Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59433 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: September 19, 2014. 

Eric A. Washburn, 

Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23544 Filed 10–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0460; FRL–9915–37– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Imperial County 

Air Pollution Control District and San 

Joaquin Valley Unified 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 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District (ICAPCD) and San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern 

definitions that are necessary for the 

creation, modification and 

understanding of rules that address air 

pollution. Among other changes, the 

revised definitions help clarify federal 

New Source Review (NSR) 

requirements, update the districts’ 

exempt volatile organic compounds list 

to correspond with EPA’s, and improve 

formatting consistency. We are 

approving local rules that define terms 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 1, 2014 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by November 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–2014–0460, 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: 

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3024, Lazarus.Arnold@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

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 

rule revisions? 

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 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules we are 

approving with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agencies and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revised/ 

amended Submitted 

ICAPCD .............................................................................................................. 101 Definitions ... 10/22/13 02/10/14 

SJVUAPCD ........................................................................................................ 1020 Definitions ... 02/21/13 02/10/14 

On April 9, 2014 and May 5, 2014 

respectively, EPA determined that the 

submittal for ICAPCD Rule 101 and 

SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 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 

rules? 

There are previous versions of 

ICAPCD Rule 101 and SJVUAPCD Rule 

1020 in the SIP. Most recently, on 

March 7, 2011 (76 FR 12280), we 

approved a version of ICAPCD Rule 101 

that was adopted locally on February 

23, 2010; and on August 28, 2009 (74 FR 

44291), we approved a version of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 that was adopted 

locally on January 15, 2009. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

States to submit regulations that control 

volatile organic compounds, oxides of 

nitrogen, particulate matter, and other 

air pollutants which harm human health 

and the environment. These rules were 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59434 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

developed as part of the local agency’s 

program to control these pollutants. 

Imperial County Rule 101 is being 

amended by adding new definitions, 

revising definitions for clarity, making 

various administrative changes, 

updating the exempt volatile organic 

compounds list to correspond with 

EPA’s, and deleting two obsolete 

definitions. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more detailed 

information about this rule. 

SJVUAPCD amended Rule 1020 to 

add dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and 

propylene carbonate (PC) to the 

District’s list of exempt compounds 

within the definition of VOC as a 

response to EPA findings that DMC and 

PC have a low potential to form ozone 

in the atmosphere. EPA’s TSD has more 

detailed information about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

These rules describe administrative 

provisions and definitions that support 

emission controls found in other local 

agency requirements. In combination 

with the other requirements, these rules 

must be enforceable (see section 110(a) 

of the Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). EPA policy that we used to 

evaluate enforceability requirements 

consistently includes the Bluebook 

(‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988), the 

Little Bluebook (‘‘Guidance Document 

for Correcting Common VOC & Other 

Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, 

August 21, 2001), and ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 

57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. The TSDs have more 

information on our evaluations. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rules. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rules 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 the same 

submitted rules. If we receive adverse 

comments by November 3, 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 December 1, 

2014. This will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

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 December 1, 

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 this Federal Register, rather 

than file an immediate petition for 

judicial review of this direct final rule, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59435 

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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 25, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations 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 F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(442) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(442) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on February 10, 2014 by the Governor’s 

Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by Reference. 

(A) Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 101, ‘‘Definitions,’’ revised on 

October 22, 2013. 

(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 1020, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended 

on February 21, 2013. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–23400 Filed 10–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0247; FRL–9917–38– 

Region 10] 

Revision to the Idaho State 

Implementation Plan; Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans: Idaho, Northern 

Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year 

Maintenance Plan and Pinehurst PM10

Contingency Measures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the Northern 

Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year 

Maintenance Plan submitted by the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ) on March 11, 2013, for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to ten 

micrometers (PM10). Northern Ada 

County was identified as an area of 

concern for PM10 with the promulgation 

of the PM10 NAAQS in 1987, and was 

formally designated as a moderate PM10

nonattainment area upon passage of the 

1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments. 

In October 2003, the EPA approved the 

Northern Ada County PM10

Maintenance Plan and redesignated the 

area to attainment for PM10. This revised 

Maintenance Plan addresses 

maintenance of the PM10 standard for a 

second ten-year period beyond 

redesignation through 2023, extends the 

horizon years, and contains revised 

transportation conformity budgets. The 

EPA is also approving the February 15– 

16, 2011 high wind exceptional event at 

the Boise Fire Station monitor, as well 

as contingency measures for the 

Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality 

Improvement Plan. The EPA is 

approving the second ten-year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada 

County and the Pinehurst PM10

contingency measures pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA. The EPA is 

approving the February 2011 

exceptional event pursuant to 40 CFR 

50.14. The EPA received one set of 

adverse comments focused primarily on 

proposed coal export terminals that may 

be built in Oregon and Washington that 

may affect Northern Ada County. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2013–0247. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which 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 through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lucy Edmondson at (360)753–9082 or 

Edmondson.lucy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Northern Ada County was identified 

as an area of concern for PM10 with the 

promulgation of the PM10 NAAQS in 

1987, and was formally designated as a 

moderate PM10 nonattainment area 

upon passage of the 1990 CAA 

amendments. Idaho developed a state 

implementation plan (SIP) and 

submitted it to the EPA in November 

1991, later submitting revisions in 

December 1994 and July 1995. The EPA 

approved the Northern Ada County 

PM10 SIP on May 30, 1996 (61 FR 

27019). Idaho submitted a maintenance 

plan and a request to redesignate the 

area to attainment on September 27, 

2002, and provided supplemental 

information on July 10 and 21, 2003. On 

October 27, 2003, the EPA approved the 

Northern Ada County PM10

Maintenance Plan and redesignated the 

area to attainment status for PM10 (68 FR 

61106). 

In actions dated August 25, 1994 (59 

FR 43475) and May 26, 1995 (60 FR 

27891), the EPA conditionally approved 

the SIP for the Pinehurst, Idaho PM10

nonattainment area. The conditional 

approval concluded that IDEQ had not 

satisfied the requirement for 

contingency measures for both the City 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES