37956 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

circle with a 500-foot radius from the 

fireworks launch site located on a barge 

in approximate position 43°06′39′′ N, 

086°10′56′′ W. (NAD 83); 9:30 p.m. until 

10:45 p.m. on July 5, 2014. 

(2) Salute the Troops Fireworks; 

Muskegon, MI. All waters of Muskegon 

Lake, in the vicinity of Lafarge 

Corporation, within the arc of a circle 

with a 1000-foot radius from a fireworks 

launch site located in approximate 

position 43°14′00′′ N, 086°15′50′′ W. 

(NAD 83); 10 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on 

July 5, 2014. 

(3) Venetian Night Fireworks; 

Sturgeon Bay, WI. All waters of 

Sturgeon Bay, in the vicinity of 

Sturgeon Bay Yacht Harbor, within the 

arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius 

from the fireworks launch site located 

on a barge in approximate position 

44°49′41′′ N, 087°22′20′′ W. (NAD 83); 9 

p.m. until 11 p.m. on August 2, 2014. 

(b) Effective and enforcement period. 

This section is effective from July 5, 

2014 until 11 p.m. on August 2, 2014. 

This section will be enforced at the 

times specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

into, transiting, or anchoring within 

these safety zones is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Lake Michigan or his or her designated 

on-scene representative. 

(2) These safety zones are closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port, 

Lake Michigan or his or her designated 

on-scene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan 

is any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

designated by the Captain of the Port, 

Lake Michigan, to act on his or her 

behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zones must 

contact the Captain of the Port, Lake 

Michigan, or his or her on-scene 

representative to obtain permission to 

do so. The Captain of the Port, Lake 

Michigan, or his or her on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. 

Dated: June 18, 2014. 

A.B. Cocanaour, 

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

Port, Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15707 Filed 7–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0269; FRL–9910–99– 

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 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 approving a local rule that 

provides administrative procedures for 

creating emissions reduction credits, 

consistent with Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act) requirements. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 2, 2014 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by August 4, 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–2014–0269, 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: 

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. 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 

Placer County Air Pollution Control 

District (PCAPCD) and submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 37957 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

PCAPCD ................................. 516 Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits ................................. 02–19–2009 04–06–2009 

On May 13, 2009, the submittal for 

PCAPCD Rule 516 was deemed by 

operation of law to meet 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 516 in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

Historically, the practice of rice 

growing included burning the field 

stubble or straw following harvest to kill 

weeds and insects and prepare the field 

for next year’s plantings. The purpose of 

Rule 516 is to provide procedures to 

quantify, certify, and issue emission 

reduction credits (ERCs) that have 

resulted from the permanent 

curtailment of rice straw burning in the 

PCAPCD. Approval of Rule 516 into the 

SIP would allow these ERCs to be used 

as offsets under PCAPCD’s New Source 

Review (NSR) rule. 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 section 110(a) of the 

Act), and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). In addition, a rule of this type that 

generates emission reduction credits for 

use as offsets in the NSR program must 

meet the NSR requirement for valid 

offsets (see section 173(c)) and should 

meet the criteria set forth in EPA’s 

guidance concerning economic 

incentive programs. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

other 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. New Source Review—Section 173(c) of the 

CAA and 40 CFR part 51, appendix S, 

‘‘Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling’’ 

require certain sources to obtain 

emission reductions to offset increased 

emissions from new projects. 

6. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs,’’ EPA–452/R–01– 

001, January 2001. 

7. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious 

PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and 

Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 

FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). 

8. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA 452/ 

R–93–008, April 1993. 

9. ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background Document and 

Technical Information Document for 

Best Available Control Measures,’’ EPA 

450/2–92–004, September 1992. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and economic 

incentive programs; and ensures that the 

emission reductions are real, surplus, 

quantifiable, enforceable, and 

permanent. This rule includes detailed 

emissions quantification protocols and 

enforceable procedures which provide 

the necessary assurance that the 

emission reduction credits issued will 

meet the criteria for valid NSR offsets. 

The TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. 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 

fulfills all relevant 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 August 4, 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 September 2, 

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 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37958 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 September 2, 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur dioxide, Carbon 

monoxide, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: April 25, 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)(366)(i)(D) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(366) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 516, ‘‘Rice Straw Emission 

Reduction Credits,’’ adopted on 

February 19, 2009. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–15565 Filed 7–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

48 CFR Parts 1516 and 1552 

[EPA–HQ–OARM–2013–0149; FRL–9913– 

36–OARM] 

EPAAR Clause for Ordering by 

Designated Ordering Officers 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) amends the EPA 

Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to 

update policy, procedures, and contract 

clauses. The final rule updates the 

Ordering—By Designated Ordering 

Officers clause and a corresponding 

prescription. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov, 

or in hard copy at the Office of 

Environmental Information (OEI) 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 

1752. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Valentino, Policy, Training, and 

Oversight Division, Office of 

Acquisition Management (3802R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564– 

4522; email address: valentino.thomas@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The subject clause is currently 

codified in the EPAAR as the April 1984 

basic clause without any alternates. The 

basic clause only contemplates order 

issuance prior to receiving formal input 

from the contractor. On December 21, 

1989, a class deviation was issued to 

prescribe an alternate to the clause that 

provides for negotiating the terms and 

conditions of a task/delivery order prior 

to order issuance. There are several 

benefits to negotiation prior to order 

issuance: The Government is not 

charged directly for the time involved in 

negotiations and the associated costs are 

part of bid and proposal costs which are 

indirect charges spread across all 

Government contracts; it allows for 

more accurate pricing for the order, and 

it enables the Government to hold the 

Contractor to negotiated requirements as 

soon as the order is issued. As a result, 

the subject clause and corresponding 

prescription are being updated to add 

the 1989 class deviation. Because the 

class deviation provides several benefits 

that the basic clause does not, it will be 

designated as the basic form of the 

Ordering clause, and the previous basic 

form is being re-designated as Alternate 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES