Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24843 

§ 165.T08–0190 Safety Zone; Bayou 

Casotte; Pascagoula, MS. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: a portion of 

Bayou Casotte, to include all waters 

between a southern boundary 

represented by positions, 30°20′42.3′′ N, 

088°30′26.0′′ W and 30°20′42.3′′ N, 

088°30′33.0′′ W and a northern 

boundary represented by positions, 

30°21′06.85′′ N, 088°30′29.36′′ W and 

30°21′09.15′′ N, 088°30′24.56′′ W. 

(b) Enforcement. This rule will be 

effective from 12:01 a.m. April 22, 2012 

through 11:59 p.m. April 30, 2012. Exact 

enforcement date and times will be 

broadcasted via a Safety Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Mobile or a 

designated representative. 

(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter 

into or passage through the zone must 

request permission from the Captain of 

the Port Mobile or a designated 

representative. They may be contacted 

on VHF–FM channels 16 or by 

telephone at 251–441–5976. 

(3) If permission is granted, all 

persons and vessels shall comply with 

the instructions of the Captain of the 

Port or designated representative. 

(d) Informational broadcasts. The 

Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative will inform the public 

through broadcast notices to mariners of 

the enforcement period for the safety 

zone as well as any changes in the 

planned schedule. 

Dated: April 4, 2012. 

D.J. Rose, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Mobile. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10215 Filed 4–24–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0024; FRL–9664–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Removal of Transcontinental Gas Pipe 

Line Corporation Permit From State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Virginia State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revision pertains to a 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Corporation (Transco) operating permit 

that EPA approved into the Virginia SIP 

to meet nitrogen oxides (NOX) reduction 

requirements for large stationary 

internal combustion engines under the 

NOX SIP Call. Transco Station 175 has 

permanently shut down, and this 

revision removes the permit from the 

Virginia SIP. EPA is approving this 

revision in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 25, 

2012 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

May 29, 2012. 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. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0024 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0024, 

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 previouslylisted 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–2012– 

0024. 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 

the 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marilyn Powers, (215) 814–2308, or by 

email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

I. Background 

EPA issued the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 

57356, October 27, 1998) to require 22 

eastern states and the District of 

Columbia to reduce specified amounts 

of one of the main precursors of groundlevel ozone, NOX, in order to reduce 

interstate ozone transport. EPA found 

that the sources in these states emit NOX

in amounts that contribute significantly 

to nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) in downwind states. In the 

NOX SIP Call, the amount of reductions 

required by states were calculated based 

on application of available, highly costeffective controls on certain source 

categories of NOX. These source 

categories included large fossil fuelfired electric generating units (EGUs) 

serving a generator with a capacity 

greater than 25 megawatts (MWe), fossil 

fuel-fired non-EGUs (such as large 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

industrial boilers with a capacity greater 

than 250 million BTUs per hour 

(MMBtu/hr), large stationary internal 

combustion engines, and large cement 

kilns. 

The NOX SIP Call was challenged by 

a number of state, industry, and labor 

groups. On March 3, 2000, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued 

its decision on the NOX SIP Call. 

Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3rd 663 (D.C. 

Dir. 2000). While the D.C. Circuit ruled 

largely in favor of EPA in support of its 

requirements under the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, it also ruled, in part, against 

EPA on certain issues. The portions of 

the NOX SIP Call that were upheld by 

the Court were termed ‘‘Phase I’’ of the 

rule, and applies to EGUs and nonEGUs. EPA’s response to the remanded 

portions of the NOX SIP Call (with 

several exceptions) was finalized in its 

April 21, 2004 (69 FR 21604) 

rulemaking action entitled, ‘‘Interstate 

Ozone Transport: Response to Court 

Decisions on the NOX SIP Call, NOX SIP 

Call Technical Amendments, and 

Section 126 Rules,’’ termed ‘‘Phase II’’ 

of the rule. Phase II applies to large 

stationary internal combustion engines 

and large cement kilns. 

EPA approved Virginia’s Phase I NOX

SIP Call submission in a rulemaking 

dated July 8, 2003 (68 FR 40520). On 

October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64551), EPA 

approved Virginia’s Phase II 

submission. A discussion of the relevant 

portions of the April 21, 2004 

rulemaking that pertains to Virginia’s 

requirements under Phase II may be 

found in the docket for EPA’s October 

30, 2008 rulemaking (See Docket # 

EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0382). In that 

rulemaking, EPA approved into the 

Virginia SIP the federally enforceable 

state operating permits for four Transco 

internal combustion engines to address 

the Commonwealth’s emission 

reduction requirements for Phase II of 

the NOX SIP Call. Transco Station 175 

located in Fluvanna County, Virginia 

was one of the sources included in that 

rulemaking. To meet the requirement for 

NOX emissions reductions of 82 percent 

from large internal combustion engines, 

the operating permit capped NOX

emissions from Station 175 at 195.43 

tons per ozone season. The operating 

permit requirements for the engines 

included NOX emission rate limits and 

limits on hours of operation during the 

ozone season to achieve the required 

emission reductions. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On November 8, 2011, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Department 

of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 

submitted a formal revision to its SIP. 

The SIP revision consists of a request by 

the Commonwealth to remove the 

permit for Transco Station 175 from the 

Virginia SIP. On July 26, 2011, Transco 

and VADEQ signed a mutual 

determination of permanent shutdown 

for the four large stationary natural gasfired spark ignited, reciprocating 

internal combustion engines located at 

Transco Station 175. The submission 

includes a copy of the signed 

determination, which required that 

operation of the engines cease upon 

signature of the document, and that any 

future operation of the engines must be 

in accordance with Virginia’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permit program pursuant to 

9VAC5 chapter 80. Should the engines 

resume operation in the future, VADEQ 

may be required at that time to revise its 

SIP as appropriate. 

III. 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 (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, 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. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the November 8, 

2011 submittal from VADEQ that 

removes the operating permit for 

Transco Station 175 from the Virginia 

SIP. EPA is publishing this rule without 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24845 

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 June 25, 2012 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by May 29, 2012. 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. 

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 nonagency 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 June 25, 2012. 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. 

This action to remove the Transco 

Station 175 operating permit from the 

Virginia SIP 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. 

Dated: April 12, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by removing the entry 

for Transcontinental Pipeline Station 

175. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9973 Filed 4–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0870; FRL–9658–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Dakota; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the South Dakota 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

addressing regional haze submitted by 

the State of South Dakota on January 21, 

2011, along with an amendment 

submitted on September 19, 2011. EPA 

has determined that the plan submitted 

by South Dakota satisfies the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and our rules that require states 

to prevent any future and remedy any 

existing man-made impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES