### 49925 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. 9. Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. 10. Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 12. Energy Effects

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under **ADDRESSES** . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 165 as follows:

**PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS** 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0648 to read as follows:

**§ 165.T09–0648 Safety Zone; D-Day Conneaut, Lake Erie, Conneaut, OH.** 

(a) Location. This zone will covers those waters of Lake Erie near Conneaut, OH encompassed by a line starting at position 41 ° 57.71 ′ N and 080 ° 34.18′ W, then to 41 ° 58.36′ N and 080 ° 34.17′ W, then to 41 ° 58.53 ′ N and 080 ° 33.55 ′ W, then to 41 ° 58.03 ′ N and 080 ° 33.72 ′ W and returning to the point of origin (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on August 16, 2013, and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on August 17, 2013, or until all vintage U.S. fighter planes leave the

area.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

Dated: July 29, 2013. B. W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2013–19979 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 9110–04–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0394; FRL–9845–5]**

**Revisions to California State Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley**  **Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control**  **District**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Direct final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Air Management District (AVAQMD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), we are rescinding local rules that concern sulfur oxide emissions from lead smelters for AVAQMD and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from the data storage for VCAPCD and vacuum producing device industries for VCAPCD.

**DATES :**  These rules are effective on October 15, 2013 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 16, 2013. 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–2013–0394, 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


### 49926 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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. 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 :**  Robert Marinaro, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3019, marinaro.robert@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted

rules? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation

criteria? C. Public Comment and Final Action. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

Table 1 lists the rule rescissions we are approving with the dates that they were rescinded by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.



### TABLE 

### 1—S UBMITTED 

### R ULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted/ revised Rescinded Submitted

AVAQMD ...... 1101 Secondary Lead Smelters/Sulfur Oxides (rescinded) ............... 10/07/77 2/21/12 02/06/13 VCAPCD ...... 37 Project XL (rescinded) .............................................................. 09/14/99 6/12/12 02/06/13 VCAPCD ...... 67 Vacuum Producing Devices (rescinded) ................................... 07/05/83 6/12/12 02/06/13

On April 9, 2013, EPA determined that the submittal for AVAQMD Rule 1101, and VCAPCD Rules 37 and 67 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 these rules?

We approved versions of AVAQMD Rule 1101 into the SIP on September 2, 1981 (46 FR 43968), VCAPCD Rule 37 on December 13, 1999 (64 FR 69404), and VCAPCD Rule 67 on April 17, 1987 (52 FR 12522). C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local agency’s program to control these pollutants.

AVAQMD Rule 1101, Secondary Lead Smelters/Sulfur Oxides; VCAPCD Rule 37, Project XL; and VCAPCD Rule 67, Vacuum Producing Devices were originally adopted to help reduce these various air pollutants but are being rescinded because there are no longer any sources in the Districts subject to them and none are anticipated in the future.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

These rules describe requirements intended to help control emissions from lead smelters in AVAQMD, data storage in VCAPCD and vacuum producing devices in VCAPCD. These rule rescissions must not relax existing requirements consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193. EPA policy that we used to evaluate these rule revisions includes ‘‘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).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

The Districts have requested rescission because they no longer have any sources subject to these rules, they do not expect any new sources in the future, and any new sources would be subject to restrictive NSR permitting requirements. The Districts have reviewed permit databases, emission inventories, and trade group contacts to determine that they have no sources, and we have reviewed their analysis and have no basis to question their analysis. Therefore, we believe these rule rescissions are consistent with relevant policy and guidance.

C. Public Comment and Final Action.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule rescissions because we believe they fulfill 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 rescissions. If we receive adverse comments by September 16, 2013, 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 October 15, 2013. This will remove these rules from 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


### 49927 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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 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 October 15, 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. 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: July 26, 2013. 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 paragraphs (c)(70)(i)(B)( 1 ), (c)(164)(i)(C)( 5) and (c)(270)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:

**§ 52.220 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c) * * * (70) * * * (i) * * * (B) * * * ( 1 ) Previously approved on September 2, 1981 in paragraph (c)(70)(i)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement, for the Antelope Valley area only, Antelope Valley Rule 1101, previously South Coast Rule 1101. South Coast Rule 1101 remains in effect for the South Coast area.

* * * * *

(164) * * * (i) * * * (C) * * * ( 5) Previously approved on April 17, 1987 in paragraph (c)(164)(i)(C)( 1 ) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Ventura County Rule 67.

* * * * *

(270) * * * (i) * * * (A) * * * (2) Previously approved on December 13, 1999 in paragraph (c)(270)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Ventura County Rule 37.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2013–19872 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0384; FRL–9394–8]**

**Imazapic; Pesticide Tolerances**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of imazapic in or on sugarcane, cane. BASF Corporation requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective August 16, 2013. Objections and