### 73995 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 228 / Friday, November 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

to enrollment in courses of study that do not further their educational or vocational goals and are contrary to their economic interests, and the rule is intended to reduce that occurrence.

We acknowledge that some institutions may need to revise their diversity outreach operations if they depend more on the financial motivation of the recruiter than the design of the recruiting or outreach plan or the relative value of the programs touted by the recruiter. The regulations address only the payment of incentives to recruiters, not the activities the school requires recruiters to perform. Thus, the regulations do not prevent an institution from holding a recruiter accountable for implementing an effective recruiting or minority outreach plan adopted by the institution.

In sum, the Department acknowledges that the amended regulations may result in some negative impact on minority recruitment and enrollment. But neither the statute nor any information presented by the commenters or in the administrative record provides a basis for treating a recruitment program directed at minority students differently than an institution’s general or other specific recruitment programs. List of Subjects

34 CFR Part 600

Colleges and universities, Foreign relations, Grant programs-education, Loan programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.

34 CFR Part 602

Colleges and universities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

34 CFR Part 603

Colleges and universities, Vocational education.

34 CFR Part 668

Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Colleges and universities, Consumer protection, Grant programs-education, Loan programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Selective Service System, Student aid, Vocational education.

34 CFR Part 682

Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Loan programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.

34 CFR Part 685

Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Loan programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.

34 CFR Part 686

Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Education, Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.

34 CFR Part 690

Colleges and universities, Educationof disadvantaged, Grant programseducation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.

34 CFR Part 691

Colleges and universities, Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs-education, Student aid.

Dated: November 23, 2015.
Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2015–30158 Filed 11–25–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4000–01–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0686; FRL–9939–38– Region 3]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;**  **Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compound** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Direct final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision adds a compound to the list of substances not considered to be volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

**DATES :**  This rule is effective on January 26, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by December 28, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2015–0686 by one of the following methods: A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0686, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2015– 0686. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in


### 73996 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 228 / Friday, November 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and nitrogen oxides react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be released into the atmosphere. VOCs have different levels of reactivity, that is, some VOCs react slowly or form less ozone, and therefore, changes in their emissions have limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been EPA’s policy that VOCs with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC contained at 40 CFR 51.100(s) so as to focus control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. This is accomplished by adding the substance to a list of compounds not considered to be VOCs, and thus, excluded from the definition of VOC. EPA believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. On March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17037), EPA revised the definition of VOC contained in 40 CFR 51.100 to exclude one substance from the definition of VOC. The compound excluded from the definition of VOC is 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP). II. Summary of SIP Revision

On September 17, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) submitted a formal revision to its SIP which consists of adding AMP to the list of substances that are not considered VOCs found at 9VAC5–10–20. The September 17, 2015 SIP revision will allow the Virginia SIP to mirror the Federal definition of VOC. EPA believes that by excluding this negligibly reactive compound from the definition of VOC an incentive is created for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds; therefore, the air quality in Virginia will not be negatively affected by the approval of this SIP revision particularly as EPA has found this compound negligibly reactive for ozone formation.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the SIP revision to the definition of VOC submitted by Virginia on September 17, 2015. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on January 26, 2016 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 28, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. 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 § 10.1–1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information ‘‘required by law,’’ including documents and information ‘‘required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.’’ Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,’’ any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.’’

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or


### 73997 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 228 / Friday, November 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
V. Incorporation by Reference

In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the definition of VOC. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or may be viewed at the EPA Region III office (see the **ADDRESSES** section of this preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved 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).
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 January 26, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today’s Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action. This action, revising Virginia’s definition of VOC, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: November 12, 2015. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

**PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF**  **IMPLEMENTATION PLANS**

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

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

**Subpart VV—Virginia**

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an entry for ‘‘Section 5–10–20’’ after the entry for ‘‘Section 5–10–20’’ (with the State effective date of 3/12/15) to read as follows:

**§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.**

* * * * *

(c) * * *


### 73998 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 228 / Friday, November 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

EPA-A PPROVED 

### V IRGINIA 

### R EGULATIONS AND 

### STATUTES

State citation Title/Subject State effective date EPA Approval date Explanation [former SIP citation]

*******

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

******* 5–10–20 ....................................... Terms Defined ............................. 7/30/15 11/27/15 [Insert **Federal Register**  Citation]. Definition of VOC is revised by adding 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol to the list of substances not considered to be VOCs.

* * * * * * *

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–30108 Filed 11–25–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES** 

**Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services** 

**42 CFR Part 412**
**[CMS–1632–CN2]**

**RIN 0938–AS41**

**Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for** **Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective**  **Payment System Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of**  **Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers, Including Changes**  **Related to the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program; Extensions**  **of the Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural Hospital Program and the Low**  **Volume Payment Adjustment for Hospitals; Correction** 

**AGENCY :**  Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

**ACTION :**  Final rule and interim final rule with comment period; correction.

**SUMMARY :**  This document corrects technical and typographical errors in the correcting document that appeared in the October 5, 2015 Federal Register

, entitled ‘‘Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers, including Changes Related to the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program; Extensions of the Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural Hospital Program and the Low-Volume Payment Adjustment for Hospitals; Correction.’’

**DATES :**  Effective date: This correcting document is effective November 25,
2015. Applicability date: This correcting document is applicable to discharges beginning October 1, 2015.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Donald Thompson, (410) 786–4487.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

In FR Doc. 2015–19049 which appeared in the August 17, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 49326), entitled ‘‘Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers, including Changes Related to the Electronic Health Record IncentiveProgram; Extensions of the MedicareDependent, Small Rural Hospital Program and the Low-Volume Payment Adjustment for Hospitals’’ (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule), there were a number of technical and typographical errors. Therefore, we published a correcting document that appeared in the October 5, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 60055) to correct those errors (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document). The provisions of the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document were effective as if they had been included in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule that appeared in the August 17, 2015 Federal Register. Accordingly, those corrections were effective October 1,
2015. II. Summary of Errors and Corrections to Tables Posted on the CMS Web Site

Since publication of the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document, we discovered technical and typographic errors to data that appeared in that document. Therefore, we are correcting the errors in the following IPPS tables that are listed on page 49808 of the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, that were discussed on pages 60056 and 60057 and corrected in the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document. These tables are available on the Internet on the CMS Web site at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/ Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2016-IPPS-FinalRule-Home-Page.html:

Table 2—CASE MIX INDEX AND WAGE INDEX TABLE BY CCN—FY 2016 CORRECTION NOTICE. In the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document, we inadvertently changed the reclassification status for two hospitals (CCNs 050152 and 050228). In Table 2 of the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, prior to the revisions based on the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document, the reclassification status for CCNs 050152 and 050228 correctly reflected an MGCRB reclassification to Reclassified/ Redesignated CBSA 36084. For these two hospitals, the ‘‘MGCRB Reclass’’ column value will be corrected by adding a ‘‘Y’’ and the ‘‘Reclassified/ Redesignated CBSA’’ column value will be corrected by adding ‘‘36084.’’

Also, in Table 2 that was posted on the Internet in conjunction with the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH PPS correcting document, we inadvertently listed the ‘‘County Name’’ and ‘‘County Code’’ values for CCN 050B21 as ‘‘FAIRFIELD’’ and ‘‘07000’’, and for CCN 070B22 as ‘‘FRESNO’’ and ‘‘05090’’. The ‘‘County Name’’ and ‘‘County Code’’ values for CCN 050B21 should be ‘‘FRESNO’’ and