[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51047-51051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24454]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA 022-5040; FRL-6436-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; New Source Review in Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting limited approval of a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia to revise 
its new source review (NSR) regulations for nonattainment areas to 
bring them into conformance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments 
adopted in 1990, and to make other changes desired by the Commonwealth. 
Virginia's NSR regulations for nonattainment areas require persons to 
meet certain requirements before constructing a new major source or 
major modification in a nonattainment area. The intended effect of this 
action is to grant limited approval of Virginia's NSR regulation as a 
SIP revision under the CAA.


[[Page 51048]]


EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on Ocotber 21, 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; and Virginia Department 
of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Weiss, Environmental Engineer, 
(215) 814-2198 or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13811), EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed 
limited approval of revisions to Virginia's NSR regulations (Section 
120-08-03). No comments were received on the NPR.

B. Summary of the SIP Revision

    Virginia submitted the formal SIP revision on November 9, 1992. The 
significant changes to Section 120-08-03 are summarized below:
    Section 120-08-03 A--Applicability (amended)--Virginia has modified 
this subsection by including a provision to deter a company from 
constructing or modifying a facility in increments to avoid permit 
requirements.
    Section 120-08-03 B--Definitions (amended)--Virginia has modified 
many of the definitions found in this subsection. Key changes were made 
to the following terms: ``Allowable Emissions'', ``Building, structure 
facility or installation'', ``Federally enforceable'', ``Major 
Modification'', ``Major Stationary Source'', ``Net emissions 
increase'', ``Nonattainment pollutant'', ``Potential to Emit'', 
``Reconstruction'', and ``Significant''.
    Section 120-08-03 C--General (amended)--Virginia modified the 
general subsection by adding a provision stating that it may combine in 
one permit the requirements for emissions units subject to more than 
one of Virginia's regulatory requirements applicable to permitting, and 
that Virginia may also require a combined application for such 
emissions units. The permitting requirements for which such combined 
permits and applications may be required include those of Virginia's 
NSR regulation for sources locating in nonattainment areas and those of 
two other Virginia regulations, entitled, ``Permits--New and Modified 
Sources,'' and ``Permits--Major Stationary Sources and Major 
Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Areas.''
    Section 120-08-03 D--Applications (amended)--Virginia modified the 
applications subsection by revising its specification of the scope of 
permit applications. Virginia also added provisions defining who must 
sign permit applications and requiring the signer to certify that ``the 
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, 
accurate, and complete.''
    Section 120-08-03 F--Standards/Conditions for Granting Permits 
(amended)--Virginia made several changes in the standards and 
conditions subsection, which establishes the requirements which must be 
met before a permit can be issued.
    Section 120-08-03 G--Action on Permit application (amended)--
Virginia amended this subsection to specify that Virginia must notify 
applicants in writing of deficiencies in their permit applications. 
Virginia also deleted certain public participation provisions from this 
section which it now includes in a separate section of the regulation; 
and revised its description of permit processing steps by including in 
the description a reference to public participation requirements found 
elsewhere in the regulation.
    Section 120-08-03 H--Public Participation (added)--Virginia added a 
new subsection detailing public participation requirements. This 
subsection requires the applicant to provide the public with notice of 
its application for a permit and then, within 30 to 60 days, to provide 
a public briefing. In addition, the subsection provides that Virginia 
must provide a public comment period of at least 30 days, and hold a 
public hearing, before it makes a decision on a permit application.
    Section 120-08-03 I--Compliance Determination verification by 
Performance Testing (amended, formerly designated as Section 120-08-03 
H, this section replaces the original Section 120-08-03 I, which was 
deleted)--Virginia modified this subsection by specifying that source 
owners are responsible for conducting tests if any such tests are 
required.
    Section 120-08-03 J--Application Review and Analysis (formerly 
designated as Section 120-08-03 K, this section replaces the original 
Section 120-08-03 J, which was deleted)--Virginia made no changes to 
this subsection.
    Section 120-08-03 K--Circumvention (formerly designated as Section 
120-08-03 L)--Virginia made no changes to this subsection.
    Section 120-08-03 L--Interstate Pollution Abatement (formerly 
designated as Section 120-08-03 M)--Virginia made no changes to this 
subsection.
    Section 120-08-03 M--Offsets (amended, formerly designated as 
Section 120-08-03 N)--Virginia allows the crediting of emission 
reductions resulting from shutting down an existing source or 
curtailing production or operating hours below baseline levels if the 
shutdown or curtailment is in effect, if it occurred on or after 
January 1, 1991, and if it is permanent, quantifiable, and federally 
and state enforceable. Virginia requires that the increased emissions 
of the air pollutant(s) from the new or modified source must be offset 
by an equal or greater reduction in the actual emissions of such air 
pollutant(s) from the same or other sources. Virginia allows reductions 
to be credited only if they are not otherwise required by its 
regulations. Virginia does allow incidental emission reductions to be 
credited, provided they are not required by regulation and meet certain 
other requirements. In this section Virginia also includes a special 
provision allowing increases in emissions from rocket engine and motor 
firing to be offset by alternative or innovative means.
    Section 120-08-03 N--De minimis increases and stationary source 
modification alternatives for ozone nonattainment areas classified as 
serious or severe (added)--Virginia specifies in this new subsection 
that VOC emissions increases resulting from modifications at sources in 
serious or severe ozone nonattainment areas cannot be considered de 
minimis unless the increase in net emissions does not exceed 25 TPY 
when aggregated with all other net increases in emissions from the 
source over any period of 5 consecutive calendar years which includes 
the calendar year in which such increase occurred.
    Section 120-08-03 Q--Reactivation and Permanent shutdown (added) 
Virginia specifies in this new subsection that a source which is 
reopened after having been determined to be shutdown must obtain a 
permit. Virginia also sets forth criteria by which sources are formally 
determined to be shutdown.
    Section 120-08-03 R--Transfer of Permits (added)--Virginia 
establishes in

[[Page 51049]]

this new subsection provisions pertaining to transfer of permits.
    Section 120-08-03 S--Permit Invalidation, Revocation, and 
Enforcement (added)--Virginia sets forth in this new subsection the 
conditions under which owners of sources subject to permitting 
requirements may be subject to enforcement action and when permits may 
be invalidated or revoked.
    Section 120-08-03 T--Existence of Permit No Defense (added)--
Virginia specifies in this new subsection that the existence of a 
permit under this section shall not constitute a defense to a violation 
of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Law or these regulations and 
shall not relieve any owner of the responsibility to comply with any 
applicable regulations, laws, ordinances and orders of the governmental 
entities having jurisdiction.

C. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision

    EPA has determined that the amendments to Virginia's NSR 
regulations are consistent with the CAA and currently promulgated 
federal NSR regulations with one exception. Virginia's NSR regulation 
allows persons who intend to build or modify a major source in a 
nonattainment area to take credit for emission reductions obtained from 
shutdowns or curtailments of production or operating hours which took 
place prior to the source's application for a new source review permit 
(prior to shutdown or curtailment credits) even if EPA has not yet 
approved an attainment plan for the nonattainment area. The shutdown 
may not predate the design year of the required attainment plan. 
Although EPA's existing regulations do not allow for this, EPA proposed 
revisions to its NSR and PSD regulations on July 23, 1996, which 
proposes an option which is consistent with Virginia's revised 
regulation. Based on this fact, as well as the fact that the revisions 
strengthen Virginia's SIP, EPA is granting limited approval of these 
regulatory revisions. EPA has provided a more detailed analysis on this 
issue in the March 23, 1998 NPR referenced above.
    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 
NSR 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.
    Other specific requirements of Virginia's revisions and the 
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will 
not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is granting limited approval of amendments to 120-08-03. 
``Permits--major stationary sources and major modifications locating in 
nonattainment areas' submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia on 
November 9, 1992.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 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

[[Page 51050]]

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 under 
sections 110 and 301, 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).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``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 CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action granting limited approval of Virginia's NSR regulations 
must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate 
circuit by November 22, 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 3, 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.

[[Page 51051]]

Subpart VV--Virginia

    2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(129) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (129 ) Revisions to the Virginia Regulations pertaining to permit 
requirements for new and modified stationary sources locating in 
nonattainment areas mandated under Title I, Sections 171-173 and 182 of 
the Clean Air Act submitted on November 9, 1992, by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of November 9, 1992, from the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
Department of Air Pollution Control transmitting revisions to the 
Virginia Regulations pertaining to permit requirements for new and 
modified stationary sources locating in nonattainment areas.
    (B) Commonwealth of Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board 
Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution, Permits for 
Stationary Sources, Section 120-08-03. ``Permits--Major Stationary 
Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Nonattainment Areas''. 
(Effective January 1, 1993).

    (ii) Additional materials--The remainder of the November 2, 1992 
submittal pertaining to Regulation 120-08-03.

[FR Doc. 99-24454 Filed 9-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P