Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60347 

continue to rely on this categorical 

finding during the grace period, as long 

as the project’s parameters fall within 

the acceptable range of modeled 

parameters of the categorical hot-spot 

finding. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/projectlevelhotspot.htm#fhwa for additional details. 

Any new CO hot-spot analyses for 

conformity purposes begun after the end 

of the grace period may no longer rely 

on the February 2014 CO categorical 

hot-spot finding because the finding was 

based on MOVES2010b. 

F. Previously Approved CO SIP HotSpot Protocols 

Section 93.123(a)(1) of the 

transportation conformity rule allows 

areas to develop alternate procedures for 

determining localized CO hot-spot 

analyses, when developed through 

interagency consultation and approved 

by the EPA Regional Administrator. 

Some states have chosen in the past to 

develop such procedures based on 

previously approved EPA emissions 

models. 

During the MOVES2014 grace period, 

areas with previously approved CO hotspot protocols based on MOVES2010 

may continue to rely on these protocols. 

Areas with previously approved CO hotspot protocols based on MOBILE6.2 or 

earlier MOBILE versions can no longer 

be used, and should have been 

discontinued at the end of the previous 

MOVES2010 grace period. Once the 

MOVES2014 grace period ends, any 

new CO hot-spot analyses for 

conformity purposes begun after the end 

of the grace period may no longer use 

their previously approved CO hot-spot 

protocols that were based on 

MOVES2010. 

Dated: September 22, 2014. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23258 Filed 10–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0615; FRL–9916–95– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Placer County Air Pollution Control 

District (PCAPCD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This revision concerns oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) emissions from natural 

gas-fired water heaters, small boilers, 

and process heaters. We are approving 

a local rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 8, 2014 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by November 6, 2014. If we 

receive such comments, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0615, 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: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, law.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this 

rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the 

submitted rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA recommendations to further 

improve the rule 

D. Public comment and final action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving 

with the dates that it was adopted by the 

local air agency and submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

PCAPCD ..................... 247 Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters, Small Boilers and Process Heaters .... 02/13/14 05/13/14 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
60348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA generally takes action on a RACM 

demonstration as part of our action on the State’s 

attainment demonstration for the relevant NAAQS, 

based on an evaluation of the control measures 

submitted as a whole and their overall potential to 

advance the applicable attainment date in the area. 

On July 18, 2014, EPA determined 

that the submittal for PCAPCD Rule 247 

met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 

Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 247 in the SIP, although the 

PCAPCD adopted an earlier version of 

this rule on October 10, 2013. CARB did 

not submit that version to us. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. PCAPCD 

Rule 247 establishes NOX limits for 

water heaters, boilers, and process 

heaters. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)), 

must not interfere with applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or other 

CAA requirements (see CAA section 

110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP 

control requirements in nonattainment 

areas without ensuring equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions (see CAA 

section 193). CAA section 172(c)(1) 

requires nonattainment areas to 

implement all reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), as 

expeditiously as practicable.1 In ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above, the SIP must require 

RACT for each category of sources 

covered by a Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) document as well as 

each major source of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) or nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 

(f)). The PCAPCD regulates an ozone 

nonattainment area classified as severe 

for the 1-hour, 1997 8-hour and 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR Part 

81.305), so RACT applies to this area. 

PCAPCD Rule 247 does not, however, 

regulate a group of sources covered by 

a CTG document, or any source that 

emits above the major source threshold 

of 25 tons per year for NOX in this area 

(see section 182(d) and (f)(1)). Therefore, 

the section 182 NOX RACT requirement 

does not apply to PCAPCD Rule 247. 

In PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above, the SIP 

must include provisions to assure the 

implementation of RACM for the control 

of PM2.5 no later than 4 years after 

designation of the area to moderate (see 

CAA section 189(a)(1)). Portions of 

PCAPCD are classified moderate 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (see 40 CFR Part 81.305), so the 

RACM requirement in CAA section 

189(a)(1) also applies to this area. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, RACM 

and RACT requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

3. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

5. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

(ICI) Boilers’’ EPA, March 1994. 

6. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology and Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology 

for Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters,’’ CARB, July 18, 

1991. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP 

revisions. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

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

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rule because we believe it 

satisfies all applicable requirements. We 

do not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted rule. If we receive adverse 

comments by November 6, 2014, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on December 8, 

2014. This will incorporate the rule into 

the federally enforceable SIP. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60349 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 8, 

2014. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the Proposed Rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference IBR, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 5, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(441)(i)(B)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(441) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) Rule 247, ‘‘Natural Gas-Fired 

Water Heaters, Small Boilers and 

Process Heaters,’’ amended February 13, 

2014. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–23876 Filed 10–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 602 

[Docket No. FTA–2013–0004] 

RIN 2132–AB13 

Emergency Relief Program 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes 

procedures governing the 

implementation of the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) Public 

Transportation Emergency Relief 

Program as authorized by the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act. 

DATES: This final rule becomes effective 

on November 6, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program issues: Adam Schildge, Office 

of Program Management, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave. SE., Room E44–420, 

Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 

366–0778, or email, 

Adam.Schildge@dot.gov. For legal 

issues: Bonnie Graves, Office of Chief 

Counsel, same address, Room E56–306, 

phone: (202) 366–4011, or email, 

Bonnie.Graves@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP–21, Pub. L. 112– 

141) authorized the Public 

Transportation Emergency Relief 

Program at 49 U.S.C. 5324. The 

Emergency Relief Program allows FTA, 

subject to the availability of 

appropriations, to make grants for 

eligible public transportation capital 

and operating costs in the event of a 

catastrophic event, such as a natural 

disaster, that affects a wide area, as a 

result of which the Governor of a State 

has declared an emergency and the 

Secretary of Transportation has 

concurred, or the President has declared 

a major disaster under the Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act (Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 

5121–5207). 

The Disaster Relief Appropriations 

Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113–2), enacted on 

January 29, 2013, provides $10.9 billion 

for FTA’s Emergency Relief Program 

solely for recovery, relief and resilience 

efforts in areas affected by Hurricane 

Sandy. The law required FTA to issue 

interim regulations (an interim final 

rule) for the Emergency Relief Program, 

which FTA did on March 29, 2013 (See 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES