8868 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1See the NPRM for the list of negative 

declarations that the Commonwealth submitted for 

Northern Virginia, and which EPA is acting on here. 

2The Northern Virginia area consists of Arlington 

County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince 

William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, 

Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and 

Manassas Park City. 

APPENDIX A TO PART 11—FEE

SCHEDULE FOR FY 2021—Continued 

State County Fee/acre/yr 

Dodge ................ 153.71 

Door ................... 125.12 

Douglas ............. 51.58 

Dunn .................. 94.72 

Eau Claire ......... 120.12 

Florence ............ 66.47 

Fond du Lac ...... 191.35 

Forest ................ 63.81 

Grant ................. 124.07 

Green ................ 142.74 

Green Lake ....... 150.45 

Iowa ................... 127.94 

Iron .................... 89.45 

Jackson ............. 99.95 

Jefferson ............ 161.87 

Juneau .............. 97.42 

Kenosha ............ 199.24 

Kewaunee ......... 147.82 

La Crosse .......... 131.17 

Lafayette ............ 157.21 

Langlade ............ 86.06 

Lincoln ............... 85.25 

Manitowoc ......... 179.49 

Marathon ........... 124.96 

Marinette ........... 101.97 

Marquette .......... 109.84 

Menominee ........ 45.66 

Milwaukee ......... 234.83 

Monroe .............. 104.34 

Oconto ............... 109.58 

Oneida ............... 106.92 

Outagamie ......... 189.56 

Ozaukee ............ 172.39 

Pepin ................. 101.90 

Pierce ................ 121.52 

Polk ................... 93.03 

Portage .............. 107.84 

Price .................. 64.68 

Racine ............... 202.06 

Richland ............ 88.27 

Rock .................. 173.31 

Rusk .................. 65.36 

Sauk .................. 110.65 

Sawyer .............. 68.20 

Shawano ........... 122.62 

Sheboygan ........ 173.44 

St. Croix ............ 123.31 

Taylor ................ 77.20 

Trempealeau ..... 104.11 

Vernon ............... 102.16 

Vilas ................... 155.53 

Walworth ........... 182.36 

Washburn .......... 82.27 

Washington ....... 185.51 

Waukesha ......... 144.85 

Waupaca ........... 118.78 

Waushara .......... 111.29 

Winnebago ........ 183.36 

Wood ................. 87.09 

Wyoming ............ Albany ............... 10.52 

Big Horn ............ 22.87 

Campbell ........... 8.14 

Carbon ............... 7.91 

Converse ........... 7.61 

Crook ................. 14.09 

Fremont ............. 18.33 

Goshen .............. 12.40 

Hot Springs ....... 8.94 

Johnson ............. 8.46 

Laramie ............. 12.20 

Lincoln ............... 26.31 

Natrona .............. 6.53 

Niobrara ............. 9.02 

Park ................... 21.50 

Platte ................. 12.63 

Sheridan ............ 17.61 

Sublette ............. 23.76 

Sweetwater ........ 4.26 

Teton ................. 58.27 

Uinta .................. 15.43 

APPENDIX A TO PART 11—FEE

SCHEDULE FOR FY 2021—Continued 

State County Fee/acre/yr 

Washakie ........... 16.82 

Weston .............. 9.63 

[FR Doc. 2021–02570 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0283; FRL–10016– 

88–Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Negative 

Declarations Certification for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard Including the 2016 Oil and 

Natural Gas Control Techniques 

Guidelines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of 

a state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. The portion 

for approval consists of negative 

declarations for certain specified 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG), 

including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas 

CTG (2016 Oil and Gas CTG), as well as 

a number of other negative declarations 

for Alternative Control Techniques 

(ACTs) for the 2008 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). The negative declarations 

cover only those CTGs or ACTs for 

which there are no sources subject to 

those CTGs or ACTs located in the 

Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound (VOC) Emissions Control 

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 

March 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0283. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://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 https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Trouba, Planning & Implementation 

Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103. The telephone 

number is (215) 814–2023. Ms. Trouba 

can also be reached via electronic mail 

at Trouba.Erin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 16, 2020 (85 FR 43187), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to part of 

a SIP submittal from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed 

approval of negative declarations for 

certain specified CTGs, including the 

2016 Oil and Gas CTG, as well as a 

number of other negative declarations 

for ACTs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.1

Virginia’s negative declarations cover 

the Northern Virginia area that was 

designated nonattainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS and/or included as part 

of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) by 

CAA section 184(a).2 The SIP revision 

that EPA is taking final action to 

approve in this action was submitted to 

EPA by the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on 

April 2, 2020. For additional 

information on the scope of the SIP 

submittal and the specific CTGs and 

ACTs for which VADEQ submitted a 

negative declaration, please see the 

NPRM. 

The CAA regulates emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and VOCs to 

prevent photochemical reactions that 

result in ozone formation. Reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) is a 

strategy for reducing NOX and VOC 

emissions from stationary sources 

within areas not meeting the ozone 

NAAQS, and for areas within the OTR. 

EPA has consistently defined RACT as 

the lowest emission limit that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of the control 

technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility. CTGs and ACTs form 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 8869 

3 ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 at 13512 

(April 16, 1992). 

4 ‘‘RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers’’ 

Memorandum from William T. Harnett, May 18, 

2006. 

5 ‘‘Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ (80 FR 12263 

at 12278 (March 6, 2015)). 

important components of the guidance 

that EPA provides to states for making 

RACT determinations. CTGs are used to 

presumptively define VOC RACT for 

applicable source categories of VOCs. 

ACTs describe an available range of 

control technologies and their 

respective cost effectiveness for 

particular source categories, but do not 

identify any particular option as the 

presumptive norm for what is RACT. 

On March 6, 2016 (80 FR 12264), EPA 

issued a final rule entitled 

‘‘Implementation of the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements’’ (2008 Ozone 

Implementation Rule). In the preamble 

to the final rule, EPA makes clear that 

if there are no sources covered by a 

specific CTG source category located in 

an ozone nonattainment area or an area 

in the OTR, the state may submit a 

negative declaration for that CTG. 80 FR 

12264, 12278. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

In its April 2, 2020 submittal, VADEQ 

certified to EPA that the Northern 

Virginia area has met all of the CAA 

RACT implementation requirements for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including CAA 

sections 182(b)(2) and 184(b)(1)(B). 

However, this final rule only addresses 

section 2.2 of the April 2, 2020 

submittal, which contains negative 

declarations for certain CTGs and ACTs 

in the Northern Virginia area, as 

described in the NPRM. EPA notes that 

Virginia’s April 2, 2020 SIP submission 

also addresses RACT for major sources 

of NOX and VOC in the Northern 

Virginia area under CAA section 

182(b)(2)(C), but that portion of the SIP 

submittal is not being addressed in this 

action, and will instead be addressed in 

a future action taken by EPA. 

Table 3 of section 2.2 of the SIP 

submittal identifies source categories 

subject to CTGs and ACTs for which 

Virginia is submitting a negative 

declaration stating that there are no 

sources located in the Northern Virginia 

area subject to these CTGs or ACTs, for 

purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As 

noted in the NPRM, EPA issued a CTG 

for the Oil and Gas Industry in October 

of 2016. Because this is a newer CTG, 

section 2.2 of the submittal includes a 

first-time negative declaration for the 

2016 Oil and Gas CTG. Along with the 

other negative declarations, VADEQ 

asserts that there are no facilities in the 

Northern Virginia area that are currently 

involved in oil and gas production and 

processing activities covered by the 

2016 Oil and Gas CTG. The rationale for 

EPA’s proposed action is explained in 

the NPRM and will not be restated here. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Received 

EPA received three comments on the 

July 16, 2020 NPRM. All comments 

received are in the docket for this 

action. One comment was generally 

supportive of the CAA’s impact on 

human health and the environment but 

did not specifically address any aspect 

of EPA’s proposed action and will 

therefore not be addressed here. A 

summary of the other two comments 

and EPA’s responses are provided 

herein. 

Comment 1: The Commenter asserts 

that EPA should not approve Virginia’s 

negative declarations ‘‘. . . without 

review of all possible uses the state 

might use these approved declarations,’’ 

because it may allow the state to ‘‘. . . 

skirt more necessary environmental 

protections.’’ The Commenter also 

appears to claim that EPA’s approval of 

Virginia’s negative declarations hinders 

development of projects in the state. To 

support this claim, the Commenter cites 

an unidentified analysis which purports 

to show that a solar industry investment 

project in Virginia was potentially 

blocked by such a declaration. Citing 

climate change as an example, the 

Commenter further asserts that ‘‘(w)ith 

EPA taking an official stance against 

projects to protect the environment, we 

all stand to lose.’’ 

Response 1: The Commenter has 

misinterpreted the purpose of the 

negative declarations, as well as the 

scope and impact of EPA’s approval. As 

stated in the NPRM, the negative 

declarations in Virginia’s April 2, 2020 

submittal are related to the provisions of 

CAA section 184(b) which require that 

states in the OTR, or with areas 

included within the OTR, must revise 

their SIPs to implement RACT with 

respect to all sources of VOC covered by 

a CTG document. Because portions of 

Virginia are within the OTR, Virginia 

must provide a SIP submission to 

address RACT for all sources of VOC 

covered by a CTG. See NPRM 85 FR 

43188, July 16, 2020. 

EPA has historically allowed states to 

submit a negative declaration for a 

particular CTG category if the state finds 

that no sources exist in the state, or area, 

which would be subject to that CTG. 

EPA has addressed the idea of negative 

declarations numerous times and for 

various NAAQS including in the 

General Preamble to the 1990 

Amendments,3 the 2006 RACT Q&A 

Memo,4 and the 2008 Ozone 

Implementation Rule.5 In each of these 

documents, EPA asserted that if no 

sources exist in the nonattainment area 

for a particular CTG category, the state 

would be allowed to submit a negative 

declaration SIP revision. This principle 

also applies to states and areas in the 

OTR. 

Nothing in the CAA or EPA’s 

implementing rules or guidance 

suggests that states must have a SIP 

approved regulation for a category of 

CTG sources that does not exist in the 

state. Should a new source of the type 

covered by the existing CTG be 

constructed in a state after approval of 

a negative declaration, EPA expects the 

state to develop a regulation and submit 

it to EPA for approval into the SIP in 

accordance with the relevant timing 

provided for by the CAA. At this time, 

because the portion of Northern Virginia 

included in the OTR does not have any 

sources subject to any of the CTGs listed 

in the NPRM, no regulations are 

required to be developed and submitted 

to EPA for SIP approval for those CTGs. 

Also, contrary to commenter’s claim, 

the negative declarations will not have 

any impact on any proposed 

development projects. The negative 

declarations neither exempt sources 

subject to a CTG from complying with 

other provisions of the CAA and 

Virginia law which otherwise apply nor 

create any new requirements. In 

addition, EPA cannot identify any 

impact the negative declarations would 

have on any proposed solar project as 

claimed by the Commenter, and EPA is 

unable to evaluate the analysis that the 

Commenter references because no 

citation is included in the comment. 

The Commenter also references a letter 

from April 6, 2013 that they sent to 

EPA. However, because the commenter 

did not identify the matter to which it 

applied or the person to whom the letter 

was sent, EPA could not locate such a 

letter and was therefore unable to 

evaluate it. 

Comment 2: A second Commenter 

also claims that EPA should not approve 

Virginia’s negative declarations. First, 

the Commenter asserts that Virginia has 

no legal authority to make such 

declarations. Further, the Commenter 

asserts that negative declarations ‘‘. . . 

8870 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

preclude any future development in that 

sector . . . unless a new state regulation 

is developed and enforced upon the 

new sources.’’ Additionally, the 

Commenter asserts that the negative 

declarations will have a devastating 

effect on development, and that they are 

contrary to an unidentified Executive 

Order ‘‘. . . precluding the government 

from imposing new regulations or rules 

on the oil and gas industry.’’ Finally, the 

Commenter asserts that ‘‘EPA must 

revoke this proposed rule and redo its 

analysis to show no state laws are being 

broken that restrict economic 

development and EPA must show that 

the rule is in line with the executive 

order promoting energy infrastructure 

and economic growth.’’ 

Response 2: First, EPA notes that the 

Commenter is incorrect in the assertion 

that the Commonwealth of Virginia 

lacks the legal authority to make and 

submit the negative declarations 

proposed for approval in the NPRM. 

The CAA establishes a partnership 

between state and Federal entities for 

the protection and improvement of the 

nation’s air quality. Under CAA section 

109, EPA is required to establish 

NAAQS for certain criteria air 

pollutants in order to protect public 

health and welfare. Subsequent to the 

promulgation or revision of a NAAQS, 

states are required by CAA section 110 

to adopt and submit to EPA for approval 

a SIP which provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS within that 

state. This requires that the state have 

adequate state law authority to adopt, 

implement, and enforce the SIP. 

Virginia state law provides such 

authorities to the Virginia Air Pollution 

Control Board, which was created by the 

legislature of Virginia (See Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1300 through 1332.4). The Air 

Pollution Control Board has the broad 

authority to, among other things, act 

reasonably to achieve and maintain 

levels of air quality that will protect 

human health, welfare, and safety (Va. 

Code Sec. 10.1–1306); ‘‘advise, consult, 

and cooperate with agencies of the 

United States . . . in furtherance of the 

purposes of this chapter’’ (Va. Code Sec. 

10.1–1307.A); ‘‘. . . promulgate 

regulations, including emergency 

regulations, abating, controlling and 

prohibiting air pollution throughout or 

in any part of the Commonwealth in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Administrative Process Act (section 2.2– 

4000 et seq.) . . .’’ (Va. Code Sec. 10.1– 

1308); enforce the regulations it adopts 

(‘‘[a]fter the Board has adopted the 

regulations provided for in Va. Code 

section 10.1–1308, it shall have the 

power to: (i) Initiate and receive 

complaints as to air pollution; (ii) hold 

or cause to be held hearings and enter 

orders diminishing or abating the causes 

of air pollution and orders to enforce its 

regulations pursuant to Va. Code section 

10.1–1309; and (iii) institute legal 

proceedings, including suits for 

injunctions for the enforcement of its 

orders, regulations, and the abatement 

and control of air pollution and for the 

enforcement of penalties’’ (Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1307.D)); and issue, revoke, 

amend, or deny permits for the issuance 

of air pollutants (See Va. Code Sec. 

10.1–1322). These authorities provide 

the legal basis and authority for the 

Virginia Air Pollution Control Board to 

submit a negative declaration to EPA 

attesting that certain sources covered by 

CTGs do not exist in the Northern 

Virginia area. 

Further, EPA cannot identify, and the 

Commenter did not identify, any 

conflict with any state law which the 

approval of these negative declarations 

might create. As discussed previously, 

the negative declarations being 

approved by this action do not create 

any new Virginia law, so no conflict 

with existing state law is being created. 

The Commenter is also incorrect 

about the impact and purpose of 

Virginia’s negative declarations. As 

discussed in response to Comment 1, 

the negative declarations which EPA 

proposed to approve in the July 16, 2020 

NPRM do not preclude any future 

proposal to locate a new source in the 

Northern Virginia area that is subject to 

a CTG. The sole purpose of these 

negative declarations is to certify that at 

the time of the declaration, no sources 

covered by a particular CTG exist within 

the Northern Virginia area. EPA’s 

approval of the negative declarations 

indicates that the Agency agrees with 

the State’s factual determination that no 

sources exist in the Northern Virginia 

area that are covered by the CTGs and 

ACTs listed. This factual determination 

does not itself preclude any future 

development or limit economic 

development because it does not impose 

any restrictions on sources or the State. 

Regarding the Commenter’s assertion 

that the negative declarations are 

contrary to an unidentified Executive 

Order ‘‘. . . precluding the government 

from imposing new regulations or rules 

on the oil and gas industry,’’ EPA notes 

that the comment does not identify the 

Executive Order containing this 

prohibition. The Commenter may be 

referring to Executive Order 13783 

(Promoting Energy Independence and 

Economic Growth) from March 28, 

2017. Nevertheless, via this action, 

neither EPA nor Virginia is adopting or 

imposing any regulations or rules on the 

oil and gas industry. As explained 

previously, Virginia is merely stating 

that at this time there are no sources in 

the Northern Virginia area which are 

subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. 

For the reasons stated, EPA disagrees 

with the commenters and is therefore 

finalizing our proposed approval of the 

negative declarations in Virginia’s April 

2, 2020 submittal. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving that portion of 

Virginia’s April 2, 2020 SIP submission 

making a negative declaration for the 

2016 Oil and Gas CTG, as well as recertifying a number of negative 

declarations for certain specified CTGs 

and ACTs, in accordance with the SIP 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, as a revision to the Virginia 

SIP. 

V. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 8871 

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 Va. Code 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 

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. 

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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because this is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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 April 12, 2021. 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 certifies negative 

declarations for certain specified CTGs, 

including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas 

CTG, as well as a number of other 

negative declarations for ACTs for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS for the Northern 

Virginia area and 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

This document of the Environmental 

Protection Agency was signed on 

November 17, 2020, by Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, pursuant to the 

terms of the Consent Decree in Center 

for Biological Diversity, et al., v. 

Wheeler, Case No. 3:20–cv–00448–VC 

(N.D. CA). That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by EPA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned EPA Official 

8872 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

re-signs the document for publication, 

as an official document of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Philadelphia, PA, on November 

17, 2020 by: 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Dated: February 3, 2021, 

Diana Esher, 

Acting 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 

(e)(1) is amended by adding the entry 

for ‘‘CTG Negative Declarations 

Certification for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ at the end of the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional 

explanation 

*******

CTG Negative Declarations 

Certification for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard.

Northern Virginia VOC emissions control area.04/02/20 2/10/21, [insert Federal Register citation].Certifies negative declarations 

for CTG and ACT source 

categories in Northern Virginia, including the 2016 Oil 

and Gas CTG. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–02594 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 51 

[WC Docket No. 19–308; FCC 20–152; FRS 

17457] 

Modernizing Unbundling and Resale 

Requirements in an Era of NextGeneration Networks and Services; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission published a document in 

the Federal Register on January 8, 2021, 

announcing the elimination of 

unbundling and resale requirements 

where they stifle technology transitions 

and broadband deployment, and the 

preservation of unbundling 

requirements where they are still 

necessary to realize the 1996 Act’s goal 

of robust intermodal competition 

benefiting all Americans. There is a 

typographical error in the rules section 

of this document, incorrectly referring 

to the heading as ‘‘Availability of DS1 

loops’’ when it should read 

‘‘Availability of DS3 loops.’’ 

DATES: This correction is effective on 

February 8, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact 

Megan Danner, Competition Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at Megan.Danner@fcc.gov, 202–418– 

1151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of January 8, 

2021, in FR doc. 2020–25254, on page 

1674, in the first column, correct the 

subject heading for § 51.319(a)(5)(i) to 

read: ‘‘Availability of DS3 loops’’. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02772 Filed 2–8–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 63 

[WC Docket No. 17–84; DA 20–1241; FRS 

17275] 

Accelerating Wireline Broadband 

Deployment by Removing Barriers to 

Infrastructure Investment 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission 

ACTION: Denial of reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau of the 

Federal Communications Commission 

(Commission) denies Public 

Knowledge’s Petition for 

Reconsideration of the Wireline 

Infrastructure Second Report and Order, 

published on July 9, 2018, and 

dismisses as moot Public Knowledge’s 

companion Motion to Hold in Abeyance 

the same Order pending an appeal that 

has now been denied. 

DATES: The Commission denies the 

petition for reconsideration as of March 

12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, Michele 

Levy Berlove, at (202) 418–1477, 

michele.berlove@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Order on Reconsideration in 

WC Docket No. 17–84, adopted October 

20, 2020 and released October 20, 2020. 

The full text of this document is 

available on the Commission’s website 

at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/DA-20-1241A1.docx. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (Braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to FCC504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer &