25010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Judges issued their Initial Determination on 

Remand in the Webcasting III proceeding, see 

Determination After Remand of Rates and Terms 

for Royalty Years 2011–2015, Docket No. 2009–1 

CRB Webcasting III (Jan. 9, 2014). 

round census reporting. Further, on 

April 8, 2009, the Judges published a 

notice of inquiry (NOI) to obtain 

additional information concerning the 

likely costs and benefits stemming from 

the adoption of the proposed census 

reporting provision as well as 

information on any alternatives to the 

proposal that might accomplish the 

same goals as the proposal in a less 

burdensome way, particularly with 

respect to small entities. 74 FR 15901. 

On October 13, 2009, the Judges 

published a final rule amending the 

interim regulations and establishing 

requirements for census reporting for all 

but those broadcasters who pay no more 

than the minimum fee for their use of 

the license. 74 FR 52418. The Judges 

adopted the regulations substantially as 

proposed in the NPRM with minor 

modifications in response to comments 

received. The final regulations 

established requirements by which 

copyright owners may receive 

reasonable notice of the use of their 

sound recordings and under which 

records of use were to be kept and made 

available by entities of all sizes 

performing sound recordings. See, e.g., 

17 U.S.C. 114 (f)(4)(A). As with the 

interim regulations adopted in 2006, the 

final regulations adopted in 2009 

represented baseline requirements. In 

other words, digital audio services 

remained free to negotiate other formats 

and technical standards for data 

maintenance and delivery and to use 

those in lieu of regulations adopted by 

the Judges, upon agreement with the 

Collective. The Judges indicated that 

they had no intention of codifying these 

negotiated variances in the future unless 

and until they come into such 

standardized use as to effectively 

supersede the existing regulations. 

On October 28, 2009, College 

Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI), American 

Council on Education and 

Intercollegiate Broadcasting Systems, 

Inc. (collectively, Petitioners) made a 

motion with the Judges for clarification 

with respect to one issue raised by the 

final regulation. Petitioners noted that 

the final regulation exempted 

minimum-fee webcasters that are FCClicensed broadcasters from the census 

reporting requirement, but did not 

appear to exempt minimum-fee 

educational stations that are not FCClicensed broadcasters from the same 

requirement. Petitioners asked the 

Judges to ‘‘clarify’’ that the exemption 

extended to minimum fee unlicensed 

educational stations. 

On November 12, 2009, before the 

Judges ruled on this motion, CBI filed a 

Petition for Review of the final 

regulation with the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) (Appeal No. 09– 

1276). This appeal was held in abeyance 

pending the outcome of an appeal of the 

Judges’ final determination in Docket 

No. 2009–1 CRB Webcasting III. The 

D.C. Circuit concluded that appeal on 

July 6, 2012, holding that the manner by 

which the Judges were appointed was 

unconstitutional, and dictating a 

statutory remedy. Intercollegiate Broad. 

Sys. v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 684 F.3d 

1332, 1340–41 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. 

denied, 133 S. Ct. 2735 (2013). The D.C. 

Circuit remanded the final 

determination to the Judges,1 and also 

transferred CBI’s appeal to the United 

States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. See Order in Appeal No. 09– 

1276 (D.C. Cir. October 28, 2013). 

In light of the foregoing proceedings, 

the Judges recognize the need to clarify 

the effectiveness of the final regulation. 

Consequently, the Judges performed a 

de novo review of the comments 

underlying the final regulation and 

affirm the adoption of this regulation as 

published at 74 FR 52418 on October 

11, 2009, in its entirety and without 

change (including the reasons set forth 

in the preamble thereto), thereby 

removing any doubt as to the 

effectiveness of the final regulation. 

Such affirmation also ensures the 

continuous effectiveness of the rules 

concerning notice and recordkeeping for 

users of copyrighted sound recordings. 

On October 21, 2013, the Judges 

received a petition from SoundExchange 

seeking modifications to the notice and 

recordkeeping final regulation. The 

Judges will address the Petitioner’s 

motion for clarification, as well as 

SoundExchange’s petition, in a separate 

notice also published today in the 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 370 

Copyright, Sound recordings. 

Final Regulation 

For the reasons set forth in the 

foregoing preamble, the Copyright 

Royalty Judges affirm adoption of the 

final rule revising 37 CFR part 370, 

which was published at 74 FR 52418 on 

October 13, 2009, without change. 

Dated: February 20, 2014. 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge. 

James H. Billington, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09799 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0122; FRL 9910–02– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Puget Sound Ozone Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking a direct final 

action to approve a maintenance plan 

for the Central Puget Sound area to 

maintain the 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

through 2015. This plan was submitted 

by the Washington Department of 

Ecology (Ecology or ‘‘the State’’) as a 

revision to its State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) on January 10, 2008. This 

action finds that the maintenance plan 

for this area meets all relevant Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements for approval, 

and demonstrates that the Central Puget 

Sound area will remain in attainment 

with the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS 

through 2015. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 1, 

2014, without further notice, unless the 

EPA receives adverse comment by June 

2, 2014. If the EPA receives adverse 

comment, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2008–0122, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Keith Rose, U.S. EPA Region 

10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics 

(AWT–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: 

Keith Rose, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries are 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 25011 

1Memorandum titled ‘‘Maintenance Plan 

Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas 

Under Section 110(a)(l) of Clean Air Act’’ by Lydia 

Wegman, Director, EPA Air Quality Strategies and 

Standards Division, May 20, 2005. 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2008– 

0122. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the 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: 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. 

EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Rose at telephone number: (206) 

553–1949, email address: rose.keith@

epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 

address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Regulatory Context 

B. Requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(1) 

Maintenance Plans 

C. How have the Tribal Governments been 

involved in this process? 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and the EPA’s 

Evaluation 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Regulatory Context 

On November 15, 1990, the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 were enacted. 

Under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, the 

EPA designated the Central Puget Sound 

area, also called the Seattle-Tacoma area 

(which includes all of Pierce County, 

almost all of King County except the 

northeast corner, and part of Snohomish 

County), as nonattainment because the 

area violated the 1-hour ozone standard 

during the years 1989–1991. As a result, 

the EPA classified the Central Puget 

Sound area as ‘‘marginal’’ under section 

181(a)(1) of the CAA (56 FR 56847, 

November 6, 1991). On January 28, 

1993, the State of Washington submitted 

a SIP demonstrating compliance with 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On August 

21, 1995, the State submitted a revision 

to the Washington Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance (I/M) Program to 

satisfy the requirements of sections 

182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3) of the CAA and 

40 CFR part 51, subpart S. This SIP 

revision requires vehicle owners in the 

Central Puget Sound area to comply 

with the Washington I/M program. The 

EPA approved this I/M program revision 

on September 25, 1996 (61 FR 50235). 

On March 4, 1996, the State submitted 

to the EPA a request to redesignate the 

Central Puget Sound area to attainment 

for the 1-hour ozone standard, and a 

maintenance plan demonstrating 

maintenance of the ozone standard 

through 2010. On September 26, 1996, 

the EPA determined that the Puget 

Sound area had attained the ozone 

NAAQS, redesignated the Central Puget 

Sound area to attainment for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and approved the 

associated maintenance plan (61 FR 

50438). On December 17, 2003, Ecology 

submitted a second 10-year 

maintenance plan demonstrating that 

the Central Puget Sound area would 

maintain air quality standards for ozone 

through the year 2016. The EPA 

approved the second 10-year 

maintenance plan on August 5, 2004 (69 

FR 47365). 

In 2008, the EPA revised the level of 

the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm 

(73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 

Central Puget Sound area was 

subsequently designated attainment/

unclassifiable for the new 8-hour 

standard (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). 

B. Requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, 

in part, that states submit to the EPA 

plans to maintain any NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA. Areas like the 

Central Puget Sound area that were 

maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, but unclassifiable/attainment 

for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, are 

required to submit a plan to 

demonstrate the continued maintenance 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA 

established a deadline of three years 

after the effective date of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone designations as the deadline 

for submission of these plans. 

On May 20, 2005, the EPA issued 

guidance for States in preparing 

maintenance plans under section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA for areas that are 

required to do so under 40 CFR 51.905.1

At a minimum, the maintenance plan 

should include the following five 

components: 

1. An attainment inventory, which is 

based on actual typical summer day 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from a base year chosen 

by the State; 

2. A maintenance demonstration 

which shows how the area will remain 

in compliance with the 8-hour ozone 

standard for 10 years after the effective 

date of the designation; 

3. A commitment to continue to 

operate ambient air quality monitors to 

verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard; 

4. A contingency plan that will ensure 

that any violation of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS will be promptly corrected; and 

5. An explanation of how the State 

will verify continued attainment of the 

standard under the maintenance plan. 

On January 10, 2008, the EPA 

received a SIP submittal from Ecology to 

approve a maintenance plan submitted 

under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to 

maintain the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone 

for the Central Puget Sound area. The 

EPA prepared a Technical Support 

Document (TSD) with more detailed 

information about this SIP submittal, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
25012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

which is available for review as part of 

the docket for this action. 

C. How have the Tribal Governments 

been involved in this process? 

Consistent with the EPA’s tribal 

policy, the EPA offered government-togovernment consultations to the Tulalip 

Tribes, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, 

the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the 

Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Nisqually 

Indian Tribe, regarding the action in this 

notice, because these tribes are located 

in the Central Puget Sound ozone area 

and may be affected by this action. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and the 

EPA’s Evaluation 

Ecology’s 8-hour 110(a)(1) ozone 

maintenance plan for the Central Puget 

Sound area addresses all five 

maintenance plan components outlined 

in the EPA’s guidance of May 20, 2005. 

All of the 1-hour ozone control 

measures previously approved into the 

SIP for the Central Puget Sound area 

remain in place in this 8-hour 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plan and are used in the 

maintenance demonstration. The five 

components of the maintenance plan 

and how they meet the EPA’s criteria, 

are described below. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

An emissions inventory is an itemized 

list of emission estimates for sources of 

air pollution in a given area for a 

specified time period. An attainment 

inventory is a projection of an emission 

inventory in a base year, when an area 

was in attainment with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, to an appropriate attainment 

year. Ecology provided a comprehensive 

base year emissions inventory for NOX

and VOCs for the Central Puget Sound 

area with the SIP submittal. Ecology 

chose to use 2002 as the base year from 

which it projected emissions. The SIP 

submittal also includes an explanation 

of the methodology used for 

determining the anthropogenic (point, 

area and mobile sources) emissions of 

NOX and VOCs. On-road vehicle 

emission controls required by the State 

I/M program were included in the 

attainment inventory. The inventory is 

based on emissions on a ‘‘typical 

summer day.’’ The term ‘‘typical 

summer day’’ refers to a typical 

weekday during the months when ozone 

concentrations are typically the highest. 

Based on our review of the 

documentation submitted, the EPA 

concludes that the attainment inventory 

has been developed for the appropriate 

season of an acceptable attainment year, 

is based on appropriate factors and 

methods, and is thus acceptable for the 

purposes of a Section 110(a)(1) ozone 

maintenance plan. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

The key element of a Section 110(a)(1) 

ozone maintenance plan is a 

demonstration of how an area will 

remain in compliance with the 8-hour 

ozone standard for the 10-year period 

following the effective date of 

designation as unclassifiable/

attainment. The end projection year is 

10 years from the effective date of the 

8-hour attainment designation, which 

for the Central Puget Sound area was 

June 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858). Therefore, 

this plan must demonstrate attainment 

through year 2014. Ecology has 

projected emissions for the year 2015, 

which is more than 10 years from the 

effective date of initial designations. 

With regard to demonstrating continued 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard, Ecology projected that the 

total emissions of ozone precursors in 

the Central Puget Sound area will 

significantly decrease from 2002 (the 

base year) through 2015. In 2002, the 

total anthropogenic emissions of VOCs 

in the Central Puget Sound area were 

474 tons/day, and 446 tons/day for NOX. 

The 2015 anthropogenic emissions from 

the Central Puget Sound area are 

projected to be 346 tons/day for VOCs, 

and 411 tons/day for NOX. Thus, the 

total emissions of VOCs in 2015 are 

projected to be about 27% lower than 

the 2002 level, and total NOX emissions 

in 2015 are projected to be about 8% 

lower than the 2002 level. 

The formation of ozone is dependent 

on a number of variables which cannot 

be estimated only through emissions 

growth and reduction calculations. 

These variables include weather and the 

transport of ozone precursors from 

outside the maintenance area. In order 

to demonstrate continued maintenance 

of the standards, a state may utilize 

more sophisticated tools such as air 

quality dispersion modeling to support 

their analysis. In the SIP submittal, 

Ecology used air quality dispersion 

modeling to assess the comprehensive 

impacts of growth through 2015 on 

ozone levels in the area. The results of 

this modeling demonstrate that the 

highest predicted design value (the 3- 

year average of the fourth highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone value) 

for the Central Puget Sound area in 2015 

would be 0.068 ppm, which is below 

both the 1997 and the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, and would therefore be in 

compliance with both ozone NAAQS. 

Based on the estimated emissions of 

VOCs and NOX submitted with this 

maintenance plan, the EPA concludes 

that this maintenance plan would not 

cause an increase of direct emissions or 

precursor emissions that would interfere 

with the maintenance of any criteria 

pollutant NAAQS in the Central Puget 

Sound area. Therefore, the EPA 

concludes that the maintenance 

demonstration submitted by the State 

meets the requirement of a section 

110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan. 

3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

With regard to the ambient air 

monitoring component of the 

maintenance plan, Ecology commits to 

continue operating the current Puget 

Sound ozone monitoring network in 

accordance with all of the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58 

throughout the maintenance period to 

verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Ecology will also submit 

quality-assured ozone data to the EPA’s 

Air Quality System within 90 days of 

the end of each quarter. The State of 

Washington’s ambient air monitoring 

network meets all applicable EPA air 

monitoring regulations, and was most 

recently approved by the EPA on March 

10, 2014. The EPA therefore finds that 

the State’s ambient air monitoring 

network satisfies the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a). 

4. Contingency Plan 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

the State to develop a contingency plan 

that will ensure that any violation of a 

NAAQS is promptly corrected. The 

purpose of the contingency plan is to 

provide a range of response actions that 

may be selected for implementation in 

the event of any violation of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

There are two regulations adopted by 

the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, the 

local air agency with jurisdiction in the 

Central Puget Sound area, on December 

19, 2002, that are identified as 

contingency measures in this 

maintenance plan. These regulations 

were included as contingency measures 

in the ozone second 10-year 

maintenance plan for the Central Puget 

Sound area that was approved by the 

EPA on August 5, 2004 (69 FR 47364 

and 69 FR 47365). These contingency 

measures are: (1) Regulation I, Section 

8.06, Outdoor Burning Ozone 

Contingency Measure, and (2) 

Regulation II, Section 2.10, Gasoline 

Station Ozone Contingency Measure. 

Both the outdoor burning and the 

gasoline station contingency regulations 

would be triggered by a written finding 

from the EPA of a quality-assured 

violation of the ozone NAAQS and a 

determination that future violations can 

reasonably be addressed through 

implementing these regulations. The 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 25013 

EPA finds that these contingency 

measures satisfy the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a). 

5. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Since 1991, there have been no 

violations of either the 1997 or 2008 8- 

hour ozone standards at any ozone 

monitoring site in the Central Puget 

Sound ozone area. Ecology will 

continue to monitor ambient air quality 

ozone levels in the Central Puget Sound 

area and verify attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS as described in the 

maintenance plan. The State commits to 

preparing summer day emission 

inventories for the interim years of 

2008, 2011 and 2014, and will compare 

these emission inventory results with 

the modeling emission inventories to 

ensure continued compliance with the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA finds 

that these methods to verify continued 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS satisfy 

the requirements of CAA section 110(a). 

The EPA finds that the maintenance 

plan for the Central Puget Sound ozone 

area adequately addresses all five 

components outlined in the EPA’s 

guidance of May 20, 2005, for 

developing maintenance plans under 

110(a)(1) of the CAA. 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is approving a maintenance 

plan to maintain the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Central Puget Sound 

ozone area that was submitted by the 

State of Washington as a revision to its 

SIP on January 10, 2008. The 

maintenance plan for this area meets all 

CAA 110(a)(1) requirements and 

demonstrates that the Central Puget 

Sound ozone area will remain in 

attainment with the 1997 and 2008 

ozone NAAQS through 2015. This 

decision was reached after offering 

consultation to the Tulalip Tribes, the 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the 

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the 

Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Nisqually 

Indian Tribe. The EPA did not receive 

any requests for consultation from these 

tribes. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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 CAA ; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable 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 it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, except for 

non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area and the EPA is therefore approving 

this SIP on such lands. Consistent with 

EPA policy, the EPA provided a 

consultation opportunity to the Tulalip 

Tribes, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, 

the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the 

Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Nisqually 

Indian Tribe in letters dated December 

24, 2013. The EPA did not receive a 

request for consultation from these 

tribes. 

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. The 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 1, 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 the 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 CAA section 

307(b)(2).). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 10, 2014. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
25014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 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 WW—Washington 

■ 2. Section 52.2470 is amended in table 

2 of paragraph (e) by adding an entry ‘‘8- 

Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance 

Plan’’ at the end of the section with the 

heading ‘‘Attainment and Maintenance 

Planning—Ozone.’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Attainment and Maintenance Planning—Ozone 

*******

8-Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan.Seattle-Tacoma ...................... 2/5/08 5/2/14 [Insert page number 

where the document begins]. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–09878 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0599; FRL–9909–16– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California San 

Francisco Bay Area and Chico 

Nonattainment Areas; Fine Particulate 

Matter Emissions Inventories; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) published a direct final 

rule that appeared in the Federal 

Register on March 14, 2014. The 

document approved revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) concerning emissions inventories 

for the 2006 24-hour fine particle 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for the San Francisco Bay 

Area and Chico PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. We are approving these emissions 

inventories under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act). An error in the 

amendatory instruction is identified and 

corrected in this action. 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 13, 

2014 without further notice. 

ADDRESSES: 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: Lisa 

Tharp, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4142, 

tharp.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA 

published a direct final rule on March 

14, 2014 (79 FR 14404) approving 

revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning 

emissions inventories. In that approval 

EPA erroneously added the incorrect 

paragraph numbers to § 52.220, 

paragraph (c). Therefore the amendatory 

instruction is being corrected to reflect 

the corrected section paragraph 

numbering. 

Correction 

In the direct final rule published in 

the Federal Register on March 14, 2014 

(79 FR 14404), the following corrections 

are made: 

1. On page 14409, third column, line 

2 of amendatory instruction number 2, 

correct ‘‘adding paragraphs (c)(434) and 

(435) to’’ to read ‘‘adding paragraphs 

(c)(435) and (436) to’’; 

2. On page 14409, third column, third 

line under the section heading § 52.220 

Identification Plan, correct paragraph 

number ‘‘(434)’’ to read ‘‘(435)’’; and 

3. On page 14409, third column, line 

twenty-two under the section heading 

§ 52.220 Identification Plan, correct 

paragraph number ‘‘(435)’’ to read 

‘‘(436)’’. 

Dated: April 18, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09721 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0753; FRL–9910–32– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Determination of 

Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard for the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is making a determination 

of attainment regarding the PittsburghBeaver Valley, Pennsylvania fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Pittsburgh Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’). EPA 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES