Commonwealth of Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 46351-46353 [2014-18639]
Download as PDF
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
implementing directive, and this
section. An MDR request must describe
the document or material containing the
requested information with sufficient
specificity to enable Commission
personnel to locate it with a reasonable
amount of effort. Requests for broad
types of information, entire file series of
records, or similar non-specific requests
may be denied processing. The
Secretary shall notify a requester who
has submitted a non-specific request
that no further action will be taken on
the request unless the requester
provides additional description.
(b) Freedom of Information Act and
Privacy Act requests. (1) Requests for
records submitted under the Freedom of
Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’) (5 U.S.C.
552), as amended, or the Privacy Act of
1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended,
which include classified information
shall be processed in accordance with
the provisions of those acts and
applicable Commission regulations
(subpart C of this part (FOIA
regulations); subpart D of this part
(Privacy Act regulations)).
(2) If a requester submits a request
under FOIA and also requests MDR, the
Secretary shall require the requester to
select one process or the other. If the
requester fails to select one or the other
process, the Secretary will treat the
request as a FOIA request unless the
requested materials are subject only to
MDR.
(c) Referral of MDR requests. (1)
Because the Commission does not have
original classification authority and all
U.S. originated classified information in
its custody has been originally classified
by another Federal agency, the Secretary
shall refer all requests for MDR and the
pertinent records to the originating
agency for review. Following
consultations with the originating
agency, the Secretary shall notify the
requester of the referral unless such
association is itself classified under
Executive Order 13526 or its
predecessor orders. The Secretary shall
request that the originating agency, in
accordance with 32 CFR
2001.33(a)(2)(ii) and 2001.34(e):
(i) Promptly process the request for
declassification,
(ii) Communicate its declassification
determination to the Secretary, and
(iii) If the originating agency proposes
to withhold any information from
public release, notify the Secretary of
the specific information at issue and the
applicable law that authorizes and
warrants withholding such information.
(2) Unless a prior arrangement has
been made with the originating agency,
the Secretary shall collect the results of
that agency’s review and inform the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Aug 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
requester of any final decision regarding
the declassification of the requested
information as follows:
(i) If the originating agency denies
declassification of the requested
information in whole or in part, the
Secretary shall ensure that the decision
provided to the requester includes
notification of the right to file an
administrative appeal with the
originating agency within 60 days of
receipt of the denial and the mailing
address for the appellate authority at the
originating agency.
(ii) If the originating agency
declassifies the requested information in
whole or in part, the Secretary shall
determine whether the requested
declassified information is exempt from
disclosure, in whole or in part, under
the provisions of a statutory authority,
such as the FOIA. The Secretary shall
inform the requester that an appeal from
a denial of requested declassified
information must be received within 60
days of the date of the letter of denial
and shall be made to the Commission
and addressed to the Chairman, United
States International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20436.
(d) Foreign Government Information—
(1) Definitions. ‘‘Foreign government
information’’ (‘‘FGI’’) means information
provided to the United States
Government by a foreign government or
governments, an international
organization of governments, or any
element thereof, with the expectation
that the information, the source of the
information, or both, are to be held in
confidence; information produced by
the United States Government pursuant
to or as a result of a joint arrangement
with a foreign government or
governments, or an international
organization of governments, or any
element thereof, requiring that the
information, the arrangement, or both,
are to be held in confidence; or
information received and treated as FGI
under the terms of a predecessor of
Executive Order 13526.
(2) MDR requests for classified records
in Commission custody that contain
FGI. The Commission will handle such
MDR requests consistent with the
requirements of Executive Order 13526
and 32 CFR part 2001. MDR requests for
FGI initially received or classified by
another Federal agency shall be referred
to such agency following the referral
procedures in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(e) Appeals of denials of MDR
requests. MDR appeals are for the denial
of classified information only. Appeals
of denials are handled in accordance
with 32 CFR 2001.33(a)(2)(iii), which
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46351
provides that the agency appellate
authority deciding an administrative
appeal of the denial of an MDR request
shall notify the requester in writing of
the reasons for any denial and inform
the requester of his or her final appeal
rights to the Interagency Security
Classification Appeals Panel.
Issued: August 1, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
Jennifer D. Rohrbach,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2014–18685 Filed 8–7–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0160; FRL–9914–70Region 3]
Commonwealth of Virginia;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and
2006 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correcting
amendments.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is correcting errors in the
rule language of a final rule pertaining
to the infrastructure requirements for
the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS).
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective on
August 8, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
I. Background
On October 11, 2011, EPA published
a final rulemaking action announcing
the approval of several infrastructure
elements for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the
Commonwealth of Virginia’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP). 76 FR
62635. In that final rulemaking, EPA
approved the addition of section 10.1–
1302 of the Code of Virginia into the
Virginia SIP; however, in that
rulemaking action, EPA inadvertently
failed to include amendatory language
which would have added an entry to the
EPA-approved Virginia regulations table
at 40 CFR 52.2420(c). This rulemaking
action corrects that omission.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
46352
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the
Administrative Procedure Act provides
that when an agency, for good cause,
finds that notice and public procedure
are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest, the
agency may issue a rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment. EPA has determined
that there is good cause for making this
rule final without prior proposal and
opportunity for comment because EPA
is merely correcting an errant omission
of amendatory language from a previous
rulemaking action. Thus, notice and
public procedure are unnecessary. EPA
finds that this constitutes good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
II. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:44 Aug 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 PSD,
NSR, or Title V 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.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and is therefore not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)). Because the agency has made
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action
is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute as
indicated in the Supplementary
Information section above, it is not
subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.), or to sections
202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104–4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments or impose a significant
intergovernmental mandate, as
described in sections 203 and 204 of
UMRA. This rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of governments, as specified by
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
This technical correction action does
not involve technical standards, thus
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. The rule also
does not involve special consideration
of environmental justice related issues
as required by Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In
issuing this rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct, as
required by section 3 of Executive Order
12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).
EPA has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
46353
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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. Section 808 allows
the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise
provided by the CRA if the agency
makes a good cause finding that notice
and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest. This determination must be
supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C.
808(2). As stated previously, EPA had
made such a good cause finding,
including the reasons therefore, and
established an effective date of August
8, 2014. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule 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. This correction to
40 CFR 52.2420 for Virginia is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Dated: July 10, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR
part 52 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV—Virginia
2. Section 52.2420 is amended by
adding, in numerical order, an entry for
Section 10.1–1302 under the heading
‘‘Code of Virginia’’ in the table in
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
§ 52.2420
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES
State citation
State
effective
date
Title/subject
*
*
*
*
EPA approval date
*
*
Explanation
[former SIP citation]
*
Code of Virginia
Section 10.1–1302 .........
*
*
*
Qualifications of members of Boards ...................
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–18639 Filed 8–7–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0575; FRL 9914–88–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AS29
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Extension of Compliance
and Attest Engagement Reporting
Deadlines for 2013 Renewable Fuel
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to extend two reporting deadlines
for the 2013 compliance period under
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
program. This action specifically affects
the annual compliance and attest
engagement reporting requirement
deadlines for regulated parties. The
annual compliance reports and attest
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Aug 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
10/11/11, 76 FR 62635
*
engagement reports for the 2013 RFS
compliance period will not be due until
30 days and 90 days, respectively,
following publication of the final rule
establishing the 2014 renewable fuel
percentage standards for cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced
biofuel and total renewable fuel in the
Federal Register. This action ensures
timely amendment of existing
deadlines, before compliance
obligations would otherwise go into
effect.
This rule is effective on
September 29, 2014 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse
comment by September 15, 2014. If the
EPA receives adverse comment, we will
publish a timely withdrawal notice in
the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2014–0575, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
DATES:
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
*
7/1/08
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
Section added.
*
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460. 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–HQ–OAR–2014–
0575. The 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 the 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 the EPA without
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46351-46353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18639]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0160; FRL-9914-70-Region 3]
Commonwealth of Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting errors
in the rule language of a final rule pertaining to the infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS).
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 8, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 11, 2011, EPA published a final rulemaking action
announcing the approval of several infrastructure elements for the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the
Commonwealth of Virginia's State Implementation Plan (SIP). 76 FR
62635. In that final rulemaking, EPA approved the addition of section
10.1-1302 of the Code of Virginia into the Virginia SIP; however, in
that rulemaking action, EPA inadvertently failed to include amendatory
language which would have added an entry to the EPA-approved Virginia
regulations table at 40 CFR 52.2420(c). This rulemaking action corrects
that omission.
[[Page 46352]]
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides
that when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public
procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good
cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment because EPA is merely correcting an errant omission of
amendatory language from a previous rulemaking action. Thus, notice and
public procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
II. 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
PSD, NSR, or Title V 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.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). Because
the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary
Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards, thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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
[[Page 46353]]
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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective
sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good
cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must
be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefore, and established an effective date of August 8, 2014.
EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This correction to 40 CFR 52.2420 for
Virginia is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Dated: July 10, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV--Virginia
0
2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding, in numerical order, an entry
for Section 10.1-1302 under the heading ``Code of Virginia'' in the
table in paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Explanation
State citation Title/subject effective EPA approval date [former SIP
date citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 10.1-1302............... Qualifications of 7/1/08 10/11/11, 76 FR Section added.
members of Boards. 62635.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-18639 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P