4820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

rate established for the committee and 

collected from handlers for the 2013–14 

and subsequent crop years from $0.90 to 

$0.40 per hundredweight of dates 

handled. The committee unanimously 

recommended 2013–14 expenditures of 

$97,700 and an assessment rate of $0.40 

per hundredweight of dates, which is 

$0.50 lower than the 2012–13 rate. The 

quantity of assessable dates for the 

2013–14 crop year is estimated at 

26,500,000 pounds (265,000 

hundredweight). Thus, the $0.40 rate 

should provide $106,000 in assessment 

income. Income derived from handler’s 

assessments should be adequate to meet 

2013–14 crop year expenses. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that decreased the assessment 

obligation imposed on handlers. 

Assessments are applied uniformly on 

all handlers, and some of the costs may 

be passed on to producers. However, 

decreasing the assessment rate reduces 

the burden on handlers, and may reduce 

the burden on producers. 

In addition, the committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

California date industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and encouraged to 

participate in committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all committee 

meetings, the June 20, 2013, meeting 

was a public meeting and all entities, 

both large and small, were able to 

express views on this issue. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, 

Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No 

changes in those requirements as a 

result of this action are anticipated. 

Should any changes become necessary, 

they would be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

This action imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large California date 

handlers. As with all Federal marketing 

order programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this rule. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

November 4, 2013. No comments were 

received. Therefore, for reasons given in 

the interim rule, we are adopting the 

interim rule as a final rule, without 

change. 

To view the interim rule, go to: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!document

Detail;D=AMS–FV-13-0053-0001. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 

13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act 

(44 U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (78 FR 54147, September 3, 

2013) will tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 987 

Dates, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

PART 987—DATES PRODUCED OR 

PACKED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, 

CALIFORNIA 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 987, which was 

published at 78 FR 54147 on September 

3, 2013, is adopted as a final rule, 

without change. 

Dated: January 24, 2014. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01747 Filed 1–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0141; 9905–88– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Attainment Plan for the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 

Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Standard; Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects an 

error in the preamble language of a final 

rule pertaining to EPA’s approval of 

Delaware’s state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision demonstrating Delaware’s 

attainment of the 1997 annual fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

for the Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware 

(PA–NJ–DE) nonattainment area 

(Philadelphia Area) submitted by the 

Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 30, 2014, and is applicable 

beginning January 16, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182 or by email at 

quinto.rose@.epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA 

inadvertently printed an incorrect 

column title on a table entitled, 

Delaware’s Motor Vehicle Budgets for 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

action corrects the table in rule 

document [FR document No. 2013– 

29803] published in the Federal 

Register on December 17, 2013 (78 FR 

76209). The table is corrected as 

follows: On page 76212 on the third 

column of the table, correct the title 

which now reads volatile organic 

compound (VOC), to read PM2.5. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. EPA 

has determined that there is good cause 

for making today’s rule final without 

prior proposal and opportunity for 

comment because we are merely 

correcting an incorrect citation in a 

previous action. Thus, notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary. We find that 

this constitutes good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and is therefore not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)). Because EPA has made a 

‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action is 

not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedures Act or any other statute as 

indicated in the Supplementary 

Information section above, it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq), or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4). In addition, this action does not 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 4821 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments or impose a significant 

intergovernmental mandate, as 

described in sections 203 and 204 of 

UMRA. This rule also does not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 

will it have substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of governments, as specified by 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

This technical correction action does 

not involve technical standards; thus 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. The rule also 

does not involve special consideration 

of environmental justice related issues 

as required by Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

issuing this rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct, as 

required by section 3 of Executive Order 

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). 

EPA has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq). 

The Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a rule 

effective sooner than otherwise 

provided by the CRA if the agency 

makes a good cause finding that notice 

and public procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. This determination must be 

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 

808(2). As stated previously, EPA has 

made such a good cause finding, 

including the reasons therefore, and 

established an effective date of January 

16, 2014. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This correction to 

40 CFR 52.427(c) for Delaware is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Dated: January 8, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01722 Filed 1–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0725; FRL–9904–02– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control 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 Santa 

Barbara County Air Pollution Control 

District (SBCAPCD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from solvent cleaning machines and 

operations, coating of metal parts and 

products and polyester resin operations. 

We are approving local rules that 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

31, 2014 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

March 3, 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–2013–0725, 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. 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: 

Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3576, borgia.adrianne@epa.gov or 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES