37974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8See 79 FR 2394 (Jan. 14, 2014). 

end date as the comment period for the 

Position Limits Proposal.8

Comment letters received on the 

Position Limits Proposal are available at 

http://comments.cftc.gov/

PublicComments/

CommentList.aspx?id=1436. Comment 

letters received on the Aggregation 

Proposal are available at http://

comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/

CommentList.aspx?id=1427. 

II. Extension of Comment Period 

Subsequent to publication of the 

Position Limits Proposal and the 

Aggregation Proposal, Commission 

directed staff to schedule a June 19, 

2014, public roundtable to consider 

certain issues regarding position limits 

for physical commodity derivatives. The 

roundtable focused on hedges of a 

physical commodity by a commercial 

enterprise, including gross hedging, 

cross-commodity hedging, anticipatory 

hedging, and the process for obtaining a 

non-enumerated exemption. Discussion 

included the setting of spot month 

limits in physical-delivery and cashsettled contracts and a conditional spotmonth limit exemption. Further, the 

roundtable included discussion of: the 

aggregation exemption for certain 

ownership interests of greater than 50 

percent in an owned entity; and 

aggregation based on substantially 

identical trading strategies. As well, the 

Commission invited comment on 

whether to provide parity for wheat 

contracts in non-spot month limits. In 

conjunction with the roundtable, staff 

questions regarding these topics were 

posted on the Commission’s Web site. 

To provide commenters with a 

sufficient period of time to respond to 

questions raised and points made at the 

roundtable, the Commission is further 

extending the comment periods for the 

Position Limit Proposal and the 

Aggregation Proposal. Thus, both 

comment periods will end on August 4, 

2014. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 27, 

2014, by the Commission. 

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 

Acting Secretary of the Commission. 

Note: The following appendix will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix to Position Limits for 

Derivatives and Aggregation of 

Positions Extension of Comment 

Periods—Commission Voting Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Massad and 

Commissioners O’Malia, Wetjen, and 

Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No 

Commissioner voted in the negative. 

Commissioner Bowen did not 

participate in this matter. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15618 Filed 7–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 35 

[EPA–R09–0AR–2014–0203; FRL–9913–10– 

Region–9] 

Clean Air Act Grant: Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District; 

Opportunity for Public Hearing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed action; Determination 

with request for comments and notice of 

opportunity for public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has made a proposed 

determination that the reduction in 

expenditures of non-Federal funds for 

the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District (SBCAPCD) in support 

of its continuing air program under 

section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

for the calendar year 2013 is a result of 

non-selective reductions in 

expenditures. This determination, when 

final, will permit the SBCAPCD to 

receive grant funding for FY2014 from 

the EPA under section 105 of the Clean 

Air Act. 

DATES: Comments and/or requests for a 

public hearing must be received by EPA 

at the address stated below by August 4, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0203, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

2. Email to: bartholomew.sara@

epa.gov or 

3. Mail to: Sara Bartholomew (Air-8), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Bartholomew, EPA Region IX, Grants & 

Program Integration Office, Air Division, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105; phone: (415) 947–4100, fax: (415) 

947–3579 or email address at 

bartholomew.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. 7405, provides grant support for 

the continuing air programs of eligible 

state, local, and tribal agencies. In 

accordance with CAA section 

105(a)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 35.145(a), the 

Regional Administrator may provide air 

pollution control agencies up to threefifths of the approved costs of 

implementing programs for the 

prevention and control of air pollution. 

Section 105 contains two cost-sharing 

provisions which recipients must meet 

to qualify for a CAA section 105 grant. 

An eligible entity must meet a minimum 

40% match. In addition, to remain 

eligible for section 105 funds, an eligible 

entity must continue to meet the 

minimum match requirement as well as 

meet a maintenance of effort (MOE) 

requirement under section 105(c)(1) of 

the CAA and 40 CFR 35.146. 

Program activities relevant to the 

match consist of both recurring and 

non-recurring expenses. The MOE 

provision requires that a state or local 

agency spend at least the same dollar 

level of funds as it did in the previous 

grant year, but only for the costs of 

recurring activities. Specifically, section 

105(c)(1) provides that ‘‘no agency shall 

receive any grant under this section 

during any fiscal year when its 

expenditures of non-Federal funds for 

recurrent expenditures for air pollution 

control programs will be less than its 

expenditures were for such programs 

during the preceding fiscal year.’’ 

Pursuant to CAA section 105(c)(2), 

however, EPA may still award a grant to 

an agency not meeting the requirements 

of section 105(c)(1), ‘‘if the 

Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, 

determines that a reduction in 

expenditures is attributable to a nonselective reduction in the expenditures 

in the programs of all Executive branch 

agencies of the applicable unit of 

Government.’’ These statutory 

requirements are repeated in EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

35.140–35.148. EPA issued additional 

guidance to recipients on what 

constitutes a nonselective reduction on 

September 30, 2011. In consideration of 

legislative history, the guidance 

clarified that a non-selective reduction 

does not necessarily mean that each 

Executive branch agency need be 

reduced in equal proportion. However, 

it must be clear to EPA, from the weight 

of evidence, that a recipient’s CAArelated air program is not being 

disproportionately impacted or singled 

out for a reduction. 

A section 105 recipient must submit 

a final financial status report no later 

than 90 days from the close of its grant 

period that documents all of its federal 

and non-federal expenditures for the 

completed period. The recipient seeking 

an adjustment to its MOE for that period 

must provide the rationale and the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37975 

documentation necessary to enable EPA 

to make a determination that a 

nonselective reduction has occurred. In 

order to expedite that determination, the 

recipient must provide details of the 

budget action and the comparative fiscal 

impacts on all the jurisdiction’s 

executive branch agencies, the recipient 

agency itself, and the agency’s air 

program. The recipient should identify 

any executive branch agencies or 

programs that should be excepted from 

comparison and explain why. The 

recipient must provide evidence that the 

air program is not being singled out for 

a reduction or being disproportionately 

reduced. Documentation in two key 

areas will be needed: Budget data 

specific to the recipient’s air program, 

and comparative budget data between 

the recipient’s air program, the agency 

containing the air program, and the 

other executive branch agencies. EPA 

may also request information from the 

recipient about how impacts on its 

program operations will affect its ability 

to meet its CAA obligations and 

requirements; and documentation 

which explains the cause of the 

reduction, such as legislative changes or 

the issuance of a new executive order. 

In FY2013, EPA awarded the 

SBCAPCD $490,838, which represented 

approximately 5% of the SBCAPCD 

budget. In FY2014, EPA intends to 

award the SBCAPCD $499,231, which 

represents approximately 5% of the 

SBCAPCD budget. 

SBCAPCD’s final Federal Financial 

Report for FY2012 indicated that 

SBCAPCD’s maintenance of effort 

(MOE) level was $6,317,663. 

SBCAPCD’s final Federal Financial 

Report for FY2013 indicates that 

SBCAPCD’s MOE level is at $6,013,506. 

The projected MOE is not sufficient to 

meet the MOE requirements under the 

CAA section 105 because it is not equal 

to or greater than the MOE for the 

previous fiscal year. In order for the 

SBCAPCD to be eligible to receive its 

FY2014 CAA section 105 grant EPA 

must make a determination, after notice 

and an opportunity for a public hearing, 

that the reduction in expenditures is 

attributable to a non-selective reduction 

in the expenditures in the programs of 

the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

The shortfall stems from the change in 

the SBCAPCD’s budget over the past 

two years. During the budget process in 

early 2012 (the SBCAPCD’s fiscal year is 

July 1, 2012–June 30, 2013) the 

SBCAPCD was anticipating a very large 

deficit. This was largely due to a 

projected decrease in permit fee 

revenues. In order to balance the budget, 

the SBCAPCD actively scaled back their 

services and supplies expenditure 

budget by $298,438 and also cut back 

staff from 50.25 to 48.0 full time 

equivalents (FTE). This resulted in the 

overall SBCAPCD adopted budget for 

FY12–13 being reduced by $448,224 

from the previous year. The SBCAPCD 

monitored expenditures closely in 

FY12–13 to stay within budget. The 

result was that actual year-end expenses 

(of fixed assets, salaries and benefits, 

and services and supplies) for FFY12– 

13 were $494,155.86 less than the prior 

federal fiscal year (FFY2011–12). 

The SBCAPCD was unable to meet 

MOE in FY13 for the following reasons: 

(1) Decrease in permit revenues 

(licenses and permits) 

(2) Staffing decreases (FTE and 

salaries and benefits) 

(3) Decrease in service and supplies 

allocations and expenses (services and 

supplies) 

The table below shows the actual 

changes for the above items between 

FFY 11–12 and 12–13: 

Item FFY 2011–12 

Actual 

FFY 2012–13 

Actual Difference 

Licenses and Permits ................................................................................................ $4,051,252.03 $3,682,017.72 ($369,234.31) 

Salaries and Benefits ................................................................................................. $5,501,809.76 $5,318,670.46 ($183,139.30) 

Service and Supplies ................................................................................................. $3,021,850.88 $2,780,654.29 ($241,196.59) 

FTE ............................................................................................................................ 50.25 48.00 (2.25) 

As noted above, budgeted staff were 

reduced in order to balance the FY 12– 

13 budget. Actual permit fee revenues 

decreased $369,234 in FFY 12–13. In 

addition, the SBCAPCD had three 

people retire in FY 12–13. The 

retirements resulted in additional 

reductions in salary expenses as 

positions remained vacant for periods of 

the time. Furthermore, new employees 

eventually hired to replace retirees were 

paid a starting salary less than the more 

senior retirees. Leave of absences were 

another factor causing reduced salaries 

in FY 12–13. Salary expenses for 

employees on leave were not incurred 

which further contributed to the 

decrease in salary and benefits. All 

these factors resulted in an overall 

decrease of $183,139 in salaries and 

benefits in FFY12–13. In addition, 

SBCAPCD service and supply actual 

expenses declined by $241,197 in 

FFY12–13. 

Additionally, due to the relatively 

small size of the SBCAPCD, small 

changes in total staff hours worked or 

incoming revenue sources year to year 

can cause fluctuations in MOE. This 

happened to a large extent in FFY 12– 

13, and actual expenses declined 

significantly from the previous year. 

Despite the economic pressures that 

have resulted in agency staff reductions, 

the SBCAPCD was able to keep up with 

program goals by implementing 

efficiencies. Automation of several 

functions was done, including 

automatic generation of basic permits. 

The SBCAPCD is a single-purpose 

agency whose primary source of funding 

is emission fee revenue; it does not 

benefit from the proceeds of property 

tax, sales tax or income tax. It is the 

‘‘unit of government for section 

105(c)(2) purposes.’’ 

Based on: (1) Decrease in permit 

revenues, (2) Weakened economic 

conditions, (3) Staffing decreases, and 

(4) Decrease in service and supplies 

allocations and expenses, the request for 

a reset of SBCAPCD’s MOE meets the 

criteria for a non-selective reduction 

determination. 

Although SBCAPCD receives 

approximately 5 percent of its support 

from the section 105 grant, the loss of 

that funding would seriously impact 

SBCAPCD’s ability to carry out its clean 

air program. 

The SBCAPCD’s MOE reduction 

resulted from a loss of revenues due to 

circumstances beyond its control. EPA 

proposes to determine that the 

SBCAPCD lowering the FY2013 MOE 

level to $6,013,506 meets the CAA 

section 105(c)(2) criteria as resulting 

from a non-selective reduction of 

expenditures. 

This document constitutes a request 

for public comment and an opportunity 

for public hearing as required by the 

Clean Air Act. All written comments 

received by August 4, 2014 on this 

proposal will be considered. EPA will 

conduct a public hearing on this 

proposal only if a written request for 

such is received by EPA at the address 

above by August 4, 2014. If no written 

request for a hearing is received, EPA 

will proceed to the final determination. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

While notice of the final determination 

will not be published in the Federal 

Register, copies of the determination 

can be obtained by sending a written 

request to Sara Bartholomew at the 

above address. 

Dated: June 19, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15534 Filed 7–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0269; FRL–9911–00– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Placer County portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the 

necessary procedures to create emission 

reduction credits from the reduction of 

volatile organic compound (VOC), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), oxides of 

sulfur (SOX), particulate matter (PM), 

and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions 

due to the permanent curtailment of 

burning rice straw. 

We are proposing to approve a local 

rule that provides administrative 

procedures for creating emissions 

reduction credits, consistent with Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act) requirements. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by August 4, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0269, 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: 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 942– 

3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rule: Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District Rule 516, Rice Straw 

Emission Reduction Credits. In the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register, we are approving this 

local rule in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe these 

SIP revisions are not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: April 25, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15564 Filed 7–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0365; FRL–9913–04– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Iowa; Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Iowa State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Iowa on July 16, 2013. 

Iowa’s July 16, 2013, SIP submission 

(‘‘progress report SIP’’) addresses 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to submit periodic reports 

describing progress towards reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) established for 

regional haze and a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing SIP 

addressing regional haze (‘‘regional haze 

SIP’’). EPA is proposing approval of 

Iowa’s progress report SIP submission 

on the basis that it addresses the 

progress report and adequacy 

determination requirements for the first 

implementation period for regional 

haze. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 4, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2014–0365 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: harper.jodi@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Ms. Jodi Harper, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, Air and Waste 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014– 

0365. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS