63394 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

plan for the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio 

area. The inventories and budgets are 

being revised with inventories and 

budgets developed with the 

MOVES2010a model. The 2005 budgets 

for the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio area 

are 53.37 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 

84.66 tpd NOX. The 2018 budgets for the 

Dayton-Springfield, Ohio area are 22.35 

tpd VOC and 32.47 tpd NOX. 

(18) Approval—On March 15, 2013, 

Ohio submitted a request to revise the 

approved MOBILE6.2 onroad mobile 

source emissions inventories and motor 

vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in 

the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan for the Ohio portion of the 

Steubenville-Weirton, West VirginiaOhio area. The inventories and budgets 

are being revised with inventories and 

budgets developed with the 

MOVES2010a model. The 2009 budgets 

for the Ohio portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, West Virginia-Ohio area are 

4.83 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 5.91 

tpd NOX. The 2018 budgets for the Ohio 

portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, 

West Virginia-Ohio area are 2.14 tpd 

VOC and 2.43 tpd NOX. 

(19) Approval—On April 18, 2013, 

Ohio submitted a request to revise the 

approved MOBILE6.2 onroad 

inventories and motor vehicle emission 

budgets (budgets) in the 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan for the Toledo, 

Ohio area. The inventories and budgets 

are being revised with budgets 

developed with the MOVES2010a 

model. The 2009 budgets for the Toledo, 

Ohio area are 21.61 tons per day (tpd) 

VOC and 46.78 tpd NOX. The 2018 

budgets for the Toledo, Ohio area are 

9.36 tpd VOC and 17.64 tpd NOX. 

(20) Approval—On April 26, 2013, 

Ohio submitted a request to revise the 

approved MOBILE6.2 onroad mobile 

source emissions inventories and motor 

vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in 

the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan for the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, West VirginiaOhio area. The inventories and budgets 

are being revised with inventories and 

budgets developed with the 

MOVES2010a model. The 2009 budgets 

for the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta, West Virginia-Ohio area are 

4.15 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 7.33 

tpd NOX. The 2018 budgets for the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, 

West Virginia-Ohio area are 1.93 tpd 

VOC and 3.25 tpd NOX. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–24706 Filed 10–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0548, FRL–9901–76– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: State 

Board Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action 

to approve a revision to the Idaho State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Idaho on September 16, 

2013, for approval into the Idaho SIP for 

purposes of meeting the state board 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The EPA is also approving the 

September 16, 2013, revision as meeting 

the corresponding state board 

infrastructure requirements of the CAA 

for the 1997 ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). On 

August 1, 2013, the EPA proposed to 

approve the July 16, 2013, draft of this 

revision submitted for parallel 

processing. Because the final SIP 

revision submitted by Idaho to the EPA 

on September 16, 2013 is consistent 

with the July 16, 2013, submittal, the 

Idaho SIP will, upon the effective date 

of this final approval, contain the 

required provisions regarding board 

composition and disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest. The EPA is taking 

final action to approve this revision 

because it satisfies the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2013–0548. 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 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or by using the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 16, 2013, the State of Idaho 

submitted a SIP revision for purposes of 

meeting the state board requirements of 

CAA section 128 and the corresponding 

state board infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. Specifically, Idaho submitted 

Executive Order 2013–06, dated June 

26, 2013, and Idaho Code §§ 59–701 

through 705, Ethics in Government Act, 

and requested parallel processing on the 

submittal. Under the parallel processing 

procedure, a state submits a SIP revision 

to the EPA before final adoption by the 

state. The EPA reviews this proposed 

state action and prepares a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. The EPA 

publishes its notice of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register and 

solicits public comment in 

approximately the same time frame 

during which the state is completing its 

rulemaking action. 

After submitting the draft July 16, 

2013, revision to the EPA, Idaho 

provided a public comment period on 

the draft, and a public hearing. Idaho’s 

comment period began July 12, 2013 

and ended August 13, 2013. The public 

hearing was held on August 13, 2013. 

No comments or testimony were 

received. In parallel, on August 1, 2013, 

the EPA proposed approval of the July 

16, 2013, draft SIP revision (78 FR 

46549). An explanation of the CAA 

requirements and implementing 

regulations that are met by this SIP 

revision, a detailed explanation of the 

revision, and the EPA’s reasons for 

approving it were provided in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking on August 1, 

2013, and will not be restated here (78 

FR 46549). The public comment period 

for the EPA’s proposed approval ended 

on September 3, 2013 and we received 

no comments. Subsequently, Idaho 

submitted the final SIP revision to the 

EPA on September 16, 2013. Because 

the September 16, 2013, final SIP 

revision is consistent with the July 16, 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63395 

2013, draft SIP revision and we received 

no comments on our proposal, we are 

finalizing our approval in this action. 

II. Final Action 

The EPA is approving the September 

16, 2013, SIP revision from the State of 

Idaho as meeting the state board 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and does not provide the 

EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

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 the 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. The 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 23, 2013. 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. 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, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 24, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR Part 52 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 N—Idaho 

■ 2. Amend the table in § 52.670(e) 

entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures’’ by adding the following 

entries to the end to read as follows: 

§ 52.670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Idaho State Board SIP 

Revision; Executive 

Order 2013–06; dated 

June 26, 2013.

Statewide ........ 9/16/2013 10–24–13 [Insert page 

number where the document begins].

To satisfy the requirements of CAA section 

128(a)(1) and CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for all 

criteria pollutants. Executive Order 2013–06 expires June 26, 2017, unless renewed by subsequent Executive Order. 

Idaho State Board SIP 

Revision; Idaho Code 

§§ 59–701 through 705; 

Ethics in Government 

Act.

Statewide ........ 9/16/2013 10–24–13 [Insert page 

number where the document begins].

To satisfy the requirements of CAA section 

128(a)(2) and CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for all 

criteria pollutants. 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
63396 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–24703 Filed 10–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 217 

[130325286–3653–01] 

RIN 0648–BC69 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Replacement of the Elliott 

Bay Seawall in Seattle, Washington 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS, upon application from 

the City of Seattle’s Department of 

Transportation (SDOT), is issuing 

regulations to govern the unintentional 

taking of marine mammals incidental to 

construction associated with the 

replacement of the Elliott Bay Seawall 

in Seattle, Washington, for the period 

October 2013 to October 2018. These 

regulations allow for the issuance of 

Letters of Authorization (LOAs) for the 

incidental take of marine mammals 

during the described activities and 

specified timeframes, and prescribe the 

permissible methods of taking and other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of any takings. 

DATES: Effective October 21, 2013, 

through October 21, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of SDOT’s 

application and other supplemental 

documents, may be obtained by visiting 

the internet at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#applications. 

Documents cited in this notice may also 

be viewed, by appointment, during 

regular business hours, at the Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910– 

3225. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant), and if 

the permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘negligible impact’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ‘‘an impact resulting from 

the specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘harassment’ as: ‘‘any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild [‘‘Level A harassment’’]; or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [‘‘Level B 

harassment’’].’’ 

Summary of Request 

On September 17, 2012, NMFS 

received a complete application from 

SDOT requesting authorization for the 

take of nine marine mammal species 

incidental to replacement of the Elliott 

Bay Seawall in Seattle, Washington, 

over the course of 5 years. The purpose 

of the project is to reduce the risks of 

coastal storm and seismic damage and 

to protect public safety, critical 

infrastructure, and associated economic 

activities in the area. Additionally, the 

project would improve the degraded 

ecosystem functions and processes of 

the Elliott Bay nearshore around the 

existing seawall. Noise produced during 

pile installation and removal activities 

has the potential to take marine 

mammals. SDOT requested, and NMFS 

will authorize through associated 

Letters of Authorization (LOAs), the 

take of nine marine mammal species by 

Level B harassment only: Pacific harbor 

seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus), Steller sea 

lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall’s 

porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), southern 

resident and transient killer whales 

(Orcinus orca), humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaengliae), and gray 

whale (Eschrichtius jubatus). Injury or 

mortality is unlikely during the project, 

and take by Level A harassment 

(including injury) or mortality is not 

authorized. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

The proposed rule contains a 

complete description of SDOT’s 

specified activities that are covered by 

these final regulations, and for which 

the associated incidental take of marine 

mammals will be authorized in the 

related LOAs (78 FR 22096, April 12, 

2013). In summary, SDOT proposes to 

replace the Elliott Bay Seawall from 

South Washington Street to Broad 

Street, along the Seattle waterfront 

abutting Elliott Bay in King County, 

Washington. The purpose of the project 

is to reduce the risks of coastal storm 

and seismic damages and to protect 

public safety, critical infrastructure, and 

associated economic activities along 

Seattle’s central waterfront. 

Additionally, the project will improve 

nearshore ecosystem functions and 

processes in the vicinity of the existing 

seawall. The project will be constructed 

in two phases: Phase 1 will extend for 

about 3,600 linear feet (ft) (1 kilometer 

(km)) from South Washington Street to 

Virginia Street, and Phase 2 will extend 

for about 3,500 linear ft (1 km) from 

Virginia to Broad Streets. 

The new seawall will be constructed 

landward of the existing seawall face 

and result in a net setback of the wall 

from its existing location. The majority 

of seawall construction will occur 

behind a temporary steel sheet pile 

containment wall that will be placed 

waterward of the existing seawall 

complex and extend the full length of 

the construction work area during each 

construction season. The narrative 

description of the project contained in 

the proposed rule has not changed and 

is not repeated in full here. Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 below list the methods, durations, 

and locations of pile driving activities. 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES