Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations important components of the guidance that EPA provides to states for making RACT determinations. CTGs are used to presumptively define VOC RACT for applicable source categories of VOCs.
ACTs describe an available range of control technologies and their respective cost effectiveness for particular source categories, but do not identify any particular option as the presumptive norm for what is RACT.
On March 6, 2016 80 FR 12264, EPA
issued a final rule entitled Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule. In the preamble to the final rule, EPA makes clear that if there are no sources covered by a specific CTG source category located in an ozone nonattainment area or an area in the OTR, the state may submit a negative declaration for that CTG. 80 FR
12264, 12278.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis In its April 2, 2020 submittal, VADEQ
certified to EPA that the Northern Virginia area has met all of the CAA
RACT implementation requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including CAA
sections 182b2 and 184b1B.
However, this final rule only addresses section 2.2 of the April 2, 2020
submittal, which contains negative declarations for certain CTGs and ACTs in the Northern Virginia area, as described in the NPRM. EPA notes that Virginias April 2, 2020 SIP submission also addresses RACT for major sources of NOX and VOC in the Northern Virginia area under CAA section 182b2C, but that portion of the SIP
submittal is not being addressed in this action, and will instead be addressed in a future action taken by EPA.
Table 3 of section 2.2 of the SIP
submittal identifies source categories subject to CTGs and ACTs for which Virginia is submitting a negative declaration stating that there are no sources located in the Northern Virginia area subject to these CTGs or ACTs, for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted in the NPRM, EPA issued a CTG
for the Oil and Gas Industry in October of 2016. Because this is a newer CTG, section 2.2 of the submittal includes a first-time negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. Along with the other negative declarations, VADEQ
asserts that there are no facilities in the Northern Virginia area that are currently involved in oil and gas production and processing activities covered by the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. The rationale for
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:50 Feb 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

EPAs proposed action is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
III. EPAs Response to Comments Received EPA received three comments on the July 16, 2020 NPRM. All comments received are in the docket for this action. One comment was generally supportive of the CAAs impact on human health and the environment but did not specifically address any aspect of EPAs proposed action and will therefore not be addressed here. A
summary of the other two comments and EPAs responses are provided herein.
Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that EPA should not approve Virginias negative declarations . . . without review of all possible uses the state might use these approved declarations, because it may allow the state to . . .
skirt more necessary environmental protections. The Commenter also appears to claim that EPAs approval of Virginias negative declarations hinders development of projects in the state. To support this claim, the Commenter cites an unidentified analysis which purports to show that a solar industry investment project in Virginia was potentially blocked by such a declaration. Citing climate change as an example, the Commenter further asserts that with EPA taking an official stance against projects to protect the environment, we all stand to lose.
Response 1: The Commenter has misinterpreted the purpose of the negative declarations, as well as the scope and impact of EPAs approval. As stated in the NPRM, the negative declarations in Virginias April 2, 2020
submittal are related to the provisions of CAA section 184b which require that states in the OTR, or with areas included within the OTR, must revise their SIPs to implement RACT with respect to all sources of VOC covered by a CTG document. Because portions of Virginia are within the OTR, Virginia must provide a SIP submission to address RACT for all sources of VOC
covered by a CTG. See NPRM 85 FR
43188, July 16, 2020.
EPA has historically allowed states to submit a negative declaration for a particular CTG category if the state finds that no sources exist in the state, or area, which would be subject to that CTG.
EPA has addressed the idea of negative declarations numerous times and for various NAAQS including in the General Preamble to the 1990
Amendments,3 the 2006 RACT Q&A
3 State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

8869

Memo,4 and the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule.5 In each of these documents, EPA asserted that if no sources exist in the nonattainment area for a particular CTG category, the state would be allowed to submit a negative declaration SIP revision. This principle also applies to states and areas in the OTR.
Nothing in the CAA or EPAs implementing rules or guidance suggests that states must have a SIP
approved regulation for a category of CTG sources that does not exist in the state. Should a new source of the type covered by the existing CTG be constructed in a state after approval of a negative declaration, EPA expects the state to develop a regulation and submit it to EPA for approval into the SIP in accordance with the relevant timing provided for by the CAA. At this time, because the portion of Northern Virginia included in the OTR does not have any sources subject to any of the CTGs listed in the NPRM, no regulations are required to be developed and submitted to EPA for SIP approval for those CTGs.
Also, contrary to commenters claim, the negative declarations will not have any impact on any proposed development projects. The negative declarations neither exempt sources subject to a CTG from complying with other provisions of the CAA and Virginia law which otherwise apply nor create any new requirements. In addition, EPA cannot identify any impact the negative declarations would have on any proposed solar project as claimed by the Commenter, and EPA is unable to evaluate the analysis that the Commenter references because no citation is included in the comment.
The Commenter also references a letter from April 6, 2013 that they sent to EPA. However, because the commenter did not identify the matter to which it applied or the person to whom the letter was sent, EPA could not locate such a letter and was therefore unable to evaluate it.
Comment 2: A second Commenter also claims that EPA should not approve Virginias negative declarations. First, the Commenter asserts that Virginia has no legal authority to make such declarations. Further, the Commenter asserts that negative declarations . . .
Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 at 13512
April 16, 1992.
4 RACT Qs & AsReasonably Available Control Technology RACT: Questions and Answers Memorandum from William T. Harnett, May 18, 2006.
5 Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements, 80 FR 12263
at 12278 March 6, 2015.

E:FRFM10FER1.SGM

10FER1