28612 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 A—General Provisions 

§ 52.37 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.37 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(3). 

Subpart K—Florida 

■ 3. Section 52.520(c) is amended under 

Chapter 62–210 by revising the entry for 

‘‘Section 62–210.200’’, by revising the 

heading for Chapter 62–212, and under 

Chapter 62–212 by revising the entry for 

‘‘ ‘‘Section 62–212.720’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 62–210 Stationary Sources—General Requirements 

*******

62–210.200 ..... Definitions .............................. 10/23/13 5/19/14 [Insert citation of publication].As of September 19, 2012, 61–210.200 does 

not include Florida’s revision to adopt the 

PM2.5 SILs threshold and provisions (as 

promulgated in the October 20, 2010, 

PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule at 

40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)). 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 62–212 Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review 

*******

62–212.720 ..... Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs).12/17/2013 5/19/14 [Insert citation of publication].As of May 19, 2014 the PAL provisions include certain revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 finalized July 12, 2012 (Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule) and relating to GHG PALs, 

which are incorporated by reference at 

62–212.720 through Florida State Rule 

62.204.800, F.A.C., (which incorporates by 

reference 40 CFR 52.21, subpart A as of 

July 1, 2011, and as amended on July 12, 

2012 at 77 FR 41051. December 17, 

2013.) 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 52.530 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 52.530 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

* * * * * 

(b) Pursuant to part C, subpart 1 of the 

Clean Air Act, EPA is approving a 

December 19, 2013 SIP revision 

submitted by the State of Florida, 

through the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP), 

Division of Air Resource Management 

that establishes prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) applicability 

thresholds for greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions at the same emissions 

thresholds and in the same timeframes 

as those specified by EPA in the GHG 

Tailoring Rule. This approval gives 

FDEP the authority to regulate GHGemitting sources and issue GHG PSD 

permits. FDEP’s December 19, 2013 SIP 

revision also includes a GHG PSD 

Permit Transition Plan which governs 

the transition from EPA administering 

GHG PSD permitting requirements for 

Florida sources under a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to the State 

administering GHG PSD permitting 

requirements under its approved SIP. 

Under this GHG PSD Permit Transition 

Plan, FDEP will administer and enforce 

GHG PSD permits issued by EPA to 

Florida sources under the GHG PSD FIP. 

FDEP’s authority over these existing 

EPA-issued GHG PSD permits includes 

the authority for FDEP to conduct 

general administration of these existing 

permits, authority to process and issue 

any and all subsequent permit actions 

relating to such permits, and authority 

to enforce such permits. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–11211 Filed 5–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0196; FRL–9909–71– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Ventura County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 28613 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control 

District (VCAPCD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) emissions from large 

water heaters, boilers, steam generators, 

and process heaters. We are approving 

local rules that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 18, 

2014 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 18, 

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–2014–0196, 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 rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rules 

D. 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 rules we are 

approving with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resource Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

VCAPCD ........... 5 .................. Effective Date .................................................................................................. 04/13/04 07/19/04 

VCAPCD ........... 74.11.1 ........ Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers ......................................................... 09/11/12 04/22/13 

VCAPCD ........... 74.15.1 ........ Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters ......................................... 09/11/12 04/22/13 

On August 10, 2004, EPA determined 

that the submittal for VCAPCD Rule 5 

met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 

Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. On June 26, 

2013, EPA determined that the 

submittal for VCAPCD Rules 74.11.1 

and 74.15.1 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 an earlier version of 

Rule 5 into the SIP on September 22, 

1972 (37 FR 19806). We approved 

earlier versions of Rule 74.11.1 into the 

SIP on December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79752) 

and Rule 74.15.1 on October 10, 2001 

(66 FR 51576). 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

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. Rule 

74.11.1 lowers NOX emission limits for 

units with rated heat input capacity of 

greater than or equal to 75,000 BTU/hr 

and less than 1,000,000 BTU/hr. Rule 

74.11.1 will no longer regulate units 

with rated heat input capacity equal to 

or greater than 1,000,000 BTU/hr, but 

Rule 74.15.11 will. Rule 74.15.1 now 

regulates boilers with rated heat 

capacity equal to or greater than 

1,000,000 BTU/hr and less than or equal 

to 2,000,000 BTU/hr, which were 

formerly regulated in Rule 74.11.1. Rule 

74.15.1 also added a new section 

describing testing requirements which 

includes frequency of testing and the 

type of testing required. Rule 5 added a 

definition for existing equipment. EPA’s 

technical support documents (TSDs) 

have more information about these 

rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each NOX or VOC major 

source in ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above (see 

sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)), and must 

not relax existing requirements (see 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
28614 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

sections 110(l) and 193). SIP rules must 

also implement Reasonable 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 reasonable available 

control technology (RACT), as 

expeditiously as practicable for 

nonattainment areas (see CAA section 

172(c)(1)). The Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District regulates an 

ozone nonattainment area classified as 

serious for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

(see 40 CFR 81.305), so Ventura’s Rules 

generally must fulfill RACT and RACM 

for NOX. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, RACT, 

and RACM 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. ‘‘NOX Emissions from Industrial/

Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers,’’ 

EPA–453/R–94–022, 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. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, and SIP 

relaxations. We are not evaluating the 

RACM requirement in this action but 

believe that VCAPCD is required to 

evaluate any reasonably available 

control measure for the sources covered 

by these rules. We believe there are no 

sources subject to Rule 74.11.1 and Rule 

74.15.1 that exceed the major source 

threshold (50 tpy), thus they are not 

required to meet RACT for NOX. For this 

reason, we are not making a 

determination on RACT for Rules 

74.11.1 and 74.15.1. The TSDs have 

more information on our evaluation. 

Rule 5 Effective Date is a rule specifying 

when rules are effective. The definition 

for ‘‘existing equipment’’ was added to 

clarify the rule. Rule 5 is a general rule 

and is not specific to source categories, 

so it was not evaluated for RACT or 

RACM. The rule revisions are not 

considered relaxations to the SIP as the 

only change was the addition of a 

definition. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rules. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

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

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rules 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 rules. If we receive adverse 

comments by June 18, 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 July 18, 2014. 

This will incorporate these rules 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 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 28615 

1 47 U.S.C. 325(b)(1)(A). 

2The statutory duty to negotiate retransmission 

consent in good faith applies to both broadcasters 

and MVPDs. See 47 U.S.C. 325(b)(3)(C). 3Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Related 

to Retransmission Consent, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 76 FR 17071 (2011) (‘‘NPRM’’). 

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 July 18, 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, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 21, 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 paragraphs (c)(332)(i)(B)(4) and 

(c)(429)(i)(A)(2) and (3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(332) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(4) Rule 5, ‘‘Effective Date,’’ amended 

on April 13, 2004. 

* * * * * 

(429) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Rule 74.11.1, ‘‘Large Water Heaters 

and Small Boilers,’’ amended on 

September 11, 2012. 

(3) Rule 74.15.1, ‘‘Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters,’’ 

amended on September 11, 2012. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–11430 Filed 5–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket No. 10–71; FCC 14–29] 

Retransmission Consent Negotiations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) adopts a 

rule providing that it is a violation of 

the duty to negotiate retransmission 

consent in good faith for a television 

broadcast station that is ranked among 

the top four stations as measured by 

audience share to negotiate 

retransmission consent jointly with 

another such station, if the stations are 

not commonly owned and serve the 

same geographic market. The rule is 

intended to promote competition among 

Top Four broadcast stations for carriage 

of their signals by multichannel video 

programming distributors and facilitate 

the fair and effective completion of 

retransmission consent negotiations. 

DATES: Effective June 18, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raelynn Remy, Raelynn.Remy@fcc.gov, 

Diana Sokolow, Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov, 

or Kathy Berthot, Kathy.Berthot@

fcc.gov, Federal Communications 

Commission, Media Bureau, (202) 418– 

2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, FCC 14–29, adopted and 

released on March 31, 2014. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS at 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

The complete text may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Alternative 

formats are available for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This document does not contain new 

or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it 

does not contain any new or modified 

‘‘information collection burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

In this Report and Order (‘‘Order’’), 

we revise our ‘‘retransmission consent’’ 

rules, which govern carriage 

negotiations between broadcast 

television stations and multichannel 

video programming distributors 

(‘‘MVPDs’’),1 to provide that joint 

negotiation by stations that are ranked 

among the top four stations in a market 

as measured by audience share (‘‘Top 

Four’’ stations) and are not commonly 

owned constitutes a violation of the 

statutory duty to negotiate 

retransmission consent in good faith.2 In 

March 2010, 14 MVPDs and public 

interest groups filed a rulemaking 

petition arguing that changes in the 

marketplace, and the increasingly 

contentious nature of retransmission 

consent negotiations, justify revisions to 

the Commission’s rules governing 

retransmission consent. The 

Commission initiated this proceeding 3

and a robust record developed. Our 

action today addresses MVPDs’ 

argument that competing broadcast 

television stations (‘‘broadcast stations’’ 

or ‘‘stations’’) obtain undue bargaining 

leverage by negotiating together when 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES