30600 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program number and title for 

this proposed rule are as follows: 

64.005, Grants to States for Construction 

of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind 

Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans 

Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans 

Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans 

Nursing Home Care; 64.014, Veterans 

State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans 

State Nursing Home Care; 64.018, 

Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 

64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol 

and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans 

Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, 

VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per 

Diem Program. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. John 

R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on May 19, 2011, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs—health, 

Government programs—veterans, Health 

care, Health facilities, Health 

professions, Health records, Homeless, 

Medical and dental schools, Medical 

devices, Medical research, Mental 

health programs, Nursing home care, 

Veterans. 

Dated: May 20, 2011. 

William F. Russo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Regulations Policy 

& Management, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs proposes to revise 38 CFR part 

17 as follows: 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in 

specific sections. 

§ 17.1001 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 17.1001 by removing 

paragraph (a)(5). 

§ 17.1002 [Amended] 

3. Amend § 17.1002 by removing the 

words ‘‘or in part’’ in paragraph (h). 

§ 17.1004 [Amended] 

4. Amend § 17.1004 as follows: 

a. Remove paragraph (d)(1). 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2), 

(d)(3) and (d)(4) as new paragraphs 

(d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3), respectively. 

c. Add paragraph (f) immediately 

following paragraph (e). 

d. Add an information collection 

approval parenthetical at the end of the 

section. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 17.1004. Filing claims. 

* * * * * 

(f) Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of 

this section, VA will provide retroactive 

payment or reimbursement for 

emergency treatment received by the 

veteran on or after July 19, 2001, but 

more than 90 days before [the effective 

date of the final rule], if the claimant 

files a claim for reimbursement no later 

than 1 year after [the effective date of 

the final rule]. 

* * * * * 

(The Office of Management and 

Budget has approved the information 

collection requirements in this section 

under control number 2900–0620.) 

5. Amend § 17.1005 by adding 

paragraphs (c) and (d), to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.1005. Payment limitations. 

* * * * * 

(c) If an eligible veteran under 

§ 17.1002 has contractual or legal 

recourse against a third party that would 

only partially extinguish the veteran’s 

liability to the provider of emergency 

treatment then: 

(1) VA will be the secondary payer; 

(2) Subject to the limitations of this 

section, VA will pay the difference 

between the amount VA would have 

paid under this section for the cost of 

the emergency treatment and the 

amount paid (or payable) by the third 

party; and 

(3) The provider will consider the 

combined payment under paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section as payment in full 

and extinguish the veteran’s liability to 

the provider. 

(d) VA will not reimburse a claimant 

under this section for any deductible, 

copayment or similar payment that the 

veteran owes the third party. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–13015 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0195; FRL–9311–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revisions to Clean Air Interstate Rule 

Emissions Trading Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. The 

revision, which amends the Virginia 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) trading 

program, is comprised of technical 

corrections and revisions to the 

definition of a cogeneration unit to 

ensure the Commonwealth’s CAIR 

trading program is consistent with 

Federal CAIR requirements. This action 

is being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0195 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0195, 

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–2011– 

0195. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 30601 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 

http://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 http:// 

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 

e-mail at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On September 27, 2010, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Department 

of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 

submitted a revision to its SIP, 

including technical corrections and 

revisions to the definition of a 

cogeneration unit to ensure the 

Commonwealth’s CAIR trading program 

is consistent with Federal CAIR 

requirements. 

I. Background 

EPA approved Virginia’s CAIR trading 

program on December 28, 2007 (72 FR 

73602). In the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for Virginia’s CAIR 

trading program (72 FR 54385, 

September 25, 2007), EPA noted that it 

believed that Virginia clearly intended 

to replace the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) with a State 

plan based on the CAIR model rule that 

would allow subject sources, non-EGUs 

from its Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) SIP Call 

budget trading program, and opt-in 

units meeting the CAIR opt-in criteria to 

participate in the EPA-administered 

regional CAIR trading program. 

However, EPA also noted that there 

were some provisions of Virginia CAIR 

regulations 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140, Parts 

II, III, and IV that could be interpreted 

in a way that might be inconsistent with 

the Commonwealth’s intent. These 

provisions pertain to definitions 

associated with Virginia’s participation 

in the regional CAIR trading program, 

definitions associated with the State’s 

decision to bring its non-EGUs from its 

NOX SIP Call budget trading program 

into the CAIR trading program, and a 

definition of the term ‘‘most stringent 

state or Federal NOX emissions 

limitation’’ that is based upon the model 

rule but had been expanded by the 

Commonwealth to include the situation 

where more than one fuel is allowed by 

a permit. EPA determined that VADEQ’s 

interpretations of these provisions, 

provided in its letter dated September 

12, 2007, clarified the language of the 

Virginia regulations and were consistent 

with having the EPA-administered CAIR 

trading program become effective in 

Virginia. However EPA recommended, 

and VADEQ agreed to, promulgation of 

clarifying amendments to these 

provisions at the Commonwealth’s 

earliest opportunity. 

Also, in a rulemaking dated October 

19, 2007 (72 FR 59190), EPA changed 

the definition of ‘‘cogeneration unit’’ in 

CAIR, the CAIR model cap and trade 

rule, and the CAIR FIP with respect to 

the calculation methodology for the 

efficiency standard of a cogeneration 

unit. The revised methodology excluded 

energy input from biomass, making it 

more likely that units co-firing biomass 

would be able to meet the efficiency 

standard and qualify for the 

cogeneration exemption allowed by 

CAIR. This change to the Federal 

requirements was made subsequent to 

Virginia’s adoption of its CAIR 

regulations, therefore Virginia is 

required to revise its CAIR regulations 

to incorporate the changes to the 

definition of cogeneration unit to allow 

the exemption for biomass units to 

apply to sources in the Commonwealth. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On September 27, 2010, VADEQ 

submitted a SIP revision that amended 

Virginia’s CAIR regulations. The SIP 

revision incorporates the clarifying 

revisions specified in the September 25, 

2007 NPR proposing approval of 

Virginia’s CAIR regulations and the 

changes to the definition of 

‘‘cogeneration unit’’ made in EPA’s 

revised CAIR rulemaking dated October 

19, 2007. The submission also included 

several other technical or administrative 

corrections to these regulations. 

The SIP revision applies to the CAIR 

NOX Annual Trading Program (9 VAC5 

Chapter 140, Part II), the CAIR NOX

Ozone Season Trading Program (9 VAC 

5 Chapter 140, Part III), and the CAIR 

SO2 Annual Trading Program (9 VAC 5 

Chapter 140, Part IV). The provisions of 

regulations 5–140–1010, 5–140–2010, 

and 5–140–3010 relating to ‘‘Purpose,’’ 

and the definitions of ‘‘CAIR NOX

Annual Trading Program,’’ ‘‘CAIR NOX

Ozone Season Trading Program,’’ ‘‘CAIR 

SO2 Trading Program,’’ and ‘‘permitting 

authority’’ in regulations 5–140–1020, 

5–140–2020, and 5–140–3020 are 

amended to clarify that the 

Commonwealth’s CAIR sources are full 

participants in the EPA-administered 

regional CAIR trading programs and that 

the Virginia CAIR programs are not 

trading programs only for sources 

geographically located within the 

borders of the Commonwealth. The 

definition of ‘‘most stringent state or 

Federal NOX emissions limitation’’ in 

regulations 5–140–1020, 5–140–2020, 

and 5–140–3020 is amended to clarify 

that the primary fuel, where it is not 

designated in the permit, is the fuel that 

would result in the lowest emission 

rate. Additionally, the provisions of 

regulations 5–140–1020, 5–140–2020, 

and 5–140–3020 are amended to reflect 

the changes to the definition of 

‘‘cogeneration unit’’ that were made to 

the Federal CAIR program described 

previously. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30602 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 § 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. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Virginia SIP revision amending the 

Commonwealth’s CAIR regulations 

codified at 9 VAC5 Chapter 140, Parts 

I, II, and III, which was submitted on 

September 27, 2010. EPA’s analysis 

shows that the revisions are consistent 

with Federal CAIR requirements. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IV. 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 proposes to approve 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 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 proposed rule 

approving Virginia revisions to its CAIR 

trading program 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Dated: May 9, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13068 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081; FRL–9312–1] 

RIN 2060–AQ69 

Response To Petition From New 

Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From 

the Portland Generating Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS