69806 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

estimated proportion of time spent by 

contractor engineers on maintaining the 

Competitive PO Box service Web site 

and software; (2) any server costs; and 

(3) any other contractor costs related to 

Web site and software development. 

The estimated time proportions are 

applied to the hourly rates of the 

contractor engineers involved to 

determine a labor cost, which is added 

to the server and additional contractor 

costs. Id., Proposal 7 at 2. The Postal 

Service states the proposed 

methodology is a detailed description or 

explanation of the proposed 

calculations as requested by the 

Commission. Id. 

C. Proposal Eight: Changes to MODS 

Operation Groups for Productivity 

Calculations 

The Postal Service states that Proposal 

Eight would modify the MODS 

operation groups reported in Docket No. 

ACR2013 folder USPS–FY13–23 to 

reflect operational changes and other 

cost modeling requirements. In Docket 

No. ACR2012, folder USPS–FY12–23 

provided MODS productivity data (TPF 

or TPH per workhour) for a variety of 

operation groups related to letter, flat, 

parcel, and bundle sorting. The MODS 

productivity data are used to 

parameterize a number of cost models 

presented in the ACR, which are used 

to compute disaggregated product costs 

for purposes including measurement of 

worksharing cost avoidances. Id., 

Proposal 8 at 1. 

The Postal Service further states that 

operational changes such as 

introduction and retirement of mail 

processing equipment periodically 

require conforming changes to MODS 

data reporting, as cost model structures 

are modified to reflect currently active 

operations. When equipment and 

associated operations are withdrawn 

from service, there may be no data, or 

insufficient data, for reliable 

productivity reporting. Less frequently, 

changes to MODS methodology may 

affect the validity of MODS data. Id. 

The Petition includes a table of the 

twelve USPS–FY12–23 Group(s) and 

their respective Proposed Group for 

USPS–FY13–23. The Postal Service says 

that the productivity calculations for the 

new groups would continue to use the 

methods from USPS–FY12–23. As 

applicable, the mailflow models would 

employ productivities from the 

consolidated operation groups in place 

of the previous disaggregated groups. Id. 

at 2. 

The Postal Service has filed modified 

versions of the USPS–FY12–10 and 

USPS–FY12–11 models with proposed 

changes highlighted in the models. The 

Postal Service notes that the 

productivity changes affect the nonmachinable categories of mail as the 

manual letter productivities affect those 

categories the most. Changes to 

machinable/automation rate categories 

are because of the change in the CRA 

adjustment factor. Id. at 4. 

D. Proposal Nine: Changes in In-Office 

Cost System (IOCS) Encirclement Rules 

In Proposal Nine, the Postal Service 

proposes to update the encirclement 

rules for Delivery Confirmation to 

reflect changes in products. In the InOffice Cost System (IOCS), encirclement 

is the process of assigning the cost of 

handling a mailpiece with an Extra 

Service to the Extra Service rather than 

to the host mailpiece. The Postal Service 

states that encirclement is warranted 

when an Extra Service is the primary 

reason that an employee has to handle 

a mailpiece. Revised Petition, Proposal 

9 at 1. 

Specifically, the Postal Service 

proposes to stop encircling costs at 

acceptance to Delivery Confirmation for 

IOCS tallies after January 27, 2013 for 

Priority Mail (retail), Standard Post 

(retail), Parcel Select Lightweight, and 

First-Class Package Service. The Postal 

Service reasons that beginning January 

27, 2013, the products began to include 

Tracking (Delivery Confirmation) as a 

free service. Therefore, after that date, 

costs should no longer be encircled to 

the Delivery Confirmation service, but 

instead should be assigned to the host 

product. Id. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2014–1 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition and the 

Revised Petition. For specific details on 

each of the proposals, interested persons 

are encouraged to review the Petition 

and Revised Petition, which are 

available via the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.prc.gov. The Postal 

Service filed portions of its supporting 

documentation relating to Proposal 

Seven under seal as part of a non-public 

annex. Information concerning access to 

these non-public materials is located in 

39 CFR part 3007. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments on the Petition no later than 

December 2, 2013. Reply comments are 

due no later than December 9, 2013. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, John P. 

Klingenberg is designated as an officer 

of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2014–1 for consideration of the 

matters raised by the Petition of the 

United States Postal Service for the 

Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Changes in Analytical 

Principles (Proposals Six through Eight), 

filed November 8, 2013 and the Revised 

Petition of the United States Postal 

Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding 

to Consider Proposed Changes in 

Analytical Principles (Proposals Six 

through Nine), filed November 12, 2013. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

December 2, 2013. Reply comments are 

due no later than December 9, 2013. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints John P. 

Klingenberg to serve as an officer of the 

Commission (Public Representative) to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this docket. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Ruth Ann Abrams, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27826 Filed 11–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0694, FRL–9903–28– 

OAR] 

Identification of Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadlines for 

Submission of State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine 

Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On January 4, 2013, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court 

(Court) remanded to the EPA the ‘‘Final 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule’’ (April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (May 16, 2008) 

(collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rules’’). The Court 

found that the EPA erred in 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 National 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69807 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) pursuant solely to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act), without also considering 

the particulate matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of Part D. The 

Court’s ruling remanded the rules to the 

EPA to address implementation of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4. 

This proposed rulemaking identifies the 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards, 

the deadlines for states to submit 

attainment-related and new source 

review (NSR) state implementation plan 

(SIP) elements required for these areas 

pursuant to subpart 4, and the EPA 

guidance that is currently available 

regarding subpart 4 requirements. The 

proposed deadlines for 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 attainment-related SIP 

submissions and NSR requirements for 

nonattainment areas would replace 

previous deadlines that were set solely 

pursuant to subpart 1. Specifically, the 

EPA is proposing to identify the initial 

classification of current 1997 and/or 

2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as 

‘‘moderate,’’ and the EPA is proposing 

to set a deadline of December 31, 2014, 

for submission of remaining required 

SIP submissions for these areas, 

pursuant to and considering the 

application of subpart 4. This 

rulemaking affects eight nonattainment 

areas in five states. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before December 23, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0694 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR- 2013–0694, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Mail Code: 28221T. Please 

include two copies if possible. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0694, Environmental 

Protection Agency in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, Room Number 

3334 in the WJC West Building, located 

at 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), 

Monday through Friday, Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center. 

• Instructions: Direct your comments 

to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0694. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line 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 CD 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 and any 

form of encryption and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm. For additional 

instructions on submitting comments, 

go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., 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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, Room Number 

3334 in the WJC West Building, located 

at 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further general information on this 

rulemaking, contact Ms. Mia South, Air 

Quality Policy Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (C539– 

01), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

5550; fax number (919) 541–5315; email 

at south.mia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected directly 

by this proposal include state, local and 

tribal governments. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

information to the EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed to be 

CBI must be submitted for inclusion in 

the public docket. Information marked 

CBI will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69808 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS),’’ from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, to Regional Air Directors, Region I–X, 

March 2, 2012. This guidance was withdrawn on 

June 6, 2013. 

2The EPA has previously addressed the NRDC 

decision and the role of subpart 4 in PM2.5

implementation in numerous rulemakings on 

individual areas. See areas listed in footnote 4, 

below. 

3 In the General Preamble, the EPA has previously 

addressed the requirements of section 188 

concerning classifications under subpart 4, 

including the issue of discretionary and mandatory 

reclassification from moderate to serious. See 57 FR 

13498, at 13537–8. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this notice 

will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/

airquality/particlepollution/

actions.html. 

D. How is this notice organized? 

The information presented in this 

notice is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. How is this notice organized? 

II. What actions is the EPA proposing? 

III. Background for Proposal 

IV. Proposed Initial Identification of 

‘‘Moderate’’ Classification for PM2.5

Nonattainment Areas Under Subpart 4 

V. Proposed Deadlines for Submission of 

Remaining Required Attainment-Related 

SIP Elements 

VI. What guidance is currently available to 

States regarding subpart 4 requirements? 

VII. Proposed Actions 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Statutory Authority 

List of Subjects 

II. What actions is the EPA proposing? 

The EPA’s proposed rulemaking 

responds to the Court’s remand in 

NRDC v. EPA by notifying the states of 

the EPA’s initial modification of its 

previous approach to implementation of 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. This 

proposed rulemaking identifies: (1) The 

classification under subpart 4 of areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards; 

(2) the deadline for states to submit any 

remaining attainment-related and NSR 

SIP submissions required pursuant to 

subpart 4; and (3) the EPA guidance and 

relevant rulemakings that are currently 

available regarding implementation of 

subpart 4 requirements. Specifically, the 

EPA is proposing to identify the initial 

classification of areas currently 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

and the 2006 PM2.5 standards as 

‘‘moderate,’’ and to set a deadline of 

December 31, 2014, for submission of 

any attainment-related and NSR SIP 

elements that may be due for these areas 

in consideration of the requirements 

under subpart 4. Additional details 

regarding attainment-related and NSR 

SIP elements requirements of subpart 4 

may also be addressed under separate 

EPA guidance and/or rulemaking. With 

regard to SIPs that previously have been 

submitted solely under the requirements 

of subpart 1, and which are now also 

subject to subpart 4 requirements, states 

should consult with their respective 

EPA regional offices for assistance in 

evaluating the appropriate course for 

addressing the effect of subpart 4 

requirements on these submissions and 

for accomplishing any additional state 

work and the EPA review. The EPA 

expects that the existing submittals will 

already satisfy many of the subpart 4 

requirements, and, to the extent that 

additional information is needed for 

specific requirements, every effort will 

be made to avoid duplicative work from 

the states. 

III. Background for Proposal 

On January 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA, 

the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to the 

EPA the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rules. 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

Prior to the Court’s decision, and 

continuously since 2005, the EPA had 

implemented the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS pursuant to regulations and 

guidance 1 that were based on the 

general implementation provisions of 

subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA. 

The Court found that the EPA erred in 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

solely pursuant to subpart 1 of Part D of 

Title I of the CAA, without 

consideration of the particulate matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of Part 

D. In this proposed rulemaking, the EPA 

takes additional steps to respond to the 

Court’s remand,2 and to address the 

implementation of the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4. In light 

of the long history of implementation of 

these standards under subpart 1, the 

EPA’s proposal seeks to integrate and 

harmonize ongoing implementation 

under subpart 1 with the subpart 4 

requirements the Court has directed the 

EPA to address. 

IV. Proposed Initial Identification of 

‘‘Moderate’’ Classification for PM2.5

Nonattainment Areas Under Subpart 4 

Subpart 1 of Part D contains no 

nondiscretionary provision for 

classification of nonattainment areas, 

although it authorizes the EPA to make 

classifications if it considers such 

classification appropriate. As a result, 

under the EPA’s prior approach to 

implementing the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards, the EPA did not identify any 

classifications for areas designated 

nonattainment for those standards. By 

contrast, subpart 4 of the CAA, section 

188, provides that all areas designated 

nonattainment are initially classified 

‘‘by operation of law’’ as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and they remain 

classified as moderate nonattainment 

areas unless and until the EPA later 

reclassifies them as serious 

nonattainment areas.3 Pursuant to this 

provision, the EPA is proposing in this 

notice to identify the classification of all 

PM2.5 areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 

NAAQS as ‘‘moderate.’’ Thus the 

provisions of subpart 4 relevant to areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would 

initially be those applicable to moderate 

areas. For more information on current 

nonattainment areas, see 1997 PM2.5

Nonattainment Areas, http://

www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69809 

4 In addition to the Indianapolis redesignation, 

since the NRDC Court’s decision, the EPA has 

considered the role of subpart 4 in PM2.5

implementation in a number of other individual 

rulemakings: ‘‘Redesignation of Ohio Portions of 

Parkersburg-Marietta and Wheeling Areas to 

Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine 

Particulate Matter’’ (78 FR 53275, August 29, 2013), 

‘‘Redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to 

Attainment of the 1997 and 2006 Standards for Fine 

Particulate Matter’’ (78 FR 53272, August 29, 2013), 

‘‘Redesignation of the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Area 

for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards’’ 

(78 FR 57270, September 18, 2013), ‘‘Redesignation 

of Ohio Portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area 

for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards’’ 

(78 FR 57273, September 18, 2013), ‘‘Redesignation 

of Dayton-Springfield, OH Nonattainment Area for 

1997 PM-2.5’’ (78 FR 59258, September 26, 2013), 

‘‘Redesignation of Canton-Massillon OH 

Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM-2.5’’ (78 FR 

62459, October 22, 2013), and ‘‘Proposed Approval 

of Delaware Attainment Plan for the Delaware 

Portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware Nonattainment 

Area for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Standard’’ (78 FR 57573, September 19, 2013). 

5The answers to these questions will depend 

upon the circumstances of each individual 

nonattainment area, including whether the area’s 

monitored air quality meets the standard, and 

whether the state has already made attainmentrelated and NSR SIP submissions for the area. As 

the EPA has explained in its proposed rulemaking 

on Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Indiana; Redesignation of 

the Indianapolis Area to Attainment of the 1997 

Annual Standard for Fine Particulate Matter (78 FR 

20856, April 8, 2013), it is also important to 

evaluate, for each area, the interrelationship of the 

two subparts, and whether the substance of subpart 

1 and subpart 4 provisions, should, for certain 

purposes, be considered equivalent. 

6The EPA designation for the West Central Pinal 

area in Arizona as nonattainment for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard became effective March 7, 

2011. See 76 FR 6056, February 3, 2011. Although 

the latest attainment date applicable to this area 

under subpart 4 is December 31, 2017 (2 years later 

than the December 31, 2015, attainment date that 

applies to areas designated nonattainment in 2009), 

the EPA is proposing to require Arizona to submit 

an attainment SIP meeting the requirements of 

subpart 4 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard for 

this area by the same December 31, 2014, date that 

we are proposing for other nonattainment areas. 

The December 31, 2014, SIP submission date would 

supplant the March 7, 2014, date by which the state 

was previously required under subpart 1 to submit 

Continued 

qnc.html and 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas, http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/

greenbk/rnc.html. 

The areas that are most clearly 

affected by this rule are areas that did 

not submit a SIP under subpart 1 and 

which do not have a clean data 

determination or which have not yet 

submitted a redesignation request. The 

states and specific nonattainment areas 

affected for the PM2.5 1997 areas are 

Libby, MT, San Joaquin Valley, CA and 

the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, 

CA. For the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas, the states and specific 

nonattainment areas affected are 

Fairbanks, AK, Imperial County, CA, 

Liberty-Clairton, PA, Provo, UT and Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

The subpart 4 requirements for areas 

classified as moderate are generally 

comparable to those of subpart 1. The 

general provisions for requirements for 

all nonattainment areas for subpart 4 

include: (1) Section 189 (a)(1)(A) (NSR 

permit program); (2) section 189 

(a)(1)(B) (attainment demonstration); (3) 

section 189 (a)(1)(C) [reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) and 

reasonable available control technology 

(RACT)]; (4) section 189 (c) [request for 

proposals (RFP) and quantitative 

milestones]; and (5) section 189 (e) 

(precursor requirements for major 

stationary sources). Subpart 4 also 

includes additional statutory SIP 

planning requirements in the event that 

EPA reclassifies a moderate 

nonattainment area to a serious 

nonattainment area and in the event the 

area needs additional extensions of time 

to attain the NAAQS. The General 

Preamble and Addendum provide 

useful additional guidance on the 

specific subpart 4 statutory 

requirements. 

V. Proposed Deadlines for Submission 

of Remaining Required AttainmentRelated SIP Elements 

In 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court in 

NRDC v. EPA directed the EPA to 

modify its regulatory approach to 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standard 

solely under subpart 1. The EPA’s 

subpart 1-based rulemakings were 

issued in 2007 and 2008, and for more 

than 5 years they have governed the 

EPA’s and the states’ implementation 

efforts. Prior to the Court’s decision, 

states understandably have worked 

towards meeting the air quality goals of 

the 1997 and 2006 standards in 

accordance with the EPA regulations 

and guidance derived from subpart 1. 

During this time, many PM2.5

nonattainment areas have attained the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards and/or 

submitted SIPs aimed at attainment, 

including, among other requirements, 

nonattainment NSR permitting 

programs. The EPA must therefore 

respond to the Court’s remand in the 

context of the states’ prior and ongoing 

efforts to attain the standards under the 

framework of subpart 1. The EPA takes 

this history into account in proposing to 

set a new deadline for any remaining 

submissions that may be required for a 

moderate nonattainment area due to the 

applicability of subpart 4. It is important 

for EPA to set a new deadline in order 

to give states the opportunity to address 

the interpretation announced by the 

Court earlier this year. In rulemakings 

on individual areas subsequent to the 

Court’s decision, the EPA has explained 

in detail its view that the Court’s 

recently announced interpretation 

should not be applied retroactively. See, 

for example, ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Indianapolis Area 

to Attainment of the 1997 Annual 

Standard for Fine Particulate Matter’’ 

(78 FR 20856, April 8, 2013—proposal), 

(78 FR 41698, July 11, 2013—final). The 

EPA has continued to consider and act 

upon submissions already made, 

explaining in those individual 

rulemakings how the EPA has taken into 

account the NRDC Court’s decision.4

Notwithstanding those actions, there are 

areas for which states are required to 

make additional submissions under 

subparts 1 and 4. With respect to those 

areas the EPA believes that states should 

be provided a reasonable opportunity to 

make such submissions based on the 

EPA interactions with states regarding 

the implementation of the PM2.5

NAAQS for the areas likely to be most 

affected by this rule, we anticipate that 

establishing a clear submittal date 

would help support NAAQS 

implementation and that approximately 

1 year would provide an additional 

amount of time for development of any 

additional SIP submittal for these areas 

if needed. 

The EPA is therefore proposing to set 

a deadline of December 31, 2014, for the 

states to submit any additional 

attainment-related SIP elements that 

may be needed to meet the applicable 

requirements of subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and to submit SIPs addressing the 

nonattainment NSR requirements in 

subpart 4. The EPA believes that this 

period provides a relatively brief but 

reasonable amount of time for states to 

ascertain whether and to what extent 

any additional submissions are needed 

for a particular 1997 or 2006 PM2.5

nonattainment area,5 and to develop, 

adopt and submit any such SIPs. 

Section 188(c)(1) of Subpart 4 

establishes an attainment deadline of no 

later than the end of the sixth calendar 

year after designation as nonattainment. 

With respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, nonattainment area 

designations for most areas became 

effective in December 2009 (74 FR 

58688, November 13, 2009). Thus, these 

areas are subject to an attainment 

deadline under subpart 4 of no later 

than December 31, 2015. A SIP 

submission deadline of December 31, 

2014, for these areas will therefore 

ensure that there is at least a year 

between SIP submission and attainment 

deadlines.6 The December 31, 2014, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69810 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

a PM2.5 attainment SIP for this area, and would 

provide a reasonable amount of additional time for 

the state to both develop the required subpart 4 SIP 

elements and implement its control strategy in 

advance of the applicable attainment date. 

7As explained in the EPA’s proposed 

redesignation of the Indianapolis Area to 

Attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard, in 

evaluating redesignation requests, the EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation is that ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ are those whose deadline for 

submission occurs prior to the state’s submission of 

a complete redesignation request. 78 FR 20856, 

20861. 

8See also ‘‘Redesignation of Ohio Portions of 

Parkersburg-Marietta and Wheeling Areas to 

Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine 

Particulate Matter’’ (78 FR 53275, August 29, 2013), 

‘‘Redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to 

Attainment of the 1997 and 2006 Standards for Fine 

Particulate Matter’’ (78 FR 53272, August 29, 2013); 

‘‘Redesignation of the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Area 

for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards’’ 

(78 FR 57270, September 18, 2013), ‘‘Redesignation 

of Ohio Portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area 

for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards’’ 

(78 FR 57273, September 18, 2013), ‘‘Redesignation 

of Dayton-Springfield, OH Nonattainment Area for 

1997 PM-2.5’’ (78 FR 59258, September 26, 2013). 

deadline would allow a brief but 

reasonable amount of time for the states 

to modify their SIPs in consideration of 

subpart 4 in keeping with the timeframe 

established by the existing subpart 4 

attainment deadline. With respect to the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, although 

nonattainment area designations in most 

areas became effective more than 8 years 

ago (see 70 FR 944, January 5, 2005), we 

are proposing to establish for these areas 

the same subpart 4 SIP submission 

deadline that would apply for purposes 

of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (December 

31, 2014), so that all states with PM2.5

nonattainment areas have a reasonable 

amount of time to develop any 

additional SIP elements that may be 

required under subpart 4 in response to 

the NRDC decision. Thus, for all PM2.5

nonattainment areas, the states would 

be required to submit any remaining 

attainment-related SIPs that are 

necessary to satisfy the requirements 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas under section 189(a) of the Act no 

later than December 31, 2014. This 

proposal does not affect any action that 

the EPA has previously taken under 

section 110(k) of the Act on a SIP for a 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. As noted in 

the section below, because subpart 4 

incorporates the requirements of subpart 

1 and affects the requirements that it 

subsumes, the EPA is proposing that the 

December 31, 2014, deadline replaces 

the deadlines previously set for 

submissions designed solely for subpart 

1. By coordinating implementation of 

subpart 4 and subpart 1 submissions, 

and clarifying the deadline for 

submission of additional subpart 4 

requirements, the proposed rule will 

help states and areas understand and 

efficiently discharge any remaining 

responsibilities. The proposed rule will 

also facilitate the processing of requests 

to redesignate 1997 and 2006 

nonattainment areas to attainment, since 

clear deadlines for submissions of 

requirements will provide a means for 

identifying applicable requirements for 

purposes evaluating redesignation 

requests.7

VI. What guidance is currently 

available to States regarding subpart 4 

requirements? 

The EPA has longstanding general 

guidance that interprets the 1990 

amendments to the CAA, making 

recommendations to states for meeting 

the statutory requirements for SIPs for 

nonattainment areas. See ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments 

of 1990’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, the EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR at 13538. In recent 

rulemakings for individual areas 

published after the NRDC Court 

decision, the EPA has further elaborated 

on the relationship of subpart 1 and 

subpart 4 requirements in the context of 

an area that has attained the 1997 PM2.5

standard and requested redesignation to 

attainment. ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Indianapolis Area 

to Attainment of the 1997 Annual 

Standard for Fine Particulate Matter’’ 

(78 FR 20856, April 8, 2013—proposal) 

(78 FR 41698, July 11, 2013—final). The 

EPA believes that both the General 

Preamble and its recent rulemakings on 

Indianapolis and other areas provide 

helpful guidance for states in 

ascertaining the impact of subpart 4 

requirements on their ongoing efforts to 

meet the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards.8 For help with questions or 

further clarification, states should 

consult their respective EPA regional 

offices. 

VII. Proposed Actions 

This rule responds to the Court’s 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, supra. The 

Court found that the EPA erred in 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

pursuant solely to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of Part D of Title I of the CAA, without 

also considering the particulate matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of Part 

D. The EPA proposes to identify the 

initial classification of current 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as 

moderate. For these areas, the EPA is 

also proposing to set December 31, 

2014, as the deadline for any remaining 

required attainment-related and 

nonattainment NSR SIP submissions, 

pursuant to and considering the 

application of subpart 4. The EPA is 

soliciting comment, specifically on the 

proposed deadlines for submission of 

remaining SIP requirements. 

There are two main categories of areas 

most affected by this rule: (1) Areas that 

did not submit a SIP under subpart 1 

and (2) areas which do not have a clean 

data determination or which have not 

yet submitted a redesignation request. 

The states and specific nonattainment 

areas affected for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS are Libby, MT, San Joaquin 

Valley, CA and the Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin, CA. For the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, the states and specific 

nonattainment areas affected are 

Fairbanks, AK, Imperial County, CA, 

Liberty-Clairton, PA, Provo, UT and Salt 

Lake City, UT. Using the most up to date 

status of SIP submissions and approved 

SIPs, the EPA will continue working 

with states on a case-by-case basis, 

based on their stage of SIP development, 

to address subpart 4 requirements. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This 

proposed rulemaking identifies the 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards 

and the deadline for states to submit 

attainment-related SIP elements for 

these areas that are required pursuant to 

subpart 4. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69811 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

regulation subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedures 

Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined in the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201;) (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule will not impose any 

requirements directly on small entities. 

Entities potentially affected directly by 

this proposal include state, local and 

tribal governments and none of these 

governments are small governments. 

Other types of small entities are not 

directly subject to the requirements of 

this rule because this action only 

identifies the classification under 

subpart 4 for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 

PM2.5 standards and the deadline for 

states to submit attainment-related SIP 

elements for these areas that are 

required pursuant to subpart 4. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandate under the provisions of title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

state, local and tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

proposed rulemaking identifies the 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards 

and the deadline for states to submit 

attainment-related SIP elements for 

these areas that are required pursuant to 

subpart 4. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The 

requirement to submit SIP revisions to 

meet the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

requirements under subpart 4 is 

imposed by the CAA. This proposed 

rule, if made final, would interpret 

those requirements as they apply to the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comments 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It would not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, since no tribe has to develop an 

implementation plan under these 

proposed regulatory revisions. 

Furthermore, these proposed regulation 

revisions do not affect the relationship 

or distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. The CAA 

and the Tribal Air Rule establish the 

relationship of the federal government 

and tribes in developing plans to attain 

the NAAQS, and these revisions to the 

regulations do nothing to modify that 

relationship. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action, the EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed action from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the E.O. has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to E.O. 13045 because it does not 

establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. This proposed rulemaking 

identifies the classification under 

subpart 4 for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 

PM2.5 standards and the deadline for 

states to submit attainment-related SIP 

elements for these areas that are 

required pursuant to subpart 4. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69812 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

action will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This proposed rulemaking 

identifies the classification under 

subpart 4 for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 

PM2.5 standards and the deadline for 

states to submit attainment-related SIP 

elements for these areas that are 

required pursuant to subpart 4. 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7408, 

7410, 7501–7509a, and 7601(a)(1). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, 

Volatile organic compound. 

Dated: November 15, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27992 Filed 11–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0593; FRL–9902–99– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; Control 

of Air Pollution by Permits for New 

Construction or Modification; Permits 

for Specific Designated Facilities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of two revisions to the Texas 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

concerning the Permits for Specific 

Designated Facilities Program, also 

referred to as the FutureGen Program. 

EPA has determined that the portions of 

these SIP revisions specific to the 

FutureGen Program submitted on March 

9, 2006 and July 2, 2010, comply with 

the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations 

and are consistent with EPA policies. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 and parts C and D of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Comments 

may also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the Addresses section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section (6PD– 

R), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–2115; fax number 

(214) 665–6762; email address 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 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. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: November 1, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27573 Filed 11–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 9, 12, 22, and 52 

[FAR Case 2013–001; Docket 2013–0001, 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 9000–AM55 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Ending Trafficking in Persons; 

Extension of Time for Comments 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA issued 

a proposed rule on September 26, 2013, 

amending the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) to strengthen 

protections against trafficking in 

persons in Federal contracts. These 

changes are intended to implement E.O. 

13627 and Title XVII of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013. The comment period is being 

extended to provide additional time for 

interested parties to provide comments 

for FAR Case 2013–001, Ending 

Trafficking in Persons, to December 20, 

2013. 

DATES: For the proposed rule published 

on September 26, 2013 (78 FR 59317), 

submit comments by December 20, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2013–001 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘FAR Case 2013–001’’ under 

the heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and 

selecting ‘‘Search’’. Select the link 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds 

with ‘‘FAR Case 2013–001’’. Follow the 

instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ screen. Please include your 

name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘FAR Case 2013–001’’ on your attached 

document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F 

Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 

20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite ‘‘FAR Case 2013–001’’ in 

all correspondence related to this case. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS