### 2375 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

facility in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port.

(c) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay, or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on her behalf.

(2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State, and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.

(e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from January 1, 2014 until February 28, 2014 unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

Dated: December 30, 2013. Steven H. Ratti, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014–00438 Filed 1–13–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 9110–04–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0753; FRL–9905–29- Region 9]** 

**Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, El Dorado**  **County Air Quality Management District** 

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

**ACTION :**  Direct final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern negative declarations for volatile organic compound (VOC) source categories for the EDAQMD. We are approving these negative declarations under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

**DATES :**  This rule is effective on March 17, 2014 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 13, 2014. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2013–0753, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105–3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What negative declarations did the State

submit? B. Are there other versions of these

negative declarations? C. What is the purpose of the submitted

negative declarations? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the negative

declarations? B. Do the negative declarations meet the

evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal A. What negative declarations did the State submit?

Table 1 lists the negative declarations we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the EDAQMD and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).



### TABLE 

### 1—S UBMITTED 

### N EGATIVE 

### D ECLARATIONS

Local agency Title Adopted Submitted

EDAQMD .......... EPA–450/2–78–015—Control of VOC Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. 12/11/12 09/30/13

EDAQMD .......... EPA–450/2–77–022—Control of VOC Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning ............. 12/11/12 09/30/13 EDAQMD .......... EPA–450/2–78–033—Control of VOC Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VIII: Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography. 12/11/12 09/30/13

On November 25, 2013, EPA determined that the EDAQMD negative declarations submitted on September 30, 2013, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of these negative declarations?

There are no previous versions of these negative declarations.


### 2376 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

C. What is the purpose of the submitted negative declarations?

The negative declarations were submitted to meet the requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2). Ozone nonattainment areas classified at moderate and above are required to adopt VOC regulations for the published Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) categories and for major non-CTG sources of VOC or NOX . If an ozone nonattainment area does not have stationary sources covered by an EPA published CTG, then the area is required to submit a negative declaration. The negative declarations were submitted because there are no stationary sources exceeding the CTG’s applicability threshold within the EDAQMD jurisdiction. EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about these negative declarations.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the negative declarations?

The negative declarations are submitted as SIP revisions and must be consistent with CAA requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) (see section 182(b)(2)) and SIP relaxation (see sections 110(l) and 193.) To do so, the submittal should provide reasonable assurance that no sources subject to the CTG requirements currently exist or are planned for the EDAQMD. B. Do the negative declarations meet the evaluation criteria?

We believe these negative declarations are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding RACT and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted negative declarations as additional information to the SIP because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register

, we are simultaneously proposing approval of these negative declarations. If we receive adverse comments by February 13, 2014, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on March 17, 2014. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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.

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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 17, 2014. 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: December 16, 2013. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:


### 2377 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

**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 F—California**

■ 2. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(7)(ii) to read as follows:

**§ 52.222 Negative declarations.**
* * * * *

(a) * * * (7) * * * (ii) Control of VOC Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Control of VOC Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning; and Control of VOC Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VIII: Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography submitted on September 30, 2013 and adopted on December 11,
2012.
* * * * * [FR Doc. 2014–00398 Filed 1–13–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration** 

**49 CFR Part 391**

**[Docket No. FMCSA–1997–2210]**

**RIN 2126–AB71**

**Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the Commercial Driver’s**  **License (CDL); Extension of Certificate Retention Requirements** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The FMCSA amends its regulations to keep in effect until January 30, 2015, the requirement that interstate drivers subject to: either the commercial driver’s license (CDL) or the commercial learner’s permit (CLP) regulations: as well as the Federal physical qualification requirements, must retain paper copies of their medical examiner’s certificate when operating a commercial motor vehicle. Interstate motor carriers are also required to retain copies of their drivers’ medical certificates in their driver qualification files. This action is being taken to ensure that the medical qualification of CDL and CLP holders are documented adequately until all State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs)are able to post the drivers’ selfcertification whether the physical qualifications standards are applicable to them and the medical examiner’s certificate information, on the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS) driver record. This rule does not, however, extend the compliance dates for the SDLA to collect and to post to the CDLIS driver record the CDL holder’s self-certification about applicable standards and the medical examiner’s certificate.

**DATES :**  This rule is effective January 14,
2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may search background documents or comments to the docket for this rule, identified by docket number FMCSA–1997–2210, by visiting the:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for reviewing documents and comments. Regulations.gov is available electronically 24 hours each day, 365 days a year; or

• DOT Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room 12– 140, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Privacy Act

Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/FR-2008-01-17/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  If you have questions on this rule, email or call Mr. Robert Redmond, Senior Transportation Specialist, Office of Safety Programs, Commercial Driver’s License Division (MC–ESL), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–001; Telephone (202) 366–5014; Email Robert.Redmond@dot.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Legal Basis

The legal basis of the final rule titled Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the Commercial Driver’s License, (2008 final rule) (73 FR 73096–73097), is also applicable to this rule.

The legal basis for issuing this final rule without an opportunity for public comment, and without an effective date at least 30 days after publication, are the two ‘‘good cause’’ exceptions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d)(3). The APA specifically provides exceptions to its notice and comment rulemaking procedures when the Agency finds that there is good cause (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) to dispense with them. Generally, good cause exists when the agency determines that notice and comment procedures are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The Agency finds it necessary to take this action without notice and comment because of delays in implementation caused by those SDLAs not yet in compliance with the requirements of the 2008 final rule required by January 30, 2014. It would be impractical to conduct notice and comment procedures in the short time remaining before that date.

Moreover, under similar circumstances in 2011, when notice and an opportunity for public comment was provided, no comments were submitted either for or against the extension issued at that time. Most SDLAs will be in compliance by January 30, 2014, but obviously unless all of the SDLAs issuing CDLs and CLPs are in compliance, it will still be necessary for drivers and their employers to rely on the paper medical examiner’s certificate to verify that the driver is physically qualified. Under these circumstances, FMCSA believes that no comments about this additional extension would likely be submitted, and therefore the notice and comment procedure is unnecessary. Delaying this extension beyond January 30, 2014 while comments are received would create uncertainty within the CDL and CLP program and potential inconsistencies in requirements and capabilities among States, however briefly. In this instance, notice and comment is therefore also contrary to the public interest.

The APA also provides for an exception to the required publication of a final rule on not less than 30 days’ notice before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The same reasons that justify dispensing with notice and comment procedures also justify making this final rule effective immediately, as well as the need to provide sufficient notice to the SDLAs and the affected carriers and drivers. FMCSA finds that there is good cause for making this final rule effective