### 8298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

do a gastric bypass or gastroplasty to help the patient avoid regaining the weight that was lost. In this situation, payment is authorized even though the patient’s condition technically may not meet the definition of morbid obesity because of the weight that was already lost following the initial surgery.

(B) Payment is authorized for otherwise covered medical services and supplies directly related to complications of obesity when such services and supplies are an integral and necessary part of the course of treatment that was aggravated by the obesity.

(iii) Exclusions. CHAMPUS payment may not be extended for weight control services, weight control/loss programs, dietary regimens and supplements, appetite suppressants and other medications; food or food supplements, exercise and exercise programs, or other programs and equipment that are primarily intended to control weight or for the purpose of weight reduction, regardless of the existence of co-morbid conditions.

* * * * *

(g) * * * (28) Obesity, weight reduction. Service and supplies related ‘‘ solely’’ to obesity or weight reduction or weight control whether surgical or nonsurgical; wiring of the jaw or any procedure of similar purpose, regardless of the circumstances under which performed (except as provided in paragraph (e)(15) of this section).

* * * * *

Dated: February 1, 2011. Morgan F. Park, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–3207 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 5001–06–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0902; FRL–9265–6]**

**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 :**  EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision amends the definition of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC). EPA is approving these revisions to Virginia’s definitions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

**DATES :**  This rule is effective on April 15, 2011 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by March 16, 2011. 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–2010–0902 by one of the following methods:

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B. E-mail: frankford.harold@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0902, Harold A. Frankford, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP00, 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–2010– 0902. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http:// 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 http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http:// www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Harold A. Frankford, (215) 814–2108, or by e-mail at frankford.harold@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

Throughout this document, whenever

‘‘we, ’’ ‘‘us, ’’ or ‘‘ our’’ is used, we mean EPA. On September 27, 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of the revised definition of ‘‘Volatile organic compound ’’ (VOC) listed in 9VAC5 Chapter 10 (General Definitions), Regulation 5–10–20 (Terms defined). II. Summary of SIP Revision

Virginia amended the definition of

‘‘Volatile organic compound ’’ to add the organic compounds propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate to the list of excluded compounds. The exclusion of these compounds is consistent with the list of excluded compounds found in EPA’s definition of

‘‘Volatile organic compounds (VOC) ’’ at 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1). III. 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


### 8299 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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 (1) that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) that 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 § 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval. ’’ Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘ [t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law, ’’ any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since

‘‘ no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity. ’’

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

IV. Final Action

EPA is approving the amendment to the definition of ‘‘Volatile organic compound ’’ in Virginia Regulation 9VAC5–10–20 (Terms defined) as a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency 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 April 15, 2011 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 16, 2011. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

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

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

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General


### 8300 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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 April 15, 2011. 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. This action to approve Virginia’s revision to the definition of ‘‘Volatile organic compound ’’ 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: February 1, 2011. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

**PART 52—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority for 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 a seventh entry under 5–10–20 to read as follows:

**§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c) * * *



### EPA-A PPROVED 

### V IRGINIA 

### R EGULATIONS AND 

### S TATUTES

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 ......................... 2/18/10 2/14/11 [ Insert page number where the document begins ]. Revised definition of ‘‘Volatile organic compound. ’’

* * * * * * *

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2011–3096 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0041; FRL–9264–1]**

**Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions for**  **Particulate Matter, PM–10, Maricopa County (Phoenix) PM–10**  **Nonattainment Area, AZ**

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

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is taking final action to find that Arizona failed to make a state implementation plan (SIP) submittal required under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the Maricopa County (Phoenix) nonattainment area (Maricopa area) for particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM–10). The Maricopa area is a serious PM–10 nonattainment area which, having failed to attain the PM–10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by its required statutory attainment deadline, is subject to section 189(d) of the CAA. For such areas, section 189(d) requires that states submit within 12 months after the applicable attainment date, plan revisions which provide for attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS, and from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction of PM–10 or PM–10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for the area.

Arizona submitted a section 189(d) plan for the Maricopa area on December 21, 2007, and EPA proposed action on this plan on September 9, 2010. On January 25, 2011, prior to final action on the plan by EPA, Arizona withdrew the submitted plan from the Agency’s consideration. As a result of the withdrawal, EPA is today finding that Arizona failed to make the submittal required for the Maricopa area under section 189(d) of the Act.

This action triggers the 18-month clock for mandatory application of sanctions and 2-year clock for a federal implementation plan (FIP) under the Act. This action is consistent with the CAA mechanism for assuring SIP submissions.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: This action was effective as of February 14, 2011.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Gregory Nudd, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, Telephone: (415) 947–4107; nudd.gregory@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

The NAAQS are standards for certain ambient air pollutants set by EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM– 10 is among the ambient air pollutantsfor which EPA has established healthbased standards. PM–10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep in the lungs, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.