This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 08/11/2014 at 08:45 am.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision removes from the Virginia SIP references to two operating permits and a consent agreement for GenOn Potomac River, LLC's Potomac River Generating Station (Potomac River), which was formerly owned by Potomac Electric Power Company. Potomac River has permanently shut down; therefore, the permits and consent agreement are no longer applicable and are being removed from the Virginia SIP. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on October 14, 2014 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 11, 2014. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0511 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
B. Email: email@example.com.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0511, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, 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-2014-0511. 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 email. The www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 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 Start Printed Page 47005the 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.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
In 1979, EPA promulgated the 1-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm) ground-level ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). See 44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). The Northern Virginia portion, consisting of the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park in Virginia was originally classified as part of the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA serious nonattainment area (the Washington Area). See 40 CFR 81.347. On January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3411), EPA determined that the Washington Area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1999, as required by section 181(a) of the CAA, and the Washington Area was reclassified to a severe ozone nonattainment area pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA.
As a result of the Washington Area's classification, each state, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, was required to submit a SIP demonstrating how attainment of the NAAQS would be met. In order to demonstrate attainment, the Commonwealth of Virginia implemented state-specific controls with the goal of limiting emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the area's electric utility plants to 0.15 pounds per million British Thermal Units (BTUs) of heat (fuel) input to the boilers. As a coal-fired electric generating facility that emitted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX, Potomac River, located in Alexandria, Virginia, was identified as a source subject to control, and a state operating permit was created as a vehicle for implementing the control measure. EPA approved this permit into the SIP on December 14, 2000 (65 FR 78100).
Potomac River was also identified as a source subject to reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements. EPA defines RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” See 44 FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979). In order to ensure compliance with the RACT requirements for the control of VOCs, a state operating permit was issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) for Potomac River and approved by EPA into the SIP on January 2, 2001 (66 FR 8). In order to ensure compliance with the RACT requirements for the control of NOX, a consent agreement was entered between Virginia and the owner of Potomac River and approved by EPA into the SIP on January 2, 2001 (66 FR 8).
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On May 10, 2013, VADEQ submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of a request by the Commonwealth to remove from the Virginia SIP the two operating permits and consent agreement discussed above for Potomac River. On December 21, 2012, GenOn Potomac River, LLC and VADEQ signed a mutual determination of permanent shutdown of the Alexandria, Virginia facility. The SIP submission includes a copy of the signed determination which: (1) Mutually agrees that the source is permanently shutdown, (2) establishes that all permits for the source in accordance with 9VAC5-20-220 are revoked, (3) removes the source from the air emissions inventory, and (4) establishes that any future operations must be in accordance with Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program pursuant to 9VAC5 Chapter 80. If Potomac River should resume operation in the future, VADEQ may be required at that time to revise its SIP as appropriate.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the May 10, 2013 submittal from VADEQ that removes from the Virginia SIP the two operating permits and consent agreement for Potomac River because the source has permanently shutdown and all of the source's permits are revoked. EPA believes this revision will not interfere with Virginia's attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 14, 2014 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 11, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
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.Start Printed Page 47006
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 § 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
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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
- 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).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 October 14, 2014. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.
This action to remove the two operating permits and a consent agreement for Potomac River from the Virginia SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Volatile organic compounds
Dated: July 29, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:Start Part
PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANSEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing the three entries entitled “Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)-Potomac River Generating Station [Permit to Operate]”, “Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)—Potomac River Generating Station [Consent Agreement]”, and “Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)—Potomac River Generating Station”.End Amendment Part End Supplemental Information
[FR Doc. 2014-18930 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P