
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58682-58686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23106]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0211, EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0510; FRL-9917-17-Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 
revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to 
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to 
submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 
such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements, 
including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, 
modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure 
attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are 
referred to as infrastructure requirements. The Commonwealth of 
Virginia has made two separate submittals addressing the infrastructure 
requirements for the 2008 ozone and 2010 nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2) NAAQS. This action approves the prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) portions of the infrastructure 
requirements of the CAA for the Commonwealth's SIP submittals for the 
2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established two dockets for this action under Docket 
ID Numbers EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0211 for the 2008 ozone docket and EPA-R03-
OAR-2013-0510 for the 2010 NO2 docket. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed 
in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, 
i.e., 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 either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 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. Copies of the State submittal are available at the 
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, 
Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by 
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 21, 2014, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 79 FR 29142. In the NPR, EPA 
proposed approval of the infrastructure elements of section 
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA as they relate to 
Virginia's PSD program for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 
NAAQS. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by Virginia on July 23, 
2012 and May 30, 2013 for the 2008 ozone and the 2010 NO2 
NAAQS, respectively.
    The July 23, 2012 and May 30, 2013 Virginia infrastructure SIP 
submissions indicated that the approved Virginia SIP (plus measures 
submitted but not yet fully approved by EPA for the SIP) addressed 
requirements for a PSD program as required for section 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) and (J) of the

[[Page 58683]]

CAA.\1\ In Virginia, construction and modification of stationary 
sources are covered under Article 8, Permits for Major Stationary 
Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration Areas (9VAC5-80-1605 et seq.) which is included in the 
approved Virginia SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2420(c). Article 8 also requires 
that construction and modification of major stationary sources will not 
cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS (9VAC5-80-1635, Ambient 
Air Increments and 9VAC5-80-1645, Ambient Air Ceilings) and requires 
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to new or 
modified sources (9VAC5-80-1705, Control Technology Review). On August 
5, 2011, Virginia submitted a revision to its SIP which incorporated 
preconstruction permitting requirements for sources of fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) into Virginia's PSD program. Subsequent to 
Virginia's submittal, two decisions by the United States Court of 
Appeals for the DC Circuit addressed the Federal PM2.5 
program and impacted EPA's ability to fully approve the PSD SIP 
revisions submitted by Virginia.\2\ Virginia consequently submitted 
additional revisions to its PSD program addressing preconstruction 
permitting requirements for sources of PM2.5. On February 
25, 2014, EPA fully approved these revisions to Virginia's PSD program. 
79 FR 10377. With these revisions fully approved, Virginia's SIP-
approved PSD program now contains all of the emission limitations, 
control measures, and other program elements required by the CAA and 40 
CFR 51.166 for all required pollutants, including PM2.5. Id. 
(also approving Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS, and the 2008 lead NAAQS for PSD requirements in section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Virginia's July 23, 2012 infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS cited to Virginia's existing approved PSD 
program to address section 110(a)(2) requirements for PSD. However, 
the May 30, 2013 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS cited to Virginia's existing approved PSD 
program plus additional regulatory provisions submitted to EPA but 
not yet fully approved into the SIP to address section 110(a)(2) 
requirements for PSD.
    \2\ See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (remanding EPA's rules implementing the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2008 rule, ``Implementation of 
New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 
Micrometers (PM2.5)''), and Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 
458 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (vacating and remanding provisions at 40 CFR 
51.166(i)(5), (k)(2) and 52.21(i)(5), (k)(2) relating to 
PM2.5 significant impact levels and significant 
monitoring concentrations for PSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires each state's SIP to 
``include a program to provide for . . . regulation of the modification 
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by 
the plan as necessary to ensure that national ambient air quality 
standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in . . . 
this subchapter.'' Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that for 
each NAAQS the state's SIP must ``meet the applicable requirements of . 
. . part C of this subchapter (relating to prevention of significant 
deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).'' Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA requires each state's SIP to include 
provisions which will prevent emissions from within the state 
interfering with the measures required by another state for 
implementing PSD. As discussed in EPA's May 21, 2014 NPR, when 
reviewing infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA focuses on the structural 
PSD program requirements contained in part C as well as EPA's PSD 
regulations. These structural requirements call for the PSD program to 
address all NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision 
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG 
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat 
GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source 
is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said 
that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required 
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations 
on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. In order to act 
consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending 
further judicial action to effectuate the decision, EPA is not 
continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs 
include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found 
impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a 
state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD 
permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or 
has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) 
for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant 
net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules 
in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates 
that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs 
in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of 
subsequent EPA actions with respect to EPA regulations and state PSD 
program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal 
process before the United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have 
revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP 
submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the 
state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme 
Court's decision.
    As discussed in the May 21, 2014 NPR and herein, EPA finds 
Virginia's approved SIP meets the statutory obligations relating to a 
PSD permit program required by section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 
(J) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 79 
FR 10377 (providing full approval to Virginia's PSD program as 
addressing requirements in the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.166). The detailed 
rationale for EPA's action is explained in the NPR and will not be 
restated here. With respect to GHGs, EPA has determined that Virginia's 
SIP is currently sufficient to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS because the PSD permitting program previously 
approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits 
(otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) 
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. 
Although Virginia's approved PSD permitting program may currently 
contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme 
Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission 
inadequate to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). As 
previously mentioned, the Virginia SIP currently contains the necessary 
PSD requirements and the application of those requirements is not 
impeded by the presence of other previously approved provisions 
regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that, in light of the 
Supreme Court decision, EPA does not consider necessary at this time. 
Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed 
approval of Virginia's infrastructure SIP as it relates to section 
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 2, 2013, EPA proposed approval of the 2008 ozone submittal 
for

[[Page 58684]]

the following infrastructure elements: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) 
(for enforcement and regulation of minor sources and minor 
modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), (D)(ii), 
(E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (relating to consultation, public 
notification, and visibility protection requirements), (K), (L), and 
(M). 78 FR 39651. Subsequently, EPA published a Final Rulemaking Notice 
(FRN) on March 27, 2014, which approved the Virginia 2008 ozone 
submittal for those specific elements. 79 FR 17043.
    On August 5, 2013, EPA proposed approval of the 2010 NO2 
submittal for the following infrastructure elements: Section 
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor sources 
and minor modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), 
(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (relating to 
consultation, public notification, and visibility protection 
requirements), (K), (L), and (M). 78 FR 47264. Subsequently, on March 
18, 2014, EPA published a FRN which approved the Virginia 2010 
NO2 submittal for those specific elements. 79 FR 15012.
    In both EPA's March 27, 2014 and March 18, 2014 FRNs, EPA indicated 
that it was taking separate action on certain infrastructure elements 
from Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals as they related to PSD 
and section 128 of the CAA. This final rulemaking action approves the 
infrastructure elements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of 
the CAA as they relate to Virginia's PSD program for the 2008 ozone and 
2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA will take later separate action on 
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA as it relates to section 128 for 
the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

III. Public Comments

    EPA received two comments on the May 21, 2014 NPR proposing 
approval of Virginia's July 23, 2012 and May 30, 2013 SIP submissions 
addressing the PSD infrastructure elements for the 2008 ozone and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS. A full set of the comments is provided in the 
docket for this final rulemaking action. A summary of each comment and 
the EPA's response is provided in this section.
    Comment: One commenter stated, ``[t]hese regulations will destroy 
the cheap coal energy for our population'' and requested a new 
President to reverse EPA's climate change policies. The commenter also 
suggested EPA should ``go through Congress,'' presumably on climate 
change issues.
    EPA Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the concerns expressed. 
However, the comments are not germane to the present rulemaking. This 
rulemaking action approves Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals for 
the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS as fully addressing the 
PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) 
of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. While 
Virginia's SIP-approved PSD program includes greenhouse gases as a 
regulated pollutant, EPA is not approving those provisions in this 
rulemaking action. The commenter's concerns regarding coal energy and 
EPA's actions on climate change issues are irrelevant to this 
rulemaking action, and therefore no further response is required.
    Comment: Another commenter remarked on Virginia's environmental 
assessment (audit) ``privilege'' discussed in Section III of EPA's May 
21, 2014 NPR under ``General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals 
from the Commonwealth of Virginia,'' which is also included in Section 
IV of this rulemaking action. The commenter stated he wrote ``to 
support the docket as written'' and stated there needs to be a 
sufficient level of disclosure of emissions in environmental law to 
ensure emission limits are met. The commenter also stated that the 
Commonwealth of Virginia's laws seem to meet this standard, and 
therefore the commenter supported ``their proposal.''
    EPA Response: In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving 
Virginia's infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting PSD requirements 
in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) of the CAA for the 2008 
ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA is not approving any Virginia 
privilege or immunity law into the Virginia SIP nor taking any 
rulemaking action on any such Virginia provisions. As discussed in the 
NPR and in Section V of this rulemaking action, Virginia's law 
regarding an environmental assessment (audit) ``privilege'' for 
voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity 
provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information that are the product of a voluntary environmental 
assessment. As discussed in the NPR and in Section IV of this 
rulemaking action, the Virginia Attorney General's January 12, 1998 
opinion stated that Virginia's audit privilege law is inapplicable to 
enforcement of any Federally authorized program, 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.'' EPA has determined 
that Virginia's privilege and immunity statutory provision will not 
preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD program consistent 
with the Federal requirements, and EPA has also determined that a state 
audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and 
has no impact on Federal enforcement authorities. However, in this 
rulemaking action, EPA is not approving any of Virginia's privilege and 
immunity statutory provisions into the Virginia SIP, and our discussion 
merely provides EPA's long-held interpretation of Virginia's statutory 
privilege provision as not impacting enforcement of the CAA or 
interfering with Federally required programs such as a PSD permits 
program. While the commenter is mistaken regarding the substance of our 
rulemaking action here, the commenter did not disagree with EPA. Thus, 
EPA thanks the commenter for his input. As the comment is not related 
to this rulemaking action which approves Virginia's SIP submissions as 
meeting PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 
ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, no further response is required.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the formal SIP revisions submitted by Virginia on 
July 23, 2012 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and May 30, 2013 for the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS as they meet the infrastructure requirements 
relating to a PSD permit program pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA.

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

[[Page 58685]]

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 
PSD 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. 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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

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 December 1, 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. This action, approving Virginia's July 23, 2012 SIP submission 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and May 30, 2013 SIP submission for the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS as meeting the PSD elements in section 110(a)(2) 
of the CAA, 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.


[[Page 58686]]


    Dated: September 9, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 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:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (e), revise the entry for ``Section 
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 
NAAQS.''
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e), revise the entry for ``Section 
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable       State submittal
            revision               geographic area         date        EPA approval date  Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide.........  5/30/13.........  3/18/14, 79 FR     This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                            15012.             the following CAA
 for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide                                                             elements, or portions
 NAAQS.                                                                                    thereof:
                                                                                           110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                           (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                           (D)(ii), (E)(i),
                                                                                           (E)(iii), (F), (G),
                                                                                           (H), (J), (K), (L),
                                                                                           and (M) with the
                                                                                           exception of PSD
                                                                                           elements.
                                                                       9/30/14 [Insert    This action addresses
                                                                        Federal Register   the following CAA
                                                                        citation].         elements, or portions
                                                                                           thereof:
                                                                                           110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                           (D)(i)(II), and (J)
                                                                                           with respect to the
                                                                                           PSD elements.
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide.........  7/23/12.........  3/27/14, 79 FR     This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                            17043.             the following CAA
 for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.                                                                 elements, or portions
                                                                                           thereof:
                                                                                           110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                           (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                           (D)(ii), (E)(i),
                                                                                           (E)(iii), (F), (G),
                                                                                           (H), (J), (K), (L),
                                                                                           and (M) with the
                                                                                           exception of PSD
                                                                                           elements.
                                                                       9/30/14 [Insert    This action addresses
                                                                        Federal Register   the following CAA
                                                                        citation].         elements, or portions
                                                                                           thereof:
                                                                                           110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                           (D)(i)(II), and (J)
                                                                                           with respect to the
                                                                                           PSD elements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 2014-23106 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


