effect on children.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and 
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies 
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' 
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities 
of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose 
any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals and 
conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new 
requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on 
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a 
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. 
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect 
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal 
does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, I certify that 
this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove 
existing requirements nor does it substitute a new federal requirement.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

[[Page 22792]]

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action to conditionally limitedly approve 
Virginia's NOX RACT regulations must be filed in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 28, 1999. 
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this 
final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: March 24, 1999.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

    2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(131) and 
(c)(132) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (131) Limited approval of revisions to the Virginia State 
Implementation Plan submitted on November 9, 1992 by the Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letters of November 9, 1992 and December 11, 1992 from the 
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality transmitting Virginia rule 
120-04-0408 to implement major source NOX RACT requirements 
in the Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area.
    (B) Virginia regulation 120-04-0408, ``Standard for Nitrogen 
Oxides'', pertaining to major source NOX RACT requirements, 
effective on January 1, 1993.
    (C) Renumbering of previously SIP approved sections in rule 120-04: 
-0408 and -0409 to 120-04-0409 and -0410, respectively and previously 
SIP approved sections -0412 through -0418 to -0413 through -0419, 
respectively, effective January 1, 1993.
    (ii) Additional Material--Remainder of November 9, 1992 submittal 
and supplemental information submitted by the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality on December 11, 1992 and August 11, 1998 
pertaining to 120-04-0408.
    (132) Limited approval of revisions to the Virginia State 
Implementation Plan submitted on November 9, 1992 and August 11, 1998 
by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letters of November 9, 1992, December 11, 1992 and August 11, 
1998 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality transmitting 
Virginia regulation 9 VAC 5-40-311 (formerly Appendix T) establishing 
RACT requirements on major sources in the Northern Virginia Emissions 
Control Area.
    (B) Addition of Virginia regulation 9 VAC 5-40-311, sections A, B, 
C.1, C.2, C.3.b, and C.3.d-g and Errata pages, establishing RACT 
requirements for major sources of NOX in the Northern 
Virginia Emissions Control Area, effective on July 1, 1997.
    (ii) Additional Material--Remainder of November 9, 1992 submittal 
and supplemental information submitted by the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality on December 11, 1992 and August 11, 1998 
pertaining to VAC 5-40-311.
    3. Section 52.2450 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.2450  Conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (f) Revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan, pertaining 
to NOX RACT requirements on major sources in the Northern 
Virginia Emissions Control Area, Virginia regulations 120-04-0408 and 9 
VAC 5-40-311, submitted on November 9, 1992, December 11, 1992, and 
August 11, 1998 by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality are 
conditionally approved. Virginia must meet the following conditions by 
no later than May 30, 2000, in accordance with criteria defined in the 
EPA Memorandum dated November 7, 1996 from the Director of the Air 
Quality Strategies and Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, entitled ``Approval Options for Generic RACT 
Rules Submitted to Meet the Non-CTG VOC RACT Requirement and Certain 
NOX RACT Requirements.'' This memorandum is available at the 
office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. These conditions are:
    (1) The VADEQ must certify, in writing, that it has submitted, as 
SIP revisions, RACT determinations for all sources subject to source-
specific NOX RACT requirements; or
    (2) The VADEQ must demonstrate that the emissions from any 
remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions.

[FR Doc. 99-9603 Filed 4-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P