46184 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

proceedings conducted by, or on behalf 

of, the U.S. Postal Service. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18627 Filed 8–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0499; FRL–9914–54– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revisions to the Definition of Volatile 

Organic Compounds 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

revisions add five compounds to the list 

of substances not considered to be 

volatile organic compounds (VOC). EPA 

is approving these revisions in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

6, 2014 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by September 8, 2014. 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–2014–0499 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–2014–0499, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, Air 

Protection Division, 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–2014– 

0499. 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: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Tropospheric ozone, commonly 

known as smog, is formed when VOCs 

and nitrogen oxides react in the 

atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. 

Because of the harmful health effects of 

ozone, EPA and state governments limit 

the amount of VOCs that can be released 

into the atmosphere. VOCs have 

different levels of reactivity, that is, 

some VOCs react slowly or form less 

ozone, and therefore, changes in their 

emissions have limited effects on local 

or regional ozone pollution episodes. It 

has been EPA’s policy that VOCs with 

a negligible level of reactivity should be 

excluded from the regulatory definition 

of VOC contained at 40 CFR 51.100(s) so 

as to focus control efforts on compounds 

that do significantly increase ozone 

concentrations. This is accomplished by 

adding the substance to a list of 

compounds not considered to be VOCs, 

and thus, excluded from the definition 

of VOC. EPA believes that exempting 

such compounds creates an incentive 

for industry to use negligibly reactive 

compounds in place of more highly 

reactive compounds that are regulated 

as VOCs. 

On June 22, 2012 (77 FR 37610) and 

February 12, 2013 (78 FR 9823), EPA 

revised the definition of VOC contained 

in 40 CFR 51.100 to exclude five 

substances from the definition of VOC 

and corrected the citation for one 

substance. The compounds excluded 

from the definition of VOC are listed as 

follows: Trans-1,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO1234ze), HCF2OCF2H (also known as 

HFE-134), HCF2OCF2OCF2H (also 

known as HFE-236cal2), 

HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also known as 

HFE-338pcc13), and 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also 

known as HGalden 1040x, H-Galden ZT 

130, H-Galden ZT 150, or H-Galden ZT 

180). In the February 12, 2013 

rulemaking action, EPA also corrected 

the citation for 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5- 

decafluoro-3-methoxy-4- 

trifluoromethylpentane (also known as 

HFE-7300). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On April 11, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a 

formal revision to its SIP. The SIP 

revision consists of adding the 

compound, ‘‘trans-1,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoropropene’’ also know as ‘‘HFO1234ze,’’ to the list of substances that 

are not considered VOCs as well as 

minor administrative changes to the 

definition of ‘‘Total suspended 

particulate,’’ both contained in 9VAC5– 

10–20. 

On May 22, 2014, the Commonwealth 

of Virginia submitted a formal revision 

to its SIP which consists of adding four 

additional compounds to the list of 

substances that are not considered VOCs 

found at 9VAC5–10–20; these 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46185 

compounds are as follows: HCF2OCF2H 

(also known as HFE-134), 

HCF2OCF2OCF2H (also known as HFE236cal2), HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also 

known as HFE-338pcc13), and 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also 

known as HGalden 1040x, H-Galden ZT 

130, H-Galden ZT 150, or H-Galden ZT 

180). In addition, the May 22, 2014 

submittal also made minor 

administrative corrections to the 

citation for 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5- 

decafluoro-3-methoxy-4- 

trifluoromethylpentane (also known as 

HFE-7300). 

In total, the April 11, 2014 and May 

22, 2014 SIP revisions will allow the 

Virginia SIP to mirror the Federal 

definition of VOC. EPA believes that by 

excluding these negligibly reactive 

compounds from the definition of VOC 

an incentive is created for industry to 

use negligibly reactive compounds in 

place of more highly reactive 

compounds; therefore, the air quality in 

Virginia will not be negatively affected 

by the approval of these SIP revisions 

particularly as EPA has found these 

compounds negligibly reactive for ozone 

formation. 

III. Corrections 

On November 21, 2011 (76 FR 71881), 

EPA published a Final Rulemaking 

Notice which updated the materials 

incorporated by reference into the 

Virginia SIP. In that rulemaking action, 

EPA instructed the Office of the Federal 

Register to remove the first five entries 

for Section 5–10–20 from the table 

contained in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR 

52.2420 and retain the remaining entries 

for that section. Inadvertently, those five 

entries were not removed, and the 

remaining entries for Section 5–10–20 

that were intended to be retained were 

mistakenly removed. In today’s 

rulemaking action, EPA corrects that 

error. The entries that were intended to 

be retained in the November 21, 2011 

rulemaking action were for four 

previously approved SIP revisions that 

revised 9VAC5–10–20; these revisions 

to the Virginia SIP were previously 

approved by EPA between March 2004 

and February 2011. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the revisions to the 

definition of VOC, submitted by 

Virginia on April 11, 2014 and May 22, 

2014, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. 

In addition, EPA is correcting an error 

in which previous entries to the table in 

paragraph (c) of 40 CFR 52.2420 were 

inadvertently removed. EPA is 

publishing this rule without prior 

proposal because EPA 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 

October 6, 2014 without further notice 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by September 8, 2014. 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. 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 § 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. 

VI. 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
46186 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 October 6, 2014. 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 action. This 

action, revising the definition of VOCs, 

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, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 11, 2014. 

W. C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region II. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 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 

(c) is amended by adding five entries for 

Section 5–10–20 after the entry for 

Section 5–10–20 with a State effective 

date of 1/1/98. The additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/Subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA 

approval 

date 

Explanation 

[former SIP citation] 

*******

9 VAC 5, Chapter 10, General Definitions [Part I] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46187 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued 

State citation Title/Subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA 

approval 

date 

Explanation 

[former SIP citation] 

*******

5–10–20 .................................... Terms Defined ......................... 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 ............. Terms Added: EPA, Initial 

emissions test, Initial performance test (as corrected 

11/05/03 and effective 01/ 

01/04 in the Commonwealth), Maintenance area. 

Terms Revised: Affected facility, Delayed compliance 

order, Excessive concentration, Federally enforceable, 

Malfunction, Public hearing, 

Reference method, Reid 

vapor pressure, Stationary 

source, True vapor pressure, Vapor pressure, Volatile organic compounds. 

Terms Removed: Air Quality 

Maintenance Areas. 

5–10–20 .................................... Terms Defined ......................... 5/04/05 8/18/06, 71 FR 47742 ............. Revised definition of ‘‘volatile 

organic compound’’. 

5–10–20 .................................... Terms Defined ......................... 4/2/09 2/25/10, 75 FR 8493 ............... Revised definitions of Ambient 

air quality standard, Criteria 

pollutant, Dispersion technique, Emission limitation, 

Emission standard, Excessive concentration, Feral 

Clean Air Act, Federally enforceable, Good engineering 

practice, Initial emission 

test, Initial performance test, 

Public hearing, Reference 

method, Regulations for the 

Control and Abatement of 

Air Pollution, Reid vapor 

pressure, Run, Standard of 

performance, State enforceable, These regulations, 

True vapor pressure, Vapor 

pressure, and Volatile organic compound. 

5–10–20 .................................... Terms Defined ......................... 2/18/10 2/14/11, 76 FR 8298 ............... Revised definition of ‘‘Volatile 

organic compound.’’ 

5–10–20 .................................... Terms Defined ......................... 12/5/13, 

3/27/14 

8/7/14, [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised definition of VOC. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–18478 Filed 8–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2014–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8343] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. Also, information 

identifying the current participation 

status of a community can be obtained 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES