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

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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—SUBMITTED RULES

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49927 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES