40966 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

M. 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 concluded 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 is categorically 

excluded, under section 2.B.2, Figure 2– 

1, paragraph 34(g), of the Instruction 

because it involves regulations 

establishing, disestablishing, or 

changing RNAs. An environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are available in 

the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 177 

Marine safety. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 177 as follows: 

Title 33—Navigation and Navigable 

Waters 

PART 177—CORRECTION OF 

ESPECIALLY HAZARDOUS 

CONDITIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 177 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 4302, 4311; Pub. L. 

103–206, 107 Stat. 2439. 

§ 177.04 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 177.04(a), remove the text 

‘‘§ 177.07(g)’’ and add, in its place, the 

text ‘‘§ 177.07(f)’’. 

§ 177.07 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 177.07, remove paragraph (f) 

and redesignate paragraph (g) as new 

paragraph (f). 

§ 177.08 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove § 177.08. 

§ 177.09 [Redesignated as § 177.08] 

■ 5. Redesignate § 177.09 as § 177.08. 

Dated: June 28, 2013. 

Dana A. Goward, 

Director, Marine Transportation Systems, 

U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16248 Filed 7–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0710; FRL–9831–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Mexico; Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a portion of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from the State of New Mexico 

to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

requirements that prohibit air emissions 

which will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in any other state for the 

2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). EPA has determined that the 

existing SIP for New Mexico contains 

adequate provisions to prohibit air 

emissions from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (2006 PM2.5

NAAQS) in any other state as required 

by the Act. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 8, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0710. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

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 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of 

Information Act Review Room between 

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD– 

L), U.S. EPA Region 6, 214–665–6645, 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The background for today’s action is 

discussed in detail in our March 12, 

2013 proposal (78 FR 15664). In that 

notice, we proposed to approve a 

portion of a SIP submittal dated June 12, 

2009, from the State of New Mexico to 

address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements that prohibit air emissions 

which will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in any other state for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, we 

proposed to determine that the existing 

SIP for New Mexico contains adequate 

provisions to prohibit air emissions 

from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

We received one comment from a 

citizen supporting our proposal. The 

comment letter is available for review in 

the docket for this rulemaking. We did 

not receive any adverse comments 

regarding our proposal. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 40967 

II. Final Action 

We are approving a portion of a SIP 

submittal for the State of New Mexico 

submitted by the Governor on June 12, 

2009, to address interstate transport for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on EPA’s 

evaluation of the State’s technical 

analysis addressing the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, with EPA’s additional 

analysis and technical information, we 

approve the portion of the June 12, 2009 

SIP submittal determining the existing 

SIP for New Mexico contains adequate 

provisions to prohibit air emissions 

from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other state as required by CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

Act. 

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, 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 the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 9, 

2013. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposed 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. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 25, 2013. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart GG—New Mexico 

■ 2. The second table in § 52.1620(e) 

entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures in the New Mexico SIP’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Infrastructure for 2006 PM2.5 and 

Interstate Transport regarding 

noninterference with other states’ 

programs for PSD for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1620 Identification of plan 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

40968 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal/ 

effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Infrastructure for 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS.

Statewide, except for 

Bernalillo County and 

Indian country.

6/12/2009 7/9/2013 [Insert FR page number where document begins].1/22/2013, (78 FR 4337): 

Approval for 110(a)(2)(A), 

(B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (PSD 

portion), (D)(ii), (E), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M). 7/9/2013, ([Insert FR 

page number where document begins]): Approval 

for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–16345 Filed 7–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0190; FRL–9830–8] 

Notice of Extension of Deadline to 

Commence Construction Under Clean 

Air Act Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Permit Issued to Avenal 

Power Center, LLC 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final action. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA’’) has extended the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(‘‘PSD’’) permit deadline for 

commencing construction for a final 

Clean Air Act PSD permit that 

authorizes Avenal Power Center, LLC 

(‘‘APC’’) to construct the Avenal Energy 

Project (‘‘AEP’’). The AEP is to be 

located in Kings County, California. 

DATES: EPA’s PSD permit for the AEP 

became effective on August 18, 2011, 

and included a deadline for 

commencing construction of February 

18, 2013. Prior to February 18, 2013, 

APC requested an 18-month extension 

of the deadline for commencing 

construction under the PSD permit for 

the AEP. EPA has granted such an 

extension until August 18, 2014. 

Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), 

judicial review of this extension 

decision may be sought by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

by September 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0190 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the following address: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more 

information about how to make an 

appointment to view these hard copy 

documents during normal business 

hours at EPA Region IX’s office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shirley Rivera, Air Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San 

Francisco, CA 94105, 415–972–3966, 

rivera.shirley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AEP, 

proposed by APC, is a new 600- 

megawatt natural gas-fired combinedcycle power plant that will be located in 

Kings County, California. The PSD 

permit decision issued by EPA for the 

AEP became effective on August 18, 

2011 as published in the Federal 

Register on September 9, 2011 (76 FR 

55799). In November 2011, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit received petitions for review of 

EPA’s PSD permit decision for the AEP; 

this Court of Appeals proceeding is 

pending. In letters dated December 19, 

2012 and February 15, 2013, APC 

requested that EPA provide an 18- 

month extension of the deadline for 

commencing construction in the PSD 

permit for the AEP. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

Part 52.21(r), in a response to APC dated 

June 26, 2013, EPA Region 9 determined 

that a satisfactory showing justifying the 

extension had been made, and EPA 

extended the deadline for commencing 

construction in the PSD permit for AEP 

for 18 months, so that the PSD permit 

will become invalid if construction of 

the AEP is not commenced by August 

18, 2014. 

The docket for this action includes, 

among other documents, EPA’s analysis 

supporting this action. In addition to the 

electronic docket for this action, hard 

copy versions of the docket materials 

are available for public inspection 

during normal business hours at the 

following address: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. To arrange for viewing of these 

documents at EPA Region IX’s office, 

call Shirley Rivera at (415) 972–3966. 

Due to building security procedures, 

visitors should call at least 48 hours in 

advance to arrange a visit. 

Dated: June 26, 2013. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16334 Filed 7–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 11–42; DA 13–1441] 

Lifeline and Link Up Modernization and 

Reform 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this Order, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

underscores certain compliance 

requirements that are contained in the 

Lifeline Reform Order and its 

accompanying rules. The Bureau 

codifies the Commission’s requirement 

that eligible telecommunications 

carriers (ETCs) verify a Lifeline 

subscriber’s eligibility for Lifeline 

service before activating such service, 

pursuant to the authority delegated in 

the Lifeline Reform Order. 

DATES: Effective August 8, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Radhika Karmarkar, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or 

TTY: (202) 418–0484. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES