29686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet Federal requirements; 

this proposed action 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 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 16, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12600 Filed 5–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0856; FRL–9308–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Permits for Major Stationary Sources 

and Major Modifications Locating in 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ). This revision pertains to 

EPA’s proposal to approve the addition 

of nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a precursor 

to ozone in the Virginia SIP that governs 

permits for constructing or significantly 

modifying facilities located in areas 

attaining the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). This action 

is being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0856 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: cox.kathleen@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0856, 

Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, Office 

of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 

3AP10, 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–2010– 

0856. 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 Virginia submittal 

are available at the VADEQ Office, 629 

East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 

23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon McCauley, (215) 814–3376, or by 

e-mail at mccauley.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On June 7, 2010, the VADEQ 

submitted a revision to the Virginia SIP 

for including NOX as a precursor to 

ozone for permits of major stationary 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29687 

sources or major modifications locating 

in areas in Virginia that are attaining the 

NAAQS, also known as Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) areas. 

I. Background 

We are proposing approval of 

Virginia’s SIP submission dated June 7, 

2010 which addresses regulatory 

changes needed to be equivalent to the 

CAA’s part C PSD permit program. This 

SIP submission also corrects 

deficiencies identified by EPA in the 

March 27, 2008 Federal Register action 

entitled, ‘‘Completeness Findings for 

Section 110(a) State implementation 

Plans for the 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (1997 

Ozone NAAQS)’’ (73 FR 16205). EPA’s 

proposed approval of this SIP 

submission addresses Virginia’s 

compliance with the portion of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) & (J) relating to the 

CAA’s part C PSD permit program for 

the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, because this 

proposed approval would approve 

regulating NOX as a precursor to ozone 

in Virginia’s SIP in accordance with the 

Federal Register action dated November 

29, 2005 (70 FR 71612) that finalized 

NOX as a precursor for ozone 

regulations set forth at 40 CFR 51.166 

and in 40 CFR 52.21. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

VADEQ’s regulations adding NOX as a 

precursor to ozone establish a 

construction permit program consistent 

with the Federal CAA’s Title I program 

and implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

51.166, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality.’’ VADEQ’s 

regulation 9VAC5 Chapter 80, Article 8 

is part of the SIP and sets forth the 

criteria and procedures for major 

stationary sources to obtain a permit to 

construct, operate and/or modify a 

major stationary source. 

We are proposing to fully approve the 

regulatory citation changes which 

became effective in Virginia on 

December 31, 2008, as referenced here 

in this document and in the Virginia 

Code of Regulations 9VAC5 Chapter 80, 

Article 8, sections 5–80–1615 and 5–80– 

1695 which establish NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, into the Virginia 

SIP. These proposed changes will add 

NOX as a precursor to ozone, in addition 

to volatile organic compounds (VOC), in 

the definitions of ‘‘major modification’’, 

‘‘major stationary source’’, ‘‘regulated 

New Source Review (NSR) pollutant’’ 

and ‘‘significant’’ and to the list of 

exempted facilities. 

Previously, EPA had issued an 

‘‘limited approval’’ of Virginia’s PSD 

regulations (9VAC5 Chapter 80, Article 

8) for reasons that will not deny this 

action as being fully approved. The 

‘‘limited approval’’ issues can be found 

in the Technical Support Document 

contained in this Docket or in the 

Federal Register action dated October 

22, 2008 (73 FR 62897). 

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 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 

‘‘regarding 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 to 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 PSD 

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 

Our review of Virginia’s SIP revision 

request indicates that our proposed 

approval of this SIP revision is 

warranted. As previously noted, these 

changes to the Virginia program are 

found in the Virginia Code at 9VAC5 

Chapter 80, Article 8, Permits for Major 

Stationary Sources and Major 

Modifications Locating in Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Areas. 

This proposed SIP approval for 

sections 5–80–1615 and 5–80–1695 

which addresses regulatory changes 

needed to be equivalent to the CAA’s 

part C PSD permit program. It will also 

correct deficiencies identified by EPA in 

the March 27, 2008 Federal Register 

action entitled, ‘‘Completeness Findings 

for Section 110(a) State implementation 

Plans for the 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (1997 

Ozone NAAQS)’’ (73 FR 16205). EPA’s 

proposed approval of this SIP 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

submission addresses Virginia’s 

compliance with the portion of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) & (J) relating to the 

CAA’s part C PSD permit program for 

the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, because this 

proposed approval would approve 

regulating NOX as a precursor to ozone 

in Virginia’s SIP in accordance with the 

Federal Register action dated November 

29, 2005 (70 FR 71612) that finalized 

NOX as a precursor for ozone 

regulations set forth at 40 CFR 51.166 

and in 40 CFR 52.21. 

We are proposing to fully approve the 

Virginia SIP revision request for these 

changes only. Prior ‘‘limited approval’’ 

of certain aspects of Virginia’s PSD 

program elements remain valid. A 

description of these items for ‘‘limited 

approval’’ can be found in the Technical 

Support Document contained in this 

Docket or in the Federal Register action 

dated October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62897). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed for this proposed 

approval document only. 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, this proposed rule to 

include NOX as a precursor to ozone in 

Virginia 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: April 25, 2011. 

James W. Newson, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12515 Filed 5–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–0210–0302; FRL–9309–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

and conditionally approve the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions 

from the State of Utah which 

demonstrate that the State meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit an ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA. The State of 

Utah submitted two certifications of 

their Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, one dated December 3, 

2007, which was determined to be 

complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 

16205), and one dated December 21, 

2009. EPA does not propose to act on 

the State’s March 22, 2007 submission 

to meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, relating to 

interstate transport of air pollution, for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved 

the State’s interstate transport SIP 

submission on May 28, 2008 (73 FR 

16543). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0302, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2010– 

0302. 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS