Air Plan Approval; Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg Area, 25810-25813 [2024-07778]

Download as PDF 25810 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG–2024–0268] Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation. AGENCY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks in the Captain of the Port San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM), or any Official Patrol defined as other law enforcement agencies on scene. DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced for the location identified in table 1 to § 165.1191, Item number 1, from 11:30 a.m. until 10:40 p.m. on April 26, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email LT William Harris, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division; telephone (415) 399–7443, email SFWaterways@ uscg.mil. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1191, table 1, Item number 1 for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks from 11:30 a.m. until 10:40 p.m. on April 26, 2024. The safety zone will extend to all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 100 feet outwards of the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival from the loading location to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 11:30 a.m. until 9 p.m. on April 26, 2024, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics from Pier 68 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at the loading location until its transit to the display location. From 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on April 26, 2024, lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:52 Apr 11, 2024 Jkt 262001 the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 68 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′36″ N, 122°22′56″ W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display. Upon commencement of the 10-minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at the conclusion of the baseball game, between 9:40 p.m. and 10 p.m. on April 26, 2024, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 700 feet out from the fireworks barge near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′36″ N, 122°22′56″ W (NAD 83). This safety zone will be enforced from 11:30 a.m. until 10:40 p.m. on April 26, 2024, or as announced via Marine Information Broadcast. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol, defined as a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the safety zone. During the enforcement period, if you are the operator of a vessel in one of the safety zones you must comply with the direction from the PATCOM or other Official Patrol. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so. In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notification, a Marine Information Broadcast may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area. Dated: April 3, 2024. Taylor Q. Lam, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco. [FR Doc. 2024–07786 Filed 4–11–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P PO 00000 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2023–0629; FRL–11261– 02–R3] Air Plan Approval; Virginia; 1997 8Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg Area Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision pertains to the Commonwealth’s plan, submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (referred to as the ‘‘1997 ozone NAAQS’’) in the Fredericksburg, Virginia Area (Fredericksburg Area). EPA is approving these revisions to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: This final rule is effective on May 13, 2024. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2023–0629. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (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 through www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serena Nichols, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814–2053. Ms. Nichols can also be reached via electronic mail at Nichols.Serena@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Background On February 6, 2024 (89 FR 8131), EPA published a notice of proposed Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Virginia’s plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Fredericksburg Area through January 23, 2026, in accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Virginia on May 25, 2023. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis On December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165),1 EPA approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from VADEQ for the Fredericksburg Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years. In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA,2 the District of Columbia (D.C). Circuit held that this requirement cannot be waived for areas, like the Fredericksburg Area, that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to revocation and that were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five elements: (1) an attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan.3 VADEQ’s May 25, 2023 submittal fulfills Virginia’s obligation to submit a second maintenance plan and addresses each of the five necessary elements, as explained in the NPRM. As discussed in the February 6, 2024, NPRM, EPA allows the submittal of a limited maintenance plan (LMP) to meet the statutory requirement that the area will maintain for the statutory period. 1 As noted in the NPRM, EPA’s December 23, 2005 redesignation and initial approval of the maintenance plan mistakenly listed the publication date as the effective date. 70 FR 76165. EPA subsequently corrected the effective date, found in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 81, to January 23, 2006. 72 FR 68515 (December 5, 2007). 2 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). 3 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo). VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:52 Apr 11, 2024 Jkt 262001 Qualifying areas may meet the maintenance demonstration by showing that the area’s design value 4 is well below the NAAQS and that the historical stability of the area’s air quality levels indicate that the area is unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. EPA evaluated VADEQ’s May 25, 2023 submittal for consistency with all applicable EPA guidance and CAA requirements. EPA found that the submittal met CAA section 175A and all CAA requirements, and proposed approval of the LMP for the Fredericksburg Area as a revision to the Virginia SIP. Other specific requirements of Virginia’s May 25, 2023 submittal and the rationale for EPA’s proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPRM. III. Final Action EPA is approving VADEQ’s second maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Fredericksburg Area as a revision to the Virginia SIP. 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. 10.11198, 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 4 The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area. www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values. PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 25811 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. 10.11198, 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. 10.11199, 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, section 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 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1 25812 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 V. 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, 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. This action 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:52 Apr 11, 2024 Jkt 262001 Commonwealth, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address ‘‘disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects’’ of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.’’ The VADEQ did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 June 11, 2024. 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. This action, approving VADEQ’s second maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Adam Ortiz, Regional Administrator, Region III. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 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 Ö(1) is amended by adding the entry ‘‘Second Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: ■ § 52.2420 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * (1) * * * E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1 * * Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 72 / Friday, April 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date * * * Second Maintenance Plan for Fredericksburg Area .............. the Fredericksburg 1997 8Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2024–07778 Filed 4–11–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 45 CFR Part 1638 Restriction on Solicitation Legal Services Corporation. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: This final rule revises the Legal Services Corporation’s (LSC or Corporation) regulation prohibiting solicitation of clients. LSC adds definitions for the terms ‘‘communicate’’ and ‘‘communication,’’ revises the existing text to make language more active, and clarifies how recipients may interact with clienteligible individuals. The main goal of these revisions is to formalize the interpretations of LSC’s rule on solicitation that the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) has issued over the past several years, making clear that recipients may inform client-eligible individuals about their rights and responsibilities and provide them with information about the recipients’ intake processes, as well as how recipients may relay that information without violating either LSC’s Fiscal Year 1996 appropriations statute or the rule prohibiting solicitation. DATES: This final rule is effective on May 13, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elijah Johnson, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295–1638 (phone), or johnsone@lsc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 SUMMARY: I. Background On April 26, 1996, Congress passed the appropriations act for Fiscal Year 1996. Public Law 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321. Through this statute, Congress enacted a series of restrictions applicable to LSC grant recipients’ activities. One of the restrictions was section 504(a)(18), which states that VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:52 Apr 11, 2024 Jkt 262001 * 5/25/23 EPA approval date Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Additional explanation * * * 4/12/24, [Insert Federal Reg- The Fredericksburg Area conister Citation]. sists of the city of Fredericksburg, and the counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford. grant recipients ‘‘will not accept employment resulting from in-person unsolicited advice to a nonattorney that such nonattorney should obtain counsel or take legal action, and will not refer such nonattorney to another person or entity or an employee of the person or entity, that is receiving financial assistance provided by the Corporation[.]’’ Pubic Law 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321–56. On May 19, 1996, the Operations and Regulations Committee (Committee) of the LSC Board of Directors requested that LSC staff prepare an interim rule to implement section 504(a)(18), and in April 1997, LSC promulgated part 1638. Consistent with section 504(a)(18), LSC’s rule prohibits a grant recipient from representing an individual who had not sought legal advice from the grant recipient but who the grant recipient had provided in person unsolicited advice to seek legal representation or take legal action. 45 CFR 1638.3(a). Part 1638 also prohibits a grant recipient who has given inperson unsolicited advice to an individual from referring that individual to another LSC grant recipient. 45 CFR 1638.3(b). Finally, LSC included language in part 1638 stating that providing legal information, including information about the availability of counsel and a grant recipient’s intake procedures, are permissible activities. 45 CFR 1638.4(a). The regulation’s language caused grantees to question whether they can provide information about individuals’ legal rights and the availability of legal assistance through texts, phone calls, and in-person contacts at court clinics. Over the years, OLA has received multiple inquiries from grant recipients and other stakeholders about the types of proposed outreach activities permissible under part 1638. Examples of inquiries include: • Is it permissible to send text messages to unrepresented individuals explaining defendants’ rights in eviction cases? • Is it permissible to inform individuals of the availability of legal PO 00000 25813 assistance via mailings and text messages? • What activities are allowed when interacting with individuals approaching grant recipient attorneys at court-based self-help clinics? In July 2003, OLA published an advisory opinion (AO) answering a question from the Northwest Justice Project (‘‘NJP’’). NJP asked whether they could hand out informational brochures to individuals in the courthouse as part of their administration of the Housing Justice Program (‘‘HJP’’). The HJP provided same-day advice and representation from volunteer attorneys to LSC-eligible clients in eviction proceedings in court. The previous coordinator of the HJP, a non-LSCfunded organization, contacted prospective clients at the courthouse, advised them of the availability of services, asked if they would like to discuss their case with a lawyer, and represented some the same day. Upon assuming operation of the program, NJP stopped engaging in direct contact and submitted its inquiry to LSC. NJP contacted LSC because it was concerned that the lack of direct client engagement had led to a decline in the usage of HJP services. LSC confirmed that under part 1638, it would be impermissible for NJP to provide unsolicited advice to prospective clients at the courthouse to advise them of the availability of legal services and ask individuals if they wanted to discuss their case with a lawyer and then accept those individuals as clients. EX–2003–1011, June 9, 2003. This advisory opinion remained LSC’s position until 2016. In 2016, OLA received a question from a law professor who was researching methods to increase the likelihood that individuals living in poverty would engage with the legal system, including by seeking free legal services. The study proposed to test the effectiveness of different types of mailings sent to defendants in debt collection cases. The professor asked OLA whether part 1638 prohibits a grant recipient from representing individuals to whom the grant recipient has mailed information regarding their rights and E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25810-25813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07778]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0629; FRL-11261-02-R3]


Air Plan Approval; Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg 
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state 
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. This revision pertains to the Commonwealth's plan, submitted 
by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), for 
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) (referred to as the ``1997 ozone NAAQS'') in the 
Fredericksburg, Virginia Area (Fredericksburg Area). EPA is approving 
these revisions to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 13, 2024.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0629. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (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 through 
www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serena Nichols, Planning & 
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F Kennedy 
Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is 
(215) 814-2053. Ms. Nichols can also be reached via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 6, 2024 (89 FR 8131), EPA published a notice of 
proposed

[[Page 25811]]

rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA 
proposed approval of Virginia's plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS in the Fredericksburg Area through January 23, 2026, in 
accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted 
by Virginia on May 25, 2023.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165),\1\ EPA approved a redesignation 
request (and maintenance plan) from VADEQ for the Fredericksburg Area 
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the 
end of the eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, 
the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing 
maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years. In South Coast 
Air Quality Management District v. EPA,\2\ the District of Columbia 
(D.C). Circuit held that this requirement cannot be waived for areas, 
like the Fredericksburg Area, that had been redesignated to attainment 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to revocation and that were 
designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CAA section 175A sets 
forth the criteria for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has 
published longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the 
content of an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a 
maintenance plan should address five elements: (1) an attainment 
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment 
for continued air quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of 
continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan.\3\ VADEQ's May 25, 
2023 submittal fulfills Virginia's obligation to submit a second 
maintenance plan and addresses each of the five necessary elements, as 
explained in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted in the NPRM, EPA's December 23, 2005 redesignation 
and initial approval of the maintenance plan mistakenly listed the 
publication date as the effective date. 70 FR 76165. EPA 
subsequently corrected the effective date, found in title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 81, to January 23, 2006. 72 
FR 68515 (December 5, 2007).
    \2\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
    \3\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the February 6, 2024, NPRM, EPA allows the 
submittal of a limited maintenance plan (LMP) to meet the statutory 
requirement that the area will maintain for the statutory period. 
Qualifying areas may meet the maintenance demonstration by showing that 
the area's design value \4\ is well below the NAAQS and that the 
historical stability of the area's air quality levels indicate that the 
area is unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. EPA evaluated 
VADEQ's May 25, 2023 submittal for consistency with all applicable EPA 
guidance and CAA requirements. EPA found that the submittal met CAA 
section 175A and all CAA requirements, and proposed approval of the LMP 
for the Fredericksburg Area as a revision to the Virginia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year 
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment 
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area. 
www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other specific requirements of Virginia's May 25, 2023 submittal 
and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM 
and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the 
NPRM.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving VADEQ's second maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS in the Fredericksburg Area as a revision to the Virginia SIP.

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. 
10.11198, 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. 10.11198, 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. 10.11199, 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, section 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

[[Page 25812]]

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or 
immunity law.

V. 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, 
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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act.
    This action 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 Commonwealth, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that 
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The VADEQ did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as 
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing 
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did 
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. 
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there 
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of 
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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 June 11, 2024. 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. This action, approving VADEQ's second maintenance plan for the 
Fredericksburg Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph [euro](1) is amended by 
adding the entry ``Second Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg 1997 
8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area'' at the end of the table to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 25813]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Second Maintenance Plan for the    Fredericksburg Area         5/25/23  4/12/24, [Insert     The Fredericksburg
 Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour Ozone                                        Federal Register     Area consists of
 Nonattainment Area.                                                     Citation].           the city of
                                                                                              Fredericksburg,
                                                                                              and the counties
                                                                                              of Spotsylvania
                                                                                              and Stafford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-07778 Filed 4-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.