Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 11325 

1On April 18, 2007 (74 FR 19383), EPA issued 

a correction notice that corrected certain aspects of 

the regulatory text in EPA’s February 14, 2006 

action. 

visually. The private dayboards located 

in the Ala Wai Small Boat Harbor and 

the La Ronde Rotating Restaurant roof 

top restaurant form a natural range that 

mariners can use in daylight hours to 

gauge the eastern boundary of the 

Commercial Vessel Staging Area and the 

western boundary of the Eastern 

Recreational Vessel Staging Area. This 

eastern recreational staging area is 

intended for use by recreational vessels 

departing from and returning to the Ala 

Wai Small Boat harbor and Kewalo 

Basin. 

(5) Located between the Western 

Recreational Vessel Staging Area and 

the Commercial Vessel Staging Area is 

an Exclusion Area. This area is bound 

by the following points: 21°16′46′′ N, 

157°53′23′′ W; 21°13′30′′ N, 157°55′17′′ 

W; 21°13′30′′ N, 157°54′05′′ W; 

21°16′48′′ N, 157°52′10′′ W and then 

along the 50-fathom line to the 

beginning point. 

(6) All vessels staging in the RNA 

must be seaward of the 50-fathom (300 

foot) line. 

(c) Enforcement period. Paragraph (b) 

of this section will be enforced when a 

tsunami warning has been issued for the 

Hawaiian Islands by the Pacific 

Tsunami Warning Center. The COTP 

will notify the public of any 

enforcement, suspension of 

enforcement, or termination of 

enforcement through appropriate means 

to ensure the widest publicity, 

including the use of broadcast notice to 

mariners, notices of enforcement and 

press releases. 

(d) Penalties. Vessels or persons 

violating this rule are subject to the 

penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232. 

Dated: February 7, 2014. 

C.B. Thomas 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fourteenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04352 Filed 2–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0474; FRL–9905–25– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 

Revisions to Utah Administrative Code 

and an Associated Plan Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Utah on 

September 20, 1999. The September 20, 

1999 submittal revised the numbering 

and format of the Utah Administrative 

Code (UAC) rules within Utah’s SIP. In 

this action, EPA is acting on those rules 

from the September 20, 1999 submittal 

that still require EPA action. 

Specifically, EPA is approving R307– 

110–16, ‘‘Section IX, Control Measures 

for Area and Point Sources, Part G, 

Fluoride,’’ and disapproving R307–110– 

29, ‘‘Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and 

Maintenance Program.’’ In conjunction 

with our disapproval of R307–110–29, 

we are also disapproving the Utah 

Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, which Utah submitted as a 

revision to the SIP on February 6, 1996, 

and which was incorporated by 

reference in R307–110–29 as part of the 

September 20, 1999 submittal. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0474. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure 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. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody 

Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–7814, 

or ostendorf.jody@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What action is EPA finalizing and why? 

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 

micrometers (coarse particulate matter). 

(iv) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers (fine particulate matter). 

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The words State or Utah mean the 

State of Utah, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(vii) The initials UAC mean or refer to 

the Utah Administrative Code. 

I. Background 

Utah’s September 20, 1999 submittal 

revised the numbering and format of the 

UAC rules within Utah’s SIP. The 

purpose was to provide for a more 

consistent numbering system and a 

coherent structure allowing provisions 

to be located more easily within Utah’s 

rules. 

On February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679), 

we approved many of the re-numbered 

rules from the September 20, 1999 

submittal, but we deferred action on 

others or explained why no action on 

the rules was necessary.1 In subsequent 

rulemaking actions, we acted on other 

rules from the September 20, 1999 

submittal, or on later versions of the 

rules that superseded the version 

submitted on September 20, 1999. 

On August 14, 2013, we proposed to 

act on those rules from the September 

20, 1999 submittal that still required 

EPA action. See 78 FR 49400. 

Specifically, we proposed to approve 

R307–110–16, ‘‘Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part G, Fluoride,’’ and we proposed to 

disapprove R307–110–29, ‘‘Section XXI, 

Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program.’’ In conjunction with our 

proposed disapproval of R307–110–29, 

we also proposed to disapprove the 

Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program (Section XXI of the Utah SIP), 

which Utah submitted to EPA as a SIP 

revision on February 6, 1996 and which 

R307–110–29 of the September 20, 1999 

submittal incorporated by reference. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
11326 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10). 

3Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5). 

Our August 14, 2013 notice of 

proposed rulemaking invited comment 

on our proposal and provided a 30-day 

comment period. The comment period 

ended on September 13, 2013. We 

received no comments. Accordingly, we 

are finalizing our actions as proposed. 

In the docket for this final rule we 

have included a table that lists the rules 

from the September 20, 1999 submittal 

that are not addressed by today’s action 

and explains why no action on such 

rules is required. 

II. What action is EPA finalizing and 

why? 

A. R307–110–16, ‘‘Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part G, Fluoride’’ 

We are approving the renumbering of 

R307–110–16, ‘‘Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part G, Fluoride.’’ This provision 

incorporates by reference Utah SIP 

Section IX, Part G, as amended by the 

Utah Air Quality Board on December 18, 

1992, into the UAC. 

In our October 13, 2005 proposed rule 

on Utah’s September 20, 1999 submittal 

(70 FR 59681), we did not propose to act 

on the renumbering of R307–110–16. As 

our reason, we stated: ‘‘Utah repealed 

this rule from the federally approved 

SIP in their June 17, 1998 SIP submittal 

that EPA approved on May 20, 2002 (67 

FR 35442).’’ (70 FR 59687) That 

statement was incorrect. The May 20, 

2002 action did not remove R307–110– 

16 (under its previous numbering) or 

associated Utah SIP section IX, Part G 

from the SIP. Instead, that action 

removed R307–1–4.11, ‘‘Regulation for 

the Control of Fluorides from Existing 

Plants’’ from the SIP, in part based on 

the dismantling of the only facility to 

which the provision applied. In fact, on 

June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744), we 

approved the renumbering of Utah SIP 

Section IX, Part G, and this section 

remains in the SIP. However, we have 

not acted on the corresponding 

renumbering of R307–110–16 in the 

September 20, 1999 submittal. As R307– 

110–16 merely incorporates by reference 

SIP Section IX, Part G, which itself is 

currently in the SIP, we are approving 

the renumbering of R307–110–16. 

B. R307–110–29, ‘‘Section XXI, Diesel 

Inspection and Maintenance Program’’ 

We are disapproving R307–110–29, 

‘‘Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and 

Maintenance Program.’’ R307–110–29 

incorporated by reference the Utah 

Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program (Section XXI of the SIP), as 

adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board 

on July 12, 1995 (and submitted to EPA 

on February 6, 1996), which we have 

not acted on previously. In our October 

13, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking 

(70 FR 59681), we stated that we would 

not act to approve R307–110–29 because 

the rule incorporated by reference 

Utah’s February 6, 1996 SIP submittal. 

We noted that we would address the 

February 6, 1996 SIP submittal at a later 

date (70 FR 59687). We restated our 

intentions in our final rule of February 

14, 2006 (71 FR 7679) in which we 

noted that we would act on R307–110– 

29 when we acted on Utah’s February 6, 

1996 SIP submittal (71 FR 7681). With 

this final rule, we are disapproving the 

State’s February 6, 1996 submittal of its 

Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program (see section II.C. below). 

Therefore, EPA is also disapproving 

R307–110–29 because it incorporates by 

reference the State’s Diesel Inspection 

and Maintenance Program that we are 

disapproving. 

C. Utah SIP Revision: Section XXI, 

‘‘Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program.’’ 

We are disapproving Utah’s Diesel 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

Program contained in Section XXI of the 

Utah SIP, which Utah submitted on 

February 6, 1996 (hereafter, the ‘‘I/M 

Program’’). The Program requires the 

inspection of diesel-powered vehicles 

by means of an emissions opacity test. 

The opacity of vehicle emissions is 

measured, using what is known as a 

snap-idle opacity test, to determine the 

need for vehicle repair and 

maintenance. Utah adopted the Program 

with the goal of reducing particulate 

emissions from diesel vehicles in the 

PM10 2 nonattainment areas along the 

Wasatch Front—namely, Davis, Salt 

Lake, and Utah Counties. 

Our disapproval is based on several 

issues. First, relevant literature and 

studies indicate that there is not an 

accepted correlation between opacity 

and particulate matter mass emissions 

in diesel vehicles. Given this lack of 

correlation between opacity and PM 

mass emissions, it is unlikely that the 

snap-opacity test is a good predictor of 

PM emissions, and the State has not 

provided data to support a different 

conclusion. Second, the Governor’s 

February 6, 1996 submittal of the 

Program did not specify a number of 

critical parameters, such as the relevant 

opacity limits or specifications for test 

equipment. While many of the missing 

parameters were included in revisions 

to Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties’ 

inspection and maintenance ordinances 

that the Utah Division of Air Quality 

forwarded to us on April 12, 2006, the 

State did not amend Section XXI of the 

SIP to include the revised ordinances, 

and the Governor did not submit such 

an amendment to us to replace the 

version submitted on February 6, 1996. 

Therefore, the Program as submitted is 

not enforceable as a practical matter. 

Finally, relevant literature and studies 

suggest that adjusting diesel vehicles to 

reduce the opacity of emissions may 

result in an increase in emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are 

precursors to the formation of PM2.5,3

PM10, and ground level ozone. It is 

possible, therefore, that repairing 

vehicles to meet the opacity test could 

exacerbate PM emissions in Utah, and 

the State has not provided data to 

contradict this possibility. We note that 

on November 13, 2009, Davis, Salt Lake, 

and Utah Counties were designated 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). Also, both 

Salt Lake and Utah Counties retain their 

original legal designation of 

nonattainment for PM10. 

We are unable to conclude that 

approval of the I/M Program would 

strengthen the SIP or would be 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 110(l). Section 110(1) 

states that a SIP revision cannot be 

federally-approved if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress towards 

attainment of a NAAQS or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. The 

potential increase in NOX emissions 

from the I/M Program could interfere 

with attainment or reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the relevant counties. We 

have no conclusive data to show that 

the potential benefits of the I/M Program 

outweigh the potential emission 

increases with respect to pollutants of 

concern. Furthermore, the State has not 

provided data that would support the 

benefits it ascribes to the I/M Program. 

Instead, it references a 1988 study that 

attempts to indirectly infer a level of 

emission reductions resulting from 

fixing a statistically insignificant 

number of old-technology diesel 

vehicles to reduce exhaust opacity, but 

without conducting the type of beforeand-after-repair mass-emission transient 

testing on the contemporary fleet of 

diesel vehicles needed to actually 

quantify any potential impacts on 

emissions. 

For the foregoing reasons, we are 

disapproving Section XXI of the SIP, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 11327 

‘‘Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 

Program,’’ as submitted by the State on 

February 6, 1996. 

III. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

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 that meets federal 

requirements and disapproves state law 

that does not meet federal requirements; 

this action 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, 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 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 April 29, 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. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 19, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

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 TT—Utah 

■ 2. Amend § 52.2320 by adding 

paragraph (c)(77) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(77) On February 6, 1996, Utah 

submitted as a revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) a ‘‘Diesel 

Inspection and Maintenance Program,’’ 

Section XXI of the Utah SIP. EPA is 

disapproving the Utah Diesel Inspection 

and Maintenance Program as submitted 

on February 6, 1996. On September 20, 

1999 the State of Utah submitted 

revisions to its SIP that revised the 

numbering and format of the Utah 

Administrative Code rules within Utah’s 

SIP. From the September 20, 1999 

submittal, EPA is approving R307–110– 

16, ‘‘Section IX, Control Measures for 

Area and Point Sources, Part G, 

Fluoride,’’ and disapproving R307–110– 

29, ‘‘Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and 

Maintenance Program,’’ which 

incorporated Utah’s Diesel Inspection 

and Maintenance Program by reference 

into Utah’s rules. EPA has previously 

acted on other provisions from the 

September 20, 1999 submittal. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Title R307 of the Utah 

Administrative Code, Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality, R307–110, General 

Requirements: State Implementation 

Plan, R307–110–16, Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part G, Fluoride; effective September 15, 

1998; as published in the Utah State 

Bulletin on June 1, 1998 and October 1, 

1998. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–04336 Filed 2–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[GN Docket No. 13–5; WC Docket No. 

10–90; FCC 14–5] 

Technology Transitions; Connect 

America Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) adopts an experiment to 

test how tailored economic incentives 

can advance the deployment of next 

generation networks, both wireline and 

wireless, in rural, high-cost areas of the 

country, including Tribal lands. In this 

experiment, Connect America funding 

will be available to entities to deploy 

high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES