63536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone of limited size and duration. This 

rule is categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(g) of 

Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. An environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR Part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3707; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T11–670 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T11–670 Safety zone; 

Semisubmersible Loading Operation Safety 

Zone, South San Francisco Bay, San 

Francisco, CA. 

(a) Location. This temporary safety 

zone is established in the navigable 

waters of South San Francisco Bay 

within 500 feet of the anchored 

semisubmersible and all support vessels 

engaged in the loading operation at 

Anchorage 9 in approximate position 

37°46′09′′ N, 122°21′31′′ W (NAD83). 

(b) Enforcement Period. The zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section will be enforced for a 24-hour 

period between October 14 and 23, 

2014. The Captain of the Port San 

Francisco (COTP) will notify the 

maritime community of periods during 

which this zone will be enforced via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners in 

accordance with 33 CFR 165.7. 

(c) Definitions. As used in this 

section, ‘‘designated representative’’ 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, 

State, or local officer designated by or 

assisting the COTP pursuant to a 

Memorandum of Understanding with 

that agency, to assist in the enforcement 

of the safety zone. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

regulations in 33 CFR Part 165, Subpart 

C, entry into, transiting or anchoring 

within this safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the COTP or a 

designated representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or a designated 

representative. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the COTP or a designated 

representative to obtain permission to 

do so. Vessel operators given permission 

to enter or operate in the safety zone 

must comply with all directions given to 

them by the COTP or a designated 

representative. Persons and vessels may 

request permission to enter the safety 

zone by contacting the Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander on VHF channel 

23A. 

Dated: October 9, 2014. 

Gregory G. Stump, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25383 Filed 10–23–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0646; FRL–9918–38– 

Region 9] 

Findings of Failure To Submit State 

Implementation Plan; California; 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is making a 

finding that California has not 

submitted a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision for the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) provisions that require the 

SIP to contain adequate provisions to 

address the transport of air pollution to 

other states. Specifically, these 

requirements pertain to significant 

contribution to nonattainment, or 

interference with maintenance, of the 

2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) in any other state. 

EPA refers to such submittals as 

‘‘interstate transport’’ SIPs and often 

refers to the specific requirements 

addressed in this final rule as ‘‘prongs 

1 and 2’’ since they address the first two 

of several interstate transport 

requirements. This finding of failure to 

submit establishes a deadline of 24 

months after the effective date of this 

final rule for EPA to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address these two interstate transport 

requirements for California for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS unless, prior to 

that time, the state submits, and EPA 

approves, a submittal that meets these 

requirements. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on November 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2014–0646. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., confidential 

business information (CBI)). To inspect 

the hard copy materials, please schedule 

an appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedures Act, 5 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 553(b)(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 this rule final without 

prior proposal and opportunity for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 63537 

1 71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006. Note that only 

new or revised standards trigger the requirement for 

states to submit infrastructure SIPs and interstate 

transport SIPs, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), 

while retained standards, such as the 2006 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, do not trigger that requirement. 

2Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ September 25, 2009, pp. 3–4. 

3Letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive 

Officer, California Air Resources Board to Laura 

Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA 

Region IX, July 7, 2009. 

4 75 FR 32673, June 9, 2010. 

5Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 12–6472, U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of California, 

December 21, 2012. 

6EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 

11–1302, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 

Court, August 21, 2012. 

7 ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP,’’ March 6, 2014, 

p. 1. 8 2014 Submittal, p. 18. 

9EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 

12–1182, U.S. Supreme Court, certiorari to the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, April 29, 

2014. 10Letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive 

Officer, California Air Resources Board to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA 

Region IX, July 18, 2014. 

comment because no significant EPA 

judgment is involved in making a 

finding of failure to submit SIPs, or 

elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, 

where states have made no submittals, 

or incomplete submittals, to meet the 

requirement by the statutory date. Thus, 

notice and public procedure are 

unnecessary. EPA finds that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states 

to submit SIP revisions that provide for 

the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) sets the 

content requirements of such a plan, 

which generally relate to the 

information and authorities, compliance 

assurances, procedural requirements, 

and control measures that constitute the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ of a state’s air quality 

management program. A SIP revision 

addressing these requirements is 

referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ 

Within these requirements, section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains requirements to 

address interstate transport of NAAQS 

pollutants. A SIP revision submitted for 

this sub-section is referred to as an 

‘‘interstate transport SIP.’’ In turn, 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that 

such a plan contain adequate provisions 

to prohibit emissions from the state that 

will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state (‘‘prong 1’’) or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). Interstate transport 

prongs 1 and 2 are the SIP content 

requirements relevant to this findings 

notice. 

On September 21, 2006, EPA 

promulgated a final rule revising the 

existing 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

from 65 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3 and retained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/

m3.1 This set an infrastructure SIP 

submittal deadline of September 21, 

2009 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including the interstate transport 

requirements. EPA issued guidance for 

satisfying the interstate transport 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS on September 25, 2009 (‘‘EPA’s 

2009 Guidance’’), including guidance on 

interstate transport prongs 1 and 2.2

Prior to issuance of this guidance, 

California Air Resources Board (ARB) 

submitted an infrastructure SIP 

certification letter for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS on July 7, 2009 (‘‘2009 

Submittal’’).3 This submittal referred to 

an interim draft of EPA’s 2009 Guidance 

and largely relied on California’s earlier 

infrastructure SIP submittal of 

November 16, 2007 for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, including reliance on that 

earlier submittal’s response to the 

requirements for interstate transport 

prongs 1 and 2. On the basis of 

California’s 2009 Submittal, California 

was not included in EPA’s 2010 notice 

that made findings of failure to submit 

SIP revisions for such requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 29 

states and territories.4

Sierra Club sued EPA on December 

21, 2012, alleging that EPA had failed to 

take action on infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

from several states, including 

California.5 In the same filing, Sierra 

Club also alleged that EPA had failed to 

promulgate FIPs for several other states 

addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (i.e., interstate 

transport prongs 1 and 2) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. That lawsuit was stayed 

by the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California on March 

29, 2013 as it related to on-going 

litigation in EME Homer City v. EPA 

(pertaining to EPA’s Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which EPA 

promulgated to address interstate 

transport prongs 1 and 2 in the eastern 

portion of the U.S.).6

On March 6, 2014, California 

submitted a multi-pollutant 

infrastructure SIP revision for several 

NAAQS (‘‘2014 Submittal’’) that 

includes a SIP revision for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, except for the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).7 With respect to 

interstate transport prongs 1 and 2, the 

submittal stated that California was not 

addressing these requirements pursuant 

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit Court ruling in EME Homer City 

v. EPA, which ARB read as concluding 

that ‘‘states do not need to address 

Prong 1 and Prong 2 until U.S. EPA 

quantifies each state’s transport 

obligation.’’ 8 Shortly thereafter, the U.S. 

Supreme Court reversed this part of the 

judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit Court.9 Thus, 

California’s submittal of an interstate 

transport SIP for prongs 1 and 2 for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, or any 

other NAAQS, is not contingent on EPA 

first defining California’s CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On July 18, 2014, California withdrew 

its 2009 Submittal, stating that ARB 

would submit a SIP revision to address 

the outstanding requirements.10 The 

effect of this withdrawal letter is that 

California does not have an approved or 

pending submittal addressing the 

interstate transport prongs for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. We must therefore make 

a finding that California has failed to 

submit a SIP revision to address the 

requirements of interstate transport 

prongs 1 and 2 by the applicable 

deadline of September 21, 2009. 

II. Final Action 

This action reflects EPA’s 

determination with respect to the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS for California only, as 

discussed in section I of this findings 

notice. EPA is making a finding of 

failure to submit for California for the 

interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

finding establishes a deadline of 24 

months after the effective date of this 

final rule for EPA to promulgate a FIP, 

in accordance with section 110(c)(1), 

unless prior to that time California 

submits, and EPA approves, a submittal 

that addresses these interstate transport 

requirements. This finding of failure to 

submit does not impose sanctions, and 

does not set deadlines for imposing 

sanctions as described in section 179, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
63538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

because it does not pertain to the 

elements of a CAA title I, part D plan 

for nonattainment areas as required 

under section 110(a)(2)(I), and because 

this action is not a SIP call pursuant to 

section 110(k)(5). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden. This rule 

relates to the requirement in the CAA 

for states to submit SIPs under section 

110(a) to satisfy certain requirements 

pertaining to interstate transport of air 

pollution under section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

that states submit SIPs that implement, 

maintain, and enforce a new or revised 

NAAQS which satisfy the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), including the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), within 3 years 

of promulgation of such standard, or 

shorter period as EPA may provide. This 

final rule does not establish any new 

information collection requirement 

apart from that already required by law. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations in the CFR are listed in 40 

CFR Part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

action subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

For the purpose of assessing the 

impacts of this final action on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business that is a small industry 

entity as defined in the U.S. Small 

Business Administration size standards 

(See 13 CFR 121); (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which independently 

owned and operated is not dominate in 

its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final action on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This action relates to the requirement in 

the CAA for states to submit SIPs under 

section 110(a) to satisfy certain 

requirements pertaining to interstate 

transport of air pollution under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires that states submit SIPs that 

implement, maintain, and enforce a new 

or revised NAAQS which satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), 

including the interstate transport 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), within 3 years of 

promulgation of such standard, or 

shorter period as EPA may provide. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (UMRA) 

This action contains no federal 

mandate under the provisions of Title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for state, 

local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector. The action does not 

impose any new enforceable duty on 

any state, local or private sector. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of section 202 and 205 

of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action relates to the requirement in the 

CAA for states to submit SIPs under 

section 110(a) to satisfy certain 

requirements pertaining to interstate 

transport of air pollution under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires that states submit SIPs that 

implement, maintain, and enforce a new 

or revised NAAQS which satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), 

including the interstate transport 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), within 3 years of 

promulgation of such standard, or 

shorter period as EPA may provide. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not 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 government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The CAA 

establishes the scheme whereby states 

take the lead in developing plans to 

meet the NAAQS. This action will not 

modify the relationship of the states and 

EPA for purposes of developing 

programs to implement the NAAQS. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249). It does not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian Tribes, because no Tribe 

has implemented an air quality 

management program related to the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, this 

action does not affect the relationship or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes. The 

CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish 

the relationship of the Federal 

government and Tribes in developing 

plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule 

does nothing to modify that 

relationship. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is 

making a finding as to whether or not 

California has submitted a complete SIP 

for the interstate transport requirements 

specified in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) necessary to implement 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This finding of 

failure to submit for these interstate 

transport requirements establishes a 

deadline of 24 months after the effective 

date of this final rule for EPA to a 

promulgate FIP to address the 

outstanding SIP elements unless, prior 

to that time, California submits, and 

EPA approves, the required SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 63539 

distribution, or use of energy. At the 

time of proposal of the implementation 

rule for the prior 1997 PM2.5 standard, 

information on the methodology and 

data regarding the assessment of 

potential energy impacts regarding 

implementation of the 2006 PM2.5

standard was not addressed because the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is not a significant 

energy action. This is based on the fact 

that no impacts are specifically ascribed 

to the standard only. Potential energy 

impacts are ascribed during the 

implementation phase by the states. An 

energy impact analysis, as part of a 

regulatory impact analysis or other 

assessment for the PM2.5 NAAQS rule, 

was prepared by the Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, April 24, 

2003. (71 FR 60853, October 17, 2006) 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 

section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impracticable. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

action will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not directly affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This notice is making a 

finding concerning whether California 

has submitted or failed to submit a 

complete SIP for the interstate transport 

requirements specified in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) necessary to implement 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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 action 

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). This action 

will be effective November 24, 2014. 

L. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates 

which Federal Courts of Appeal have 

venue for petitions of review of final 

actions by EPA. This section provides, 

in part, that petitions for review must be 

filed in the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When 

the EPA action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final actions taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) when such action 

is locally or regionally applicable, if 

‘‘such action is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ 

The Administrator is determining that 

this action making a finding of failure to 

submit SIPs related to the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is of 

nationwide scope and effect for the 

purposes of section 307(b)(1). This is 

particularly appropriate because in the 

report on the 1977 Amendments that 

revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

Congress noted that the Administrator’s 

determination that an action is of 

‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ would be 

appropriate for any action that has 

‘‘scope or effect beyond a single judicial 

circuit.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323, 

324, reprinted in 1977 

U.S.C.C.A.N.1402–03. Here, the scope 

and effect of this rulemaking extends to 

numerous judicial circuits since the 

finding of failure to submit a SIP applies 

to a rulemaking of national scope and 

effect. In these circumstances, section 

307(b)(1) and its legislative history call 

for the Administrator to find the rule to 

be of ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ and 

for venue to be in the District of 

Columbia Circuit. 

Thus, any petitions for review of this 

action related to a finding of failure to 

submit SIPs related to the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA 

must be filed in the Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit within 

60 days from the date final action is 

published in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and promulgation of 

implementation plans, Environmental 

protection, Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate 

matter, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 29, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25279 Filed 10–23–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

CFR Correction 

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 96 to 99, revised as of 

July 1, 2013, on page 765, in § 98.226, 

paragraph (c) is reinstated to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.226 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Annual nitric acid production 

from each nitric acid train (tons, 100 

percent acid basis). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–25390 Filed 10–23–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES