13302 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

these proposed priorities and 

requirements would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action would affect are LEAs, 

including charter schools that operate as 

LEAs under State law; institutions of 

higher education; other public agencies; 

private nonprofit organizations; freely 

associated States and outlying areas; 

Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; 

and for-profit organizations. We believe 

that the costs imposed on applicants by 

the proposed priorities and 

requirements would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits 

would outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. 

Participation in the Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection 

program is voluntary. For this reason, 

the proposed priorities and 

requirements would impose no burden 

on small entities unless they applied for 

funding under the program. We expect 

that in determining whether to apply for 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program funds, an eligible 

entity would evaluate the requirements 

of preparing an application and any 

associated costs and weigh them against 

the benefits likely to be achieved by 

receiving a Technical Assistance on 

State Data Collection program grant. An 

eligible entity probably would apply 

only if it determines that the likely 

benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 

application. 

We believe that these proposed 

priorities and requirements would not 

impose any additional burden on a 

small entity applying for a grant than 

the entity would face in the absence of 

the proposed action. That is, the length 

of the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the proposed 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application would likely be 

the same. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a small entity once it receives 

a grant because it would be able to meet 

the costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program. We invite 

comments from eligible small entities as 

to whether they believe this proposed 

regulatory action would have a 

significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, request evidence to support 

that belief. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These proposed priorities and 

requirements contain information 

collection requirements that are 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1820–0028. The proposed 

priorities and requirements do not affect 

the currently approved data collection. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Glenna Wright-Gallo, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03631 Filed 2–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2024–0027; FRL–11418– 

01–R3] 

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Revision 

Listing and Implementing the 2010 

Primary Sulfur Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for the 

Giles County Nonattainment Area 

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 (Commonwealth or Virginia). 

This revision consists of an amendment 

to the list of Virginia nonattainment 

areas to include a newly designated 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area. 

This action is being taken under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 25, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2024–0027 at 

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Gordon.Mike@epa.gov. 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, the 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. The 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 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Serena Nichols, Planning & 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13303 

1Under 9VAC5–20–21 B and E 1.a.(17) the 

applicable date for 40 CFR 81.347 in 9VAC5–20– 

204 is July 1, 2022. Virginia’s August 9, 2023 SIP 

revision submittal does not mention 9VAC5–20–21 

nor does Virginia’s SIP include the version of 

9VAC5–20–21 at 40 CFR 52.2420(e)(2) with the July 

1, 2022 CFR applicability date. 

Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John 

F Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone 

number is (215) 814–2053. Ms. Nichols 

can also be reached via electronic mail 

at Nichols.Serena@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

9, 2023, the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 

submitted a revision to its SIP amending 

an existing regulation in the SIP by 

adding a sulfur dioxide section for the 

newly designated SO2 nonattainment 

area in a portion of Giles County. This 

revision is needed for the 

Commonwealth to implement the 2010 

primary SO2 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

I. Background 

On June 2, 2010, the EPA 

Administrator signed a final rule that 

revised the primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 

35520, June 22, 2010) after review of the 

existing primary SO2 standards 

promulgated on April 30, 1971 (36 FR 

8187). The EPA established the revised 

primary SO2 NAAQS at 75 parts per 

billion (ppb) which is attained when the 

3-year average of the annual 99th 

percentile of daily maximum 1-hour 

average concentrations of SO2 does not 

exceed 75 ppb. 

On March 26, 2021 (86 FR 16055), the 

EPA promulgated initial air quality 

designations for the 2010 primary sulfur 

dioxide NAAQS. The EPA has 

determined that a portion of Giles 

County is not meeting the SO2 NAAQS 

and has designated it as a 

nonattainment area in 40 CFR 81.347. 

40 CFR 81.347 refers to this newly 

designated SO2 nonattainment area as 

‘‘Giles County (part)’’ and the rest of the 

county which is designated attainment/ 

unclassifiable as ‘‘Giles County 

(remainder).’’ For the ‘‘Giles County 

(part),’’ 40 CFR 81.347 also sets forth the 

geographic coordinates specifying the 

nonattainment area boundary. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

VADEQ’s August 9, 2023 SIP 

submittal proposes to revise Virginia’s 

SIP to include amendments to an 

existing regulation in the SIP which add 

a sulfur dioxide section for the newly 

designated SO2 nonattainment area in a 

portion of Giles County. The 

amendments revise a provision in the 

Virginia Administrative Code (VAC), 

specifically 9VAC5–20–204 

‘‘Nonattainment areas’’ Subsection A, 

with a state effective date of February 

15, 2023, which geographically defines 

the nonattainment areas by locality for 

the criteria pollutants indicated. The 

amendments are necessary for 

implementing the 2010 primary SO2

NAAQS. The added subdivision at 

9VAC5–20–204 A 5, refers to the area as 

‘‘Giles County Sulfur Dioxide 

Nonattainment Area (part),’’ and defines 

it as that part of Giles County bounded 

by the lines connecting the coordinate 

points as designated in 40 CFR 81.347.1

There are also two minor changes—(1) 

a non-substantive wording change to the 

introductory language of 9VAC5–20– 

204 A which replaced the word ‘‘below’’ 

with ‘‘in this subsection’’ so that the 

phrase ‘‘Nonattainment areas are 

geographically defined below’’ now 

reads as ‘‘Nonattainment areas are 

geographically defined in this 

subsection’’ and (2) shifting ‘‘All other 

pollutants’’ from 9VAC5–20–204 A 5 to 

9VAC5–20–204 A 6. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

Virginia SIP revision adding the ‘‘Giles 

County Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment 

Area (part)’’ to Virginia’s list of 

nonattainment areas, which VADEQ 

submitted to the EPA on August 9, 2023. 

The 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 

§ 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, the 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 the 

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, the EPA may at 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13304 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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, the 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, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the VADEQ 

regulation amending 9VAC5–20–204 to 

add a new sulfur dioxide nonattainment 

area and two other minor changes as 

discussed in section II of this document, 

‘‘Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis.’’ The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 3 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, the 

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); 

• 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); and 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule amending the list of 

Virginia nonattainment areas to include 

a newly designated sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

nonattainment area 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). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The VADEQ did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA did not perform an 

EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in 

this action. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of 

Executive Order 12898 of achieving 

environmental justice for people of 

color, low-income populations, and 

Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Adam Ortiz, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03616 Filed 2–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2020–0055; FRL–11687– 

01–R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Withdrawal of 

Technical Amendment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to correct the 

November 19, 2020, removal of the Air 

Nuisance Rule (ANR) from the Ohio 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action is in response to a February 10, 

2023, decision by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to 

remand without vacatur EPA’s removal 

of the ANR from the Ohio SIP. Because 

the Court did not vacate EPA’s removal 

of the ANR, the ANR is currently not in 

Ohio’s SIP. After reevaluating EPA’s 

November 19, 2020, rulemaking, as 

directed by the Court, EPA is proposing 

to determine that its November 2020 

final action was in error, and to correct 

that action by reinstating the ANR as 

part of the Ohio SIP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 25, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2020–0055 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1