### 63859 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 199 / Friday, October 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0731; FRL–9479–5]**

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;**  **Amendments to Virginia’s Regulation Regarding the Sulfur Dioxide National**  **Ambient Air Quality Standard**

**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 (Virginia). This revision pertains to amendments of Virginia’s regulations regarding the new 1-hour primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO 2). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before November 14,

2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2011–0731 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–2011–0731, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previously listed 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– 0731. 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 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 :**  Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by e-mail at khadr.asrah@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. On July 12, 2011, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality submitted a SIP revision pertaining to amendments of Virginia’s regulations regarding the new 1-hour primary NAAQS for SO 2. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision.
I. Background

On June 2, 2010, EPA announced a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for SO 2 of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th-percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb at each monitor within an area. On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), the final rule for the 1-hour primary NAAQS for SO 2 was published and became effective on August 23, 2010. This rule also revoked the previous 24-hour and annual primary NAAQS for
SO 2. On July 12, 2011, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality submitted a SIP revision pertaining to the adoption of the new SO 2 standard. The Virginia SIP revision consists of amending the state regulations by adopting the new 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS of 75 ppb as well as the nullification of the previous annual primary SO 2 standard of 30 ppb, and 24-hour primary SO 2 standard of 140 ppb. The previous standards will be revoked one year after the effective date of the designations of the 1-hour primary SO 2 standard of 75 ppb, pursuant to section 107 of the CAA.
II. Summary of SIP Revision

The amendments to Virginia’s regulations include the adoption of the new 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS and the nullification of the previous annual and 24-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS, one year after designations for the new 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS. These amendments can be found under Regulation 9VAC5–30–30. There were also administrative changes regarding these amendments. These changes include updates to documents incorporated by reference under 40 CFR part 50, as well as administrative changes in regards to those updates. These changes can be found under Regulation 9VAC5–20–21.E.1.
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


### 63860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 199 / Friday, October 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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.
IV. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia SIP revision for the adoption of the new 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS at a level of 75 ppb to the state regulations, which was submitted on July 12, 2011. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
V. 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, the proposed approval of the adoption of the 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS into Virginia’s regulation 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, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 3, 2011. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 2011–26628 Filed 10–13–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Parts 52 and 97**

**[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9479–1]**

**RIN 2060–AR22**

**Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport**  **of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing or seeking comment on revisions to the final Transport Rule promulgated on August 8, 2011. These revisions address discrepancies in unit-specific modeling assumptions that affect the proper calculation of Transport Rule state budgets and assurance levels in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas,and Wisconsin, as well as new unit setasides in Arkansas and Texas. EPA is