[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73362-73363]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25709]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5045; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-10]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Drummond Island, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E en route domestic
airspace at Drummond Island Airport, Drummond Island, MI, to facilitate
vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of
Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The FAA is
proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft
operations at Drummond Island Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20591: telephone 1
800 617-5527, or 1<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the docket number
FAA-2016-5045/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-10, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone:
817-222-5874.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace in the Drummond Island, MI area.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-5045/
Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-10.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 17-mile
radius of Drummond Island Airport, Drummond Island, MI, excluding
Canadian airspace. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR
conditions under control of Minneapolis ARTCC by safely vectoring
aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6006 of FAA Order
7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

AGL MI E6 Drummond Island, MI [New]

Drummond Island Airport, MI
    (Lat. 46[deg]00'34'' N., long. 083[deg]44'38'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within a 17-mile radius of Drummond Island Airport, excluding that
airspace within Canada.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 11, 2016.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-25709 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8814-8817]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04185]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0601; FRL-9974-99--Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Regional Haze Plan and Visibility
for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 Standards

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 (the Commonwealth or Virginia) that changes
reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reliance on the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address certain regional haze
requirements. EPA's approval of this SIP revision would convert the
Agency's limited approval/limited disapproval of Virginia's regional
haze SIP to a full approval. EPA is also proposing to approve the
visibility element of Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittals for the
2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
These proposed actions are supported by EPA's recent final
determination that a state's participation in CSAPR continues to meet
the Regional Haze Rule's (RHR) criteria to qualify as an alternative to
the application of best available retrofit technology (BART). This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0601 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. 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 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER> or at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 16, 2015, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) submitted a revision to its SIP to
update its regional haze plan and to meet visibility requirements in
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA.

I. Background

A. Regional Haze and the Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes ``as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \1\ On December 2,
1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in
Class I areas that are reasonably attributable to a single source or
small group of sources.\2\ Then, in 1990 Congress added section 169B to
the CAA to address regional haze issues. EPA subsequently promulgated
regulations pursuant to section 169B to address regional haze.\3\ The
RHR focuses on visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of
air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic
area, requiring states to establish goals and emission reduction
strategies for improving visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Mandatory Class I federal areas are
defined as national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas
and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42
U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of
156 mandatory Class I federal areas where visibility is identified
as an important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). When we use
the term Class I area in this action, we mean a mandatory Class I
federal area.
    \2\ These regulations are the reasonably attributable visibility
impairment (RAVI) provisions. 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980).
    \3\ These regulations are known as the Regional Haze Rule or
RHR. 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart P).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to develop, and submit for approval by
EPA, a SIP to meet various air quality requirements, including the
protection of visibility in Class I areas.\4\ Section 169A(b)(2) of the
CAA requires that applicable \5\ state SIPs must contain such emission
limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary
to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility
goal. Such measures include the application of BART by any BART-
eligible sources \6\ that emit air pollutants such as SO2
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) \7\ that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class
I area. The BART provisions of the RHR generally direct states to
follow these steps to address the BART requirements: (1) Identify all
BART-eligible sources; (2) determine which of those sources may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area, and are therefore subject to BART
requirements; (3) determine source-specific BART for each source that
is subject to BART requirements; and (4) include the emission
limitations reflecting those BART determinations in their SIPs.\8\
However, the RHR also provides states with the flexibility to adopt an
emissions trading program or other alternative program instead of
requiring source-specific BART controls, as long as the alternative
provides greater reasonable progress towards the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I

areas than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a), CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
    \5\ States that have a federal Class I area, listed by the
Administrator under subsection 169A(a)(2) of the CAA, and/or states
from which the emissions may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of visibility in any federal Class I
area.
    \6\ A BART-eligible source is any one of the 26 specified source
categories listed in appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51, Guidelines for
BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule.
    \7\ SO2 and NOX are considered the most
significant visibility impairing pollutants.
    \8\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a 2005 revision to the RHR,\9\ EPA demonstrated that CAIR \10\
would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART. See 70 FR 39104.
This is often referred to as the CAIR-better-than-BART determination.
Based on this determination, EPA amended its regulations so that states
participating in the CAIR cap-and trade programs under 40 CFR part 96
pursuant to an EPA approved CAIR SIP, or states that remain subject to
a CAIR federal trading program under 40 CFR part 97, need not require
affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install,
operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and
NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Several states subject to
CAIR, including Virginia, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as
an alternative to BART to achieve greater reasonable progress towards
national visibility goals for their first SIP revision submitted to
address regional haze.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
    \10\ CAIR involved the District of Columbia and 27 eastern
states, including Virginia, in several regional cap and trade
programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions that
contribute to the nonattainment or interfere with the maintenance of
the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
    \11\ Virginia submitted its comprehensive regional haze SIP
revision on October 4, 2010. Virginia also submitted some additional
SIP submittals addressing specific BART and reasonable progress
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated CAIR.\12\ In December 2008,
the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA without vacatur while a
replacement rule consistent with the Court's opinion was developed.\13\
On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208) EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR
and issued federal trading programs to implement the rule in the states
subject to CSAPR.\14\ CSAPR was to become effective January 1, 2012;
however, the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by a number
of court actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \13\ North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \14\ CSAPR is a regional cap-and-trade program meant to replace
CAIR. Similar to CAIR, it is focused on eastern states (including
Virginia) and requires participants to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting another
state's ability to attain or maintain the following NAAQS: 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
and the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After promulgating CSAPR, EPA conducted a technical analysis to
determine whether compliance with CSAPR would satisfy the requirements
of the RHR addressing alternatives to BART. In a June 7, 2012 action,
EPA amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in
a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal
trading program or an integrated CSAPR state trading program
implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies as a BART
alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.\15\ See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, both states and EPA
have relied on the CSAPR-better-than-BART determination to satisfy the
BART requirements for states that participate in CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR-better-than-BART
determination are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No.
12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR.\16\ The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the
United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was
remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance
with the high court's ruling.\17\ On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed
CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the
CSAPR budgets to a number of states.\18\ The remanded budgets included
the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for four states and the
Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for 11 states, including
those for Virginia. The D.C. Circuit litigation ultimately delayed
implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when
CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the
CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015.\19\ Thus, the rule's
Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on January 1,
2014 began on January 1, 2017 instead. EPA has now taken all actions
necessary to respond to the D.C. Circuit's remand of the various CSAPR
budgets. On September 29, 2017, EPA finalized a determination that the
changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage following the remand of certain
of the budgets by the D.C. Circuit do not alter EPA's conclusion that
CSAPR remains better-than-BART. In sum, EGU participation in a CSAPR
trading program remains available as an alternative to BART for states
participating in CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38
(D.C. Cir. 2012).
    \17\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014).
    \18\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C.
Cir. 2015).
    \19\ Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed
a motion asking the D.C. Circuit to delay, by three years, all CSAPR
compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the approval date of
the stay on CSAPR. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted
EPA's request, and on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an interim
final rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR as January
1, 2015 and delayed the implementation of CSAPR Phase 1 to 2015 and
CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In accordance with the interim final rule,
the sunset date for CAIR was December 31, 2014, and EPA began
implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Partial Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)

    On June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval and a limited
disapproval of several SIP revisions submitted by VA DEQ meant to
address regional haze program requirements.\20\ The limited disapproval
of these SIP revisions was based upon Virginia's reliance on CAIR as an
alternative to BART and as a measure for reasonable progress. In the
June 7, 2012 action, EPA also finalized a determination that for states
covered by CSAPR, including Virginia, CSAPR achieves greater reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goals in Class I areas than
source-specific BART. To address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent
regional haze SIPs for several states, including Virginia, EPA
promulgated FIPs that replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR
to meet BART and reasonable progress requirements in Virginia and other
states in that same action. Consequently, for these states, this
particular aspect of their regional haze requirements was satisfied by
a FIP (hereafter referred to as partial RH FIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 77 FR 33643. Virginia's SIP revisions are dated July 17,
2008, March 6, 2009, January 14, 2010, October 4, 2010, November 19,
2010, and May 6, 2011. The Commonwealth submitted Virginia's
regional haze SIP revisions on July 17, 2008 for Georgia Pacific
Corporation BART determination and permit; March 6, 2009 for
MeadWestvaco Corporation BART determination and permit; January 14,
2010 for O-N Minerals Facility BART determination and permit;
October 4, 2010 for the comprehensive regional haze SIP; November
19, 2010 for the revision to the O-N Minerals Facility BART
determination and permit; and May 6, 2011 for the MeadWestvaco
Corporation reasonable progress permit, to address the requirements
of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 16, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a SIP
revision changing its reliance from CAIR to CSAPR in its SIP to meet
BART for visibility purposes and for addressing reasonable progress
requirements, thereby removing Virginia's need for the partial RH FIP.

C. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 4 Requirement

    The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIP revisions meeting the
applicable elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). SIP revisions that
are intended to meet the requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA are
often referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the elements under 110(a)
are referred to as infrastructure requirements. Several of these
applicable elements are delineated within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions in that state from having certain
adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate
transport of air pollution. There are four prongs within section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA; section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs
1 and 2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4.
This rulemaking action addresses prong 4 which is related to
interference with measures by another state to protect visibility.
Prong 4 requires that a state's SIP include adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from interfering with measures to protect visibility required to be
included in another state's SIP. One way in which prong 4 can be
satisfied is if a state has a fully approved regional haze program
within its SIP.\21\ At the time Virginia submitted its infrastructure
SIP revisions for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, which included provisions addressing the prong 4 portions,
Virginia did not have a fully approved regional haze program.\22\ EPA
acted on the majority of the infrastructure elements within Virginia's
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, but concluded that it would take separate
action on the prong 4 portions of the submittals at a later
date.23 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \22\ Virginia submitted its infrastructure SIPs for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS on June 18, 2014 and for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS on July 16, 2015.
    \23\ On March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11557), EPA approved portions of
Virginia's June 18, 2014 submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
addressing the following: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II) for prevention of significant deterioration, (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
    \24\ On June 16, 2016 (81 FR 39208), EPA approved portions of
Virginia's July 16, 2015 submittal for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS addressing the following: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II) for prevention of significant deterioration, (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relying on its July 16, 2015 SIP submittal for demonstrating it
should receive full approval of its regional haze program, Virginia
requested that EPA take action to approve the prong 4 visibility
requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Virginia submitted a SIP revision on July 16, 2015, seeking to
correct the deficiencies identified in EPA's June 7, 2012 limited
disapproval action, by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on
CSAPR in its regional haze SIP.\25\ Specifically, the July 16, 2015
submittal changes the Virginia regional haze program to state that
Virginia is relying on CSAPR in its regional haze SIP to meet the BART
and reasonable progress requirements to support visibility improvement
progress goals for the Commonwealth's Class I areas, the Shenandoah
National Park and the James River Wilderness Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Virginia was included in the CSAPR federal trading programs
on August 8, 2011. 76 FR 48208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the July 16, 2015 submittal addressed prong 4 for the
previously submitted infrastructure SIP revision regarding the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Virginia's June 18, 2014 2010 SO2
NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission relied on the Commonwealth having a
fully approved regional haze program to satisfy its prong 4
requirements. However, at the time of the June 18, 2014 submittal,
Virginia did not have a fully approved regional haze program as the
Agency had issued a limited disapproval of the Commonwealth's regional
haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR. To correct the
deficiencies and obtain approval of the aforementioned infrastructure
SIP that relied on a fully approved regional haze program, the
Commonwealth submitted the July 16, 2015 SIP revision to replace
reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.
    As did EPA's partial RH FIP for Virginia, the Commonwealth's July
16, 2015 regional haze SIP revision relies on CSAPR to address the
deficiencies identified in EPA's limited disapproval of Virginia's
regional haze SIP. EPA is proposing to find that this revision would
satisfy the NOX and SO2 BART and reasonable
progress requirements for EGUs in Virginia and therefore make
Virginia's regional haze program fully approvable. Upon EPA's final
approval of this SIP, Virginia will have a SIP in place to address all
of its regional haze requirements. EPA is proposing to find that
Virginia's reliance in its SIP upon CSAPR for certain BART and
reasonable progress requirements is in accordance with the CAA and RHR
requirements (including 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)) as EPA has recently
affirmed that CSAPR remains better-than-BART for regional haze
requirements.\26\ Because the BART and reasonable progress requirements
associated with EPA's prior limited disapproval would be addressed
through the Commonwealth's revised SIP, if EPA takes final action to
approve the July 16, 2015 SIP submission, the Agency's prior limited
disapproval/limited approval of Virginia's regional haze SIP would
convert to a full approval. Additionally, EPA is proposing to find that
if revisions to the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP are fully
approved, then the prong 4 portions of Virginia's infrastructure SIP
submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS meet applicable
requirements of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 82 FR 45481 (reaffirming CSAPR better-than-BART).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the regional haze SIP submittal which Virginia
submitted to EPA on July 16, 2015, the Commonwealth also submitted to
EPA on the same date a SIP revision regarding the infrastructure
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In order to meet
prong 4 requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this
submittal referred to Virginia's regional haze July 16, 2015 SIP
submission. Therefore, to approve the prong 4 requirements of the July
16, 2015 infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
must first fully approve Virginia's regional haze program request
within the Commonwealth's July 16, 2015 regional haze SIP submittal.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the Commonwealth's
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS have been or will be addressed in
separate rulemakings.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve
Virginia's July 16, 2015 SIP submission that changes reliance on CAIR
to reliance on CSAPR for certain elements of Virginia's regional haze
program; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of
Virginia's regional haze program to a full approval; and (3) approve
the prong 4 portions of Virginia's June 18, 2014 infrastructure

SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and its July 16, 2015
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

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 Sec.  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
regional haze 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.

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 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);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
     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 addressing regional haze
requirements and prong 4 requirements for the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is not proposed to apply on any Indian
reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area
where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-04185 Filed 2-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P