"Farrell, Amy L."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 06/19/2007 11:24 AM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

please call when you can<PHONE_NUMBER>

I've revised the language to include your sentence but to also add the thoughts I believe were missing.  The statement below is brief and accurate so I think it should do the trick.  I would also like to talk to you re: PRB.

Exposure and risk assessment estimates are illustrative simulations of what might occur in a situation where proposed standards would be attained.  The exposure and risk estimates do not reflect whether or how the standards can be met.  Modeling that applies all known control technologies projects that many areas did not attain the proposed standards.

Thanks!


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13254-13256]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04705]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0596; FRL10019-52-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Revised RACT Permit for Roanoke
Electric Steel/Steel Dynamics, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision consists of amendments to a
federally enforceable state operating permit (FESOP) which was
previously incorporated into the Virginia SIP in order to implement
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for nitrogen oxide
(NOX) emissions from Steel Dynamics, Inc. (hereafter
``SDI,'' formerly Roanoke Electric Steel). This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0596 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr.
Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 14, 2020, the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), on behalf of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, formally submitted the amended permit as a revision to the
Virginia SIP.

I. Background

    Prior to the establishment of nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), EPA
developed a

program to allow these potential nonattainment areas to voluntarily
adopt local emission control programs to avoid air quality violations
and mandated nonattainment area controls. Areas with air quality
meeting the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS were eligible to participate. In
order to participate, state and local governments and EPA developed and
signed a memorandum of agreement that describes the local control
measures the state or local community intends to adopt and implement to
reduce ozone emissions in advance of air quality violations. In this
agreement, also known as an Early Action Compact (EAC), the state or
local communities agree to prepare emission inventories and conduct air
quality modeling and monitoring to support its selection of emission
controls. Areas that participated in the EAC program had the
flexibility to institute their own approach in maintaining clean air
and protecting public health. Several localities in the Winchester and
Roanoke areas elected to participate in the EAC program. The areas that
signed an EAC were the City of Winchester and Frederick County, which
comprised the Northern Shenandoah Valley EAC; and the cities of Roanoke
and Salem, and the counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, which comprised
the Roanoke EAC. VADEQ's approach to implementing the EAC was that RACT
\1\ be applied to sources of NOX and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) within those localities that were otherwise not
subject to RACT. The Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation, currently SDI,
was one such source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA defines RACT as the lowest emission limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On April 27, 2005, EPA approved a SIP revision for the Commonwealth
of Virginia which incorporated provisions from a federally enforceable
state operating permit into the Virginia SIP in order to apply RACT to
several units at SDI (Virginia permit registration No. 20131, issued
December 22, 2004; hereafter, ``2004 Permit''). See 70 FR 21621.
Virginia's April 14, 2020 submittal includes a revised operating permit
for SDI which amends the 2004 permit to account for changes in
operation at the facility, including the shut-down of a number of
units. The 2004 permit included operational requirements and
NOX emissions limits for the equipment listed in Table 1:

         Table 1--Equipment List and NOX Limits From 2004 Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Unit                          NOX emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tundish Preheaters (2)....................  0.25 pounds (lb) NOX/million
                                             British thermal unit (BTU).
Ladle Preheaters (2)......................  0.25 lb NOX/million BTU.
Electric Arc Furnace #4...................  Operational Limits Only.
Electric Arc Furnace #5...................  37.8 lb NOX/hour.
Ladle Metallurgical Station #5............  6.0 lb NOX/hour.
Billet Reheat Furnace #1..................  53.1 lb NOX/hour.
Billet Reheat Furnace #2..................  39.9 lb NOX/hour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the issuance of the 2004 permit (and EPA's subsequent SIP
approval), operations at the facility have changed, requiring a
revision of both the operating permit and the operating permit
provisions incorporated into the SIP. At the time the 2004 permit was
issued, SDI had received a preconstruction permit for the construction
of billet reheat furnace (BRF) #2 to replace BRF #1. The conditions of
that preconstruction permit were incorporated into the 2004 permit, and
ultimately into the Virginia SIP. However, BRF #2 was never
constructed, so the associated NOX limits have been removed
from the operating permit. Electric arc furnace (EAF) #4 was removed,
as was BRF #1. The only remaining units at the facility that are
subject to the source specific NOX RACT limits of the 2004
permit are EAF #5 and the Ladle Metallurgical Station (LMS) #5. The
other units have been removed, replaced with equipment that was not
subject to RACT, or as was the case with BRF #2, never constructed. EAF
#5 and LMS #5 remain subject to the same limits as were in the original
permit. The RACT limits for those remaining units have not changed, and
there are no emissions increases associated with either the revised
permit, or Virginia's proposed SIP revision. The permit, and ultimately
the SIP, are simply being revised to account for the removal of
provisions related to emissions units that no longer exist.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that it is consistent with
all CAA requirements. Additionally, because the SIP revision does not
allow for any increase in emissions, it will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable CAA requirement, in accordance with
CAA section 110(l). EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's April 14,
2020 submittal as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before taking final action.

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.
    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
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. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the unredacted portions of Virginia stationary source permit
to operate, registration number 20132, issued to Roanoke Electric Steel
(D/B/A Steel Dynamics, Inc.) on December 22, 2004, and revised on March
25, 2020. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
     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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, this rule pertaining to source specific NOX
limits at SDI does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 18, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-04705 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30068-30069]
[FR Doc No: E9-14789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1286-000]

Elizabethtown Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

June 17, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Elizabethtown Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket

authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities
and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 16, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14789 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P