Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41901 

Instruction. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination and a 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0529 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0529 Safety Zone; Fireworks 

Display, Baltimore Harbor; Baltimore, MD. 

(a) Location. The following areas are 

a safety zone: (1) All waters of Baltimore 

Harbor, Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, 

within a 50 yards radius of a fireworks 

discharge barge in approximate position 

latitude 39°17′03′′ N, longitude 

076°36′36′′ W, located southeast of Pier 

1 Inner Harbor at Baltimore, Maryland; 

(2) all waters of Baltimore Harbor, 

Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, within a 100 

yards radius of a fireworks discharge 

barge in approximate position latitude 

39°16′55′′ N, longitude 076°36′17′′ W, 

located southwest of Pier 6 Inner Harbor 

at Baltimore, Maryland; and (3) all 

waters of Baltimore Harbor, Baltimore’s 

Inner Harbor, within a 200 yards radius 

of a fireworks discharge barge in 

approximate position latitude 39°16′38′′ 

N, longitude 076°35′55′′ W, located 

northwest of the Domino Sugar (ASR 

Group) refinery wharf at Baltimore, 

Maryland. All coordinates refer to 

datum NAD 1983. 

(b) Regulations. The general safety 

zone regulations found in 33 CFR 

165.23 apply to the safety zone created 

by this temporary section. 

(1) All persons are required to comply 

with the general regulations governing 

safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23. 

(2) Entry into or remaining in this 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Coast Guard Captain of the Port 

Baltimore. Vessels already at berth, 

mooring, or anchor at the time the safety 

zone is implemented do not have to 

depart the safety zone. All vessels 

underway within this safety zone at the 

time it is implemented are to depart the 

zone. 

(3) Persons desiring to transit the area 

of the safety zone must first obtain 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port Baltimore or his designated 

representative. To seek permission to 

transit the area, the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore and his designated 

representatives can be contacted at 

telephone number 410–576–2693 or on 

Marine Band Radio VHF–FM channel 

16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard 

vessels enforcing this section can be 

contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF– 

FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon 

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard 

vessel, or other Federal, State, or local 

agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing 

light, or other means, the operator of a 

vessel shall proceed as directed. If 

permission is granted, all persons and 

vessels must comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore or his designated 

representative and proceed at the 

minimum speed necessary to maintain a 

safe course while within the zone. 

(4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone by Federal, 

State, and local agencies. 

(c) Definitions. As used in this 

section: 

Captain of the Port Baltimore means 

the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard 

Sector Baltimore, Maryland. 

Designated representative means any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer who has been authorized 

by the Captain of the Port Baltimore to 

assist in enforcing the safety zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. through 

11:30 p.m. on September 5, 2013. 

Dated: June 18, 2013. 

Kevin C. Kiefer, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16612 Filed 7–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0449; FRL–9832–5] 

Determination of Attainment for the 

West Central Pinal Nonattainment Area 

for the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; 

Arizona; Determination Regarding 

Applicability of Clean Air Act 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the West Central Pinal 

area in Arizona has attained the 2006 

24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This proposed determination 

is based upon complete, qualityassured, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing that the area 

has monitored attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 

2010–2012 monitoring period. EPA is 

further proposing that, if EPA finalizes 

this determination of attainment, the 

requirements for the area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, together with 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, and contingency measures 

for failure to meet RFP and attainment 

deadlines shall be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0449 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at 

www.regulations.gov, please follow the 

on-line instructions; 

2. Email to vagenas.ginger@epa.gov; 

or 

3. Mail or delivery to Ginger Vagenas, 

Air Planning Office, AIR–2, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected should be clearly identified as 

such and should not be submitted 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41902 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1For a given air pollutant, ‘‘primary’’ national 

ambient air quality standards are those determined 

by EPA as requisite to protect the public health, and 

‘‘secondary’’ standards are those determined by 

EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from 

any known or anticipated adverse effects associated 

with the presence of such air pollutant in the 

ambient air. See CAA section 109(b). 

2With respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

this area is designated as ‘‘unclassifiable/ 

attainment.’’ EPA has not yet established 

designations for the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

3See 76 FR 6056, February 3, 2011. This action 

was effective March 7, 2011. On October 26, 2012, 

we designated nearby Indian lands belonging to the 

Ak Chin Indian Community and the Gila River 

Indian Community, which lie within the deferred 

area, as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on improved air quality. See 

77 FR 65310. 

4The boundaries for the nonattainment area are 

described in 40 CFR 81.303. 

through www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If you 

submit an electronic comment, 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 EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

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: 

Ginger Vagenas, (415) 972–3964, or by 

email at vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

EPA. We are providing the following 

outline to aid in locating information in 

this proposal. 

Table of Contents 

I. What determination is EPA making? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas 

C. How does EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant air 

quality data? 

A. Monitoring Network and Data 

Considerations 

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment 

IV. What is the effect of a determination of 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS under subpart 4 of the Clean Air 

Act? 

A. Background of the Clean Data Policy 

B. Application of the Clean Data Policy to 

the Attainment-Related Provisions of 

Subpart 4 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What determination is EPA making? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the West Central Pinal nonattainment 

area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour 

NAAQS for fine particles (generally 

referring to particles less than or equal 

to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM2.5). 

This determination is based upon 

complete, quality-assured, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data showing 

the area has monitored attainment of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2010–2012 

monitoring data. Preliminary data in 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) for 

2013 indicate that the area continues to 

attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on 

this determination, we are also 

proposing to suspend the obligations on 

the State of Arizona to submit certain 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions related to attainment of this 

standard for the area for as long as the 

area continues to attain the standard. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS 

Under section 109 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), EPA has 

established national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for 

certain pervasive air pollutants (referred 

to as ‘‘criteria pollutants’’) and conducts 

periodic reviews of the NAAQS to 

determine whether they should be 

revised or whether new NAAQS should 

be established. 

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA 

replaced the original NAAQS for 

particulate matter, measured as total 

suspended particulate matter 

(‘‘TSP’’)(i.e., particles roughly 30 

micrometers or less), with new NAAQS 

that replaced TSP as the indicator for 

particulate matter with a new indicator 

that includes only those particles with 

an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 

(PM10). 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

revised the NAAQS for particulate 

matter by establishing new NAAQS for 

particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5). EPA established 

primary and secondary 1 annual and 

24-hour standards for PM2.5. The annual 

standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3), based on a 3-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and the 24-hour 

standard was set at 65 mg/m3, based on 

the 3-year average of the 98th percentile 

of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 

population-oriented monitor within an 

area. 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA revised the level of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3, based on a 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations. Herein, we refer 

to the 35 mg/m3 standard as the ‘‘2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard.’’ EPA also 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

but with tighter constraints on the 

spatial averaging criteria. 

In December 2012, EPA revised the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS to a level of 12 

mg/m3, retained the current 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS at a level of 35 mg/m3, 

and retained the current PM10 NAAQS. 

See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). The 

proposed determination in this 

document concerns only the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not the 1997 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS or the 1997 or 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and not the PM10

NAAQS. 

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas 

Effective December 14, 2009, EPA 

established the initial air quality 

designations for most areas in the 

United States for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688 (November 

13, 2009). Pinal County, Arizona is 

located within one of three areas that 

EPA deferred from designation at that 

time.2 However, in a subsequent action 

on February 3, 2011, EPA designated a 

portion of State lands in Pinal County, 

Arizona (‘‘West Central Pinal’’) as 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS based on 2006–2008 data.3 4 For 

more information on the designation of 

West Central Pinal, please see the 

February 3, 2011 final rule. 

Within 3 years of the effective date of 

designations, states with areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are required to 

submit SIP revisions that, among other 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41903 

5On December 19, 2012, in an email to Colleen 

McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division, U.S. 

EPA Region IX, Steven M. Calderon, Manager, State 

Implementation Plan Section, Air Quality Division, 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

requested that EPA determine whether the West 

Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment area qualified for 

a determination of attainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 29, 2013, ADEQ 

provided an AQS Design Value Report in support 

of the request. Both of these items can be found in 

the docket for today’s action. 

6The 24-hour PM2.5 standard design value is the 

3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour 

average values recorded at each monitoring site (see 

40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 1.0(c)), and the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 24-hour 

standard design value at each monitoring site is less 

than or equal to 35 mg/m3. 

7Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to 

Donald Gabrielson, Director, PCAQCD (November 

1, 2010) (approving PCAQCD’s ‘‘2010 Ambient 

Monitoring Network Plan and 2009 Data 

Summary’’); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, 

Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to 

Donald Gabrielson, Director, PCAQCD (November 

1, 2011) (approving PCAQCD’s ‘‘2011 Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan and 2010 Data 

Summary’’); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, 

Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to 

Donald Gabrielson, Director, PCAQCD (March 27, 

2013) (approving PCAQCD’s ‘‘2012 Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan and 2011 Data 

Summary’’). 

8Technical System Audit Report transmitted via 

correspondence dated June 10, 2013, from Deborah 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to 

Donald Gabrielson, Director, PCAQCD. 

9See, e.g., the letter from Kale Walch, Deputy 

Director, PCAQCD to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated April 26, 2013 

certifying the ambient air quality data collected for 

year 2012. 

10 In this context, ‘‘middle’’ spatial scale defines 

concentrations typical of areas up to several city 

blocks in size with dimensions ranging from about 

100 meters to 0.5 kilometers. See 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix D, section 1.2. 

elements, provide for implementation of 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP), attainment of the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than five years from the nonattainment 

designation (in this instance, no later 

than March 7, 2014), as well as 

contingency measures. See CAA section 

172(a)(2), 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 

172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for 

submittal of these SIP revisions, the 

State of Arizona requested that EPA 

make a determination that the West 

Central Pinal nonattainment area has 

attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.5

Today’s proposal responds to the State’s 

request. 

C. How does EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality currently meets the PM2.5

NAAQS is generally based upon the 

most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured data gathered at 

established State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a 

nonattainment area and entered into the 

AQS database. Data from air monitors 

operated by state/local agencies in 

compliance with EPA monitoring 

requirements must be submitted to 

AQS. Monitoring agencies annually 

certify that these data are accurate to the 

best of their knowledge. Accordingly, 

EPA relies primarily on data in AQS 

when determining the attainment status 

of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 

50, appendix L; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR 

part 58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices 

A, C, D, and E. All data are reviewed to 

determine the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 

50, section 50.13 and in accordance 

with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard is met when the design 

value is less than or equal to 35 mg/m3

(based on the rounding convention in 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N) at each 

monitoring site within the area.6 The 

PM2.5 24-hour average is considered 

valid when 75 percent of the hourly 

averages for the 24-hour period are 

available. Data completeness 

requirements for a given year are met 

when at least 75 percent of the 

scheduled sampling days for each 

quarter have valid data. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

relevant air quality data? 

A. Monitoring Network and Data 

Considerations 

Pinal County Air Quality Control 

District (PCAQCD) is the governmental 

agency with the authority and 

responsibility under state law for 

collecting ambient air quality data 

within the West Central Pinal 

nonattainment area. Annually, PCAQCD 

submits monitoring network plans to 

EPA. These plans discuss the status of 

the air monitoring network, as required 

under 40 CFR part 58. EPA reviews 

these annual network plans for 

compliance with the applicable 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. 

With respect to PM2.5, we have found 

that PCAQCD’s annual network plans 

meet the applicable requirements under 

40 CFR part 58.7 Furthermore, we 

concluded in our Technical System 

Audit Report concerning PCAQCD’s 

ambient air quality monitoring program 

that PCAQCD’s ambient air monitoring 

network currently meets or exceeds the 

requirements for the minimum number 

of monitoring sites designated as 

SLAMS for PM2.5 in the West Central 

Pinal nonattainment area.8 Also, 

PCAQCD annually certifies that the data 

it submits to AQS are quality-assured.9

There was one PM2.5 SLAMS 

operating during the 2010–2012 period 

in the West Central Pinal PM2.5

nonattainment area. This site has been 

monitoring PM2.5 concentrations since 

2005. Historically, this site had 

monitored PM2.5 concentrations on a 

one-in-six day sampling frequency. In 

the beginning of 2012, the sampling 

frequency was changed to a one-in-three 

day schedule. 

EPA defines specific monitoring site 

types and spatial scales of 

representativeness to characterize the 

nature and location of required 

monitors. The monitor’s spatial scale is 

middle scale,10 and its monitoring 

objectives (site type) are source oriented 

and population exposure. 

For the purposes of this proposed 

action, we have reviewed the data for 

the most recent three-year period (2010– 

2012) for completeness, and we 

determined that the data collected by 

PCAQCD meets the completeness 

criterion for all 12 quarters at the West 

Central Pinal PM2.5 monitor. We 

consider the PM2.5 data set for 2010– 

2012 to be complete for the purposes of 

determining whether the area has 

attained the standard. 

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment 

EPA’s evaluation of whether the West 

Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment area 

has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS is based on our review of the 

monitoring data and takes into account 

the adequacy of the PM2.5 monitoring 

network in the nonattainment area and 

the reliability of the data collected by 

the network as discussed in the 

previous section of this document. 

Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design values 

for the West Central Pinal 

nonattainment area monitor based on 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the most recent complete three-year 

period (2010–2012). The data show that 

the design value for the 2010–2012 

period was equal to or less than 35 mg/ 

m3 at the monitor. Therefore, we are 

proposing to determine, based on the 

complete, quality-assured, and certified 

data for 2010–2012, that the West 

Central Pinal area has attained the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard. Preliminary 

data available in AQS for 2013 indicate 

that the area continues to attain the 

standard. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41904 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11For the purposes of evaluating the effects of 

this proposed determination of attainment under 

subpart 4, we are considering the West Central 

Pinal nonattainment area to be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5

nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, 

all areas designated nonattainment areas under 

subpart 4 would initially be classified by operation 

of law as ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and 

would remain moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a ‘‘serious’’ 

nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that 

it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the 

potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those 

that would be applicable to moderate 

nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of 

subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas 

and include an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 

189(a)(1)(C)); and quantitative milestones 

demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 189(c)). In 

addition, EPA also evaluates the applicable 

requirements of subpart 1. 

12 ‘‘EPA’s Final Rule to implement the 8-hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard— 

Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule),’’ 70 FR 71612, 71645– 

46 (November 29, 2005). 

TABLE 1—2010–2012 24-HOUR PM2.5 MONITORING SITE AND DESIGN VALUES FOR THE WEST CENTRAL PINAL

NONATTAINMENT AREA

Monitoring site 

98th Percentile (μg/m3) 2010–2012 

Design values 

(μg/m3 2010 2011 2012 ) 

Cowtown Road ................................................................................................ 27.1 27.2 28.9 28 

Source: Design Value Report, May 23, 2013 (in the docket to this proposed action). 

IV. What is the effect of a determination 

of attainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of the 

Clean Air Act? 

This section of EPA’s proposal 

addresses the effects of a final 

determination of attainment for the 

West Central Pinal nonattainment area. 

For the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, 

40 CFR 51.1004(c) of EPA’s 

Implementation Rule embodies EPA’s 

‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ interpretation 

under subpart 1. The provisions of 

§ 51.1004(c) set forth the effects of a 

determination of attainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 standard. 72 FR 20585, 20665 

(April 25, 2007). While the regulatory 

provisions of § 51.1004(c) do not 

explicitly apply to the 2006 PM2.5

standard, the underlying statutory 

interpretation is the same for both 

standards. See 77 FR 76427 (Dec. 28, 

2012) (proposed determination of 

attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standard 

for Milwaukee, WI). 

On January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 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 (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’ or 

‘‘Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that 

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, 

rather than the particulate-matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I. The Court remanded EPA’s 

Implementation Rule for further 

proceedings consistent with the Court’s 

decision. In light of the Court’s decision 

and its remand of the Implementation 

Rule, EPA in this proposed rulemaking 

addresses the effect of a final 

determination of attainment for the 

West Central Pinal nonattainment area, 

if that area were considered a moderate 

nonattainment area under subpart 4.11

As set forth in more detail below, under 

EPA’s Clean Data Policy interpretation, 

a determination that the area has 

attained the standard suspends the 

State’s obligation to submit attainmentrelated planning requirements of 

subpart 4 (and the applicable provisions 

of subpart 1) for so long as the area 

continues to attain the standard. These 

include requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

and contingency measures, because the 

purpose of these provisions is to help 

reach attainment—a goal which has 

already been achieved. 

A. Background of the Clean Data Policy 

Over the past two decades, EPA has 

consistently applied its ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy’’ interpretation to attainmentrelated provisions of subparts 1, 2 and 

4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject 

of several EPA memoranda and 

regulations. In addition, numerous 

individual rulemakings published in the 

Federal Register have applied the 

interpretation to a spectrum of NAAQS, 

including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone, 

PM10, PM2.5, CO and lead standards. The 

D.C. Circuit has upheld the Clean Data 

Policy interpretation as embodied in 

EPA’s 8-hour ozone Implementation 

Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.12 NRDC v. EPA, 

571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other 

U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that have 

considered and reviewed EPA’s Clean 

Data Policy interpretation have upheld 

it and the rulemakings applying EPA’s 

interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 

F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); 

Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. 

EPA, N. 04–73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 

2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino 

Issues Forum, v. EPA, Nos. 06–75831 

and 08–71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 

(Memorandum Opinion)). 

As noted above, EPA incorporated its 

Clean Data Policy interpretation in both 

its 1997 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule and in its PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule in 40 CFR 51.1004(c). 72 FR 20585, 

20665 (April 25, 2007). While the D.C. 

Circuit, in its January 4, 2013 decision, 

remanded the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the court did not 

address the merits of that regulation, nor 

cast doubt on EPA’s existing 

interpretation of the statutory 

provisions. 

However, in light of the Court’s 

decision, we set forth here EPA’s Clean 

Data Policy interpretation under subpart 

4, for the purpose of identifying the 

effects of a determination of attainment 

for the 2006 PM2.5 standard for the West 

Central Pinal nonattainment area. EPA 

has previously articulated its Clean Data 

interpretation under subpart 4 in 

implementing the PM10 standard. See, 

e.g., 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) 

(determination of attainment of the 

PM10 standard in Coso Junction, 

California); 75 FR 6571 (February 10, 

2010) and 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 2006) 

(Ajo, Arizona area); 71 FR 13021 (March 

14, 2006) (Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 

40023 (July 14, 2006) (Weirton, West 

Virginia area); 71 FR 44920 (August 8, 

2006) (Rillito, Arizona area); 71 FR 

63642 (October 30, 2006) (San Joaquin 

Valley, California area); 72 FR 14422 

(March 28, 2007) (Miami, Arizona area). 

Thus EPA has established that, under 

subpart 4, an attainment determination 

suspends the obligations to submit an 

attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP 

contingency measures, and other 

measures related to attainment. 

B. Application of the Clean Data Policy 

to the Attainment-Related Provisions of 

Subpart 4 

In EPA’s proposed and final 

rulemakings determining that the San 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41905 

13Thus, we believe that it is a distinction without 

a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP 

requirement as one to be achieved until an area is 

‘‘redesignated attainment,’’ as opposed to section 

172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the 

requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment 

area RFP requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 

182(c)(2), which refer to the RFP requirements as 

applying until the ‘‘attainment date,’’ since section 

189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) 

of the Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, 

as with the general RFP requirements in section 

172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific requirements of 

section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific 

requirements may only be required ‘‘for the purpose 

of ensuring attainment of the applicable national 

ambient air quality standard by the applicable 

date.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). As discussed in the text 

of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP 

requirements, in light of the definition of RFP in 

section 171(1), and incorporated in section 

189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies 

once the standard has been attained. 

14Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ dated 

May 10, 1995 (‘‘Seitz memorandum’’). 

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area 

attained the PM10 standard, EPA set 

forth at length its rationale for applying 

the Clean Data Policy to PM10 under 

subpart 4. The Ninth Circuit upheld 

EPA’s final rulemaking, and specifically 

EPA’s Clean Data Policy, in the context 

of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. 

EPA, Nos. 06–75831 and 08–71238 (9th 

Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum 

Opinion)). In rejecting petitioner’s 

challenge to the Clean Data Policy under 

subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit 

stated, ‘‘As the EPA explained, if an area 

is in compliance with PM10 standards, 

then further progress for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment is not necessary.’’ 

The general requirements of subpart 1 

apply in conjunction with the more 

specific requirements of subpart 4, to 

the extent they are not superseded or 

subsumed by the subpart 4 

requirements. Subpart 1 contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 nonattainment areas, and 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 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, 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 PM10

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). These subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP), emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

EPA has long interpreted the 

provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the 

Act (sections 171 and 172) as not 

requiring the submission of RFP for an 

area already attaining the ozone 

NAAQS. For an area that is attaining, 

showing that the State will make RFP 

towards attainment ‘‘will, therefore, 

have no meaning at that point.’’ 57 FR 

at 13564. See 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 

63642 (proposed and final 

determination of attainment for San 

Joaquin Valley); 75 FR 13710 and 75 FR 

27944 (proposed and final 

determination of attainment for Coso 

Junction). 

Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 states 

that: 

Plan revisions demonstrating attainment 

submitted to the Administrator for approval 

under this subpart shall contain quantitative 

milestones which are to be achieved every 3 

years until the area is redesignated 

attainment and which demonstrate 

reasonable further progress, as defined in 

section [section 171(1)] of this title, toward 

attainment by the applicable date. 

With respect to RFP, section 171(1) 

states that, for purposes of part D, RFP 

‘‘means such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutant as are required by this part 

or may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS by the applicable date.’’ Thus, 

whether dealing with the general RFP 

requirement of section 172(c)(2), the 

ozone-specific RFP requirements of 

sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific 

RFP requirements for PM10 areas of part 

D, subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the 

stated purpose of RFP is to ensure 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date. 

Although section 189(c) states that 

revisions shall contain milestones 

which are to be achieved until the area 

is redesignated to attainment, such 

milestones are designed to show 

reasonable further progress ‘‘toward 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date,’’ as defined by section 171. Thus, 

it is clear that once the area has attained 

the standard, no further milestones are 

necessary or meaningful. This 

interpretation is supported by language 

in section 189(c)(3), which mandates 

that a State that fails to achieve a 

milestone must submit a plan that 

assures that the State will achieve the 

next milestone or attain the NAAQS if 

there is no next milestone. Section 

189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement 

to submit and achieve milestones does 

not continue after attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

In the General Preamble, we noted 

with respect to section 189(c) that the 

purpose of the milestone requirement 

‘‘is ‘to provide for emission reductions 

adequate to achieve the standards by the 

applicable attainment date’ (H.R. Rep. 

No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 

(1990)).’’ 57 FR 13539 (April 16, 1992). 

If an area has in fact attained the 

standard, the stated purpose of the RFP 

requirement will have already been 

fulfilled.13

Similarly, the requirements of section 

189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no 

longer apply so long as an area has 

attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) 

provides in relevant part that: 

Not later than 90 days after the date on 

which a milestone applicable to the area 

occurs, each State in which all or part of such 

area is located shall submit to the 

Administrator a demonstration * * * that 

the milestone has been met. 

Where the area has attained the 

standard and there are no further 

milestones, there is no further 

requirement to make a submission 

showing that such milestones have been 

met. This is consistent with the position 

that EPA took with respect to the 

general RFP requirement of section 

172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General 

Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995 

Seitz memorandum 14 with respect to 

the requirements of section 182(b) and 

(c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz 

memorandum, EPA also noted that 

section 182(g), the milestone 

requirement of subpart 2, which is 

analogous to provisions in section 

189(c), is suspended upon a 

determination that an area has attained. 

The memorandum, also citing 

additional provisions related to 

attainment demonstration and RFP 

requirements, stated: 

Inasmuch as each of these requirements is 

linked with the attainment demonstration or 

RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 

182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the 

requirement to submit the underlying 

attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it 

need not submit the related SIP submission 

either. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41906 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

15Memorandum from Stephen Page, Director, 

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

‘‘Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ December 14, 

2004 (‘‘Page memorandum’’). 

16EPA’s interpretation that the statute requires 

implementation only of RACM measures that would 

advance attainment was upheld by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743–745 (5th Cir. 2002), 

and by the United States Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162– 

163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). 

1995 Seitz memorandum at 5. 

With respect to the attainment 

demonstration requirements of section 

172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B), an 

analogous rationale leads to the same 

result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that 

the plan provide for ‘‘a demonstration 

(including air quality modeling) that the 

[SIP] will provide for attainment by the 

applicable attainment date . . ..’’ As 

with the RFP requirements, if an area is 

already monitoring attainment of the 

standard, EPA believes there is no need 

for an area to make a further submission 

containing additional measures to 

achieve attainment. This is also 

consistent with the interpretation of the 

section 172(c) requirements provided by 

EPA in the General Preamble, the Page 

memorandum,15 and the section 182(b) 

and (c) requirements set forth in the 

Seitz memorandum. As EPA stated in 

the General Preamble, no other 

measures to provide for attainment 

would be needed by areas seeking 

redesignation to attainment since 

‘‘attainment will have been reached.’’ 57 

FR at 13564. 

Other SIP submission requirements 

are linked with these attainment 

demonstration and RFP requirements, 

and similar reasoning applies to them. 

These requirements include the 

contingency measure requirements of 

sections 172(c)(9). We have interpreted 

the contingency measure requirements 

of section 172(c)(9) (and section 

182(c)(9) for ozone) as no longer 

applying when an area has attained the 

standard because those ‘‘contingency 

measures are directed at ensuring RFP 

and attainment by the applicable date.’’ 

57 FR at 13564; Seitz memorandum, pp. 

5–6. 

CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that 

SIPs in nonattainment areas ‘‘shall 

provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if 

the area fails to make reasonable further 

progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by 

the attainment date applicable under 

this part. Such measures shall be 

included in the plan revision as 

contingency measures to take effect in 

any such case without further action by 

the State or [EPA].’’ This contingency 

measure requirement is inextricably tied 

to the reasonable further progress and 

attainment demonstration requirements. 

Contingency measures are implemented 

if reasonable further progress targets are 

not achieved, or if attainment is not 

realized by the attainment date. Where 

an area has already achieved attainment 

by the attainment date, it has no need 

to rely on contingency measures to 

come into attainment or to make further 

progress to attainment. As EPA stated in 

the General Preamble: ‘‘The section 

172(c)(9) requirements for contingency 

measures are directed at ensuring RFP 

and attainment by the applicable date.’’ 

See 57 FR 13564. Thus these 

requirements no longer apply when an 

area has attained the standard. 

Both sections 172(c)(1) and 

189(a)(1)(C) require ‘‘provisions to 

assure that reasonably available control 

measures’’ (i.e., RACM) are 

implemented in a nonattainment area. 

The General Preamble, 57 FR at 13560 

(April 16, 1992), states that EPA 

interprets section 172(c)(1) so that 

RACM requirements are a ‘‘component’’ 

of an area’s attainment demonstration. 

Thus, for the same reason the 

attainment demonstration no longer 

applies by its own terms, the 

requirement for RACM no longer 

applies. EPA has consistently 

interpreted this provision to require 

only implementation of potential RACM 

measures that could contribute to 

reasonable further progress or to 

attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR at 

13498. Thus, where an area is already 

attaining the standard, no additional 

RACM measures are required.16 EPA is 

interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) 

consistent with its interpretation of 

section 172(c)(1). 

The suspension of the obligations to 

submit SIP revisions concerning these 

RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, 

contingency measures and other related 

requirements exists only for as long as 

the area continues to monitor 

attainment of the standard. If EPA 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, that the area has monitored 

a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for 

the requirements being suspended 

would no longer exist. In that case, the 

area would again be subject to a 

requirement to submit the pertinent SIP 

revision or revisions and would need to 

address those requirements. Thus, a 

final determination that the area need 

not submit one of the pertinent SIP 

submittals amounts to no more than a 

suspension of the requirements for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. Only if and when EPA 

redesignates the area to attainment 

would the area be relieved of these 

submission obligations. Attainment 

determinations under the Clean Data 

Policy do not shield an area from 

obligations unrelated to attainment in 

the area, such as provisions to address 

pollution transport. 

As set forth above, based on our 

proposed determination that the West 

Central Pinal area is currently attaining 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we 

propose to find that the obligations to 

submit planning provisions to meet the 

requirements for an attainment 

demonstration, reasonable further 

progress plans, reasonably available 

control measures, contingency measures 

are suspended for so long as the area 

continues to monitor attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If in the 

future, EPA determines after notice-andcomment rulemaking that the area again 

violates the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, the basis for suspending the 

attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

and contingency measure obligations 

would no longer exist. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request 

for Public Comment 

EPA proposes to determine, based on 

the most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured, and certified data 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 

50, appendix N, that the West Central 

Pinal area is currently attaining the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In conjunction 

with and based upon our proposed 

determination that West Central Pinal 

has attained and is currently attaining 

the standard, EPA proposes to 

determine that the obligation to submit 

the following attainment-related 

planning requirements is not applicable 

for so long as the area continues to 

attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard: 

The part D, subpart 4 obligations to 

provide an attainment demonstration 

pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the 

RACM provisions of section 

189(a)(1)(C), the RFP provisions of 

section 189(c), and related attainment 

demonstration, RACM, RFP and 

contingency measure provisions 

requirements of subpart 1, section 172. 

This proposed action, if finalized, 

would not constitute a redesignation to 

attainment under CAA section 

107(d)(3). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal for the next 30 days. We 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41907 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality and to suspend certain 

federal requirements, and thus, would 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed 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 EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP obligations discussed herein do 

not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this 

proposed action will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen 

oxides, Sulfur oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 26, 2013. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16760 Filed 7–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 423 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819. FRL–9832–7; 

EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0209] 

RIN 2040–AF14 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric 

Power Generating Point Source 

Category 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule, extension of 

public-comment period. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the 

period for providing comments on the 

proposed rule entitled, ‘‘Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

for the Steam Electric Power Generating 

Point Source Category,’’ published in 

the Federal Register on June 7, 2013, by 

45 days. 

DATES: Comments. The public-comment 

period for the proposed rule published 

June 7, 2013, (78 FR 34432) is being 

extended by 45 days to September 20, 

2013, in order to provide the public 

additional time to submit comments and 

supporting information. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written 

comments on the proposed rule may be 

submitted to the EPA electronically, by 

mail, by facsimile or through hand 

delivery/courier. Please refer to the 

proposal (78 FR 34432) for the addresses 

and detailed instructions. 

Docket. Publically available 

documents relevant to this action are 

available for public inspection either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

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, and the telephone number for 

the Water Docket is 202–566–2426. The 

EPA has established the official public 

docket No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information, contact Jezebele 

Alicea-Virella, Engineering and 

Analysis Division, Telephone: 202–566– 

1755; Email: alicea.jezebele@epa.gov. 

For economic information, contact 

James Covington, Engineering and 

Analysis Division, Telephone: 202–566– 

1034; Email: covington.james@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comment Period 

In response to requests from 

stakeholders, the EPA is extending the 

previously announced public-comment 

period by 45 days. The public-comment 

period will end on September 20, 2013, 

rather than August 6, 2013. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 423 

Environmental protection, Electric 

power generation, Power plants, Waste 

treatment and disposal, Water pollution 

control. 

Dated: July 3, 2013. 

Ellen Gilinsky, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16774 Filed 7–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS