Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 16825 

Act (21 U.S.C. 387f(e)) provides that ‘‘in 

applying manufacturing restrictions to 

tobacco, the Secretary shall * * * 

prescribe regulations (which may differ 

based on the type of tobacco product 

involved) requiring that the methods 

used in, and the facilities and controls 

used for, the manufacture, 

preproduction design validation 

(including a process to assess the 

performance of a tobacco product), 

packing, and storage of a tobacco 

product conform to current good 

manufacturing practice, or hazard 

analysis and critical control point 

methodology.’’ 

On January 10, 2012, a group of 13 

tobacco companies submitted to FDA: 

(1) Recommendations for good 

manufacturing practice regulations, (2) a 

preamble to the recommended 

regulations, and (3) a cover letter with 

a meeting request (Ref. 1). The 

preamble, as noted in the cover letter, 

provides the participating tobacco 

companies’ common perspective and 

interpretation of the recommended 

regulations. On May 2, 2012, 

representatives of the tobacco 

companies met with FDA to present an 

overview of their recommendations and 

their approach to developing them. 

FDA is establishing a docket to 

provide an opportunity for all interested 

parties to comment on the tobacco 

companies’ recommendations and to 

share information that will improve 

FDA’s understanding of the tobacco 

industry and its manufacturing 

operations. 

II. Comments 

Interested persons may submit either 

electronic comments regarding the 

tobacco companies’ recommendations to 

http://www.regulations.gov or written 

comments to the Division of Dockets 

Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only 

necessary to send one set of comments. 

Identify comments with the docket 

number found in brackets in the 

heading of this document. Received 

comments may be seen in the Division 

of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 

will be posted to the docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

III. Reference 

The following reference has been 

placed on display in the Division of 

Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) 

and may be seen by interested persons 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, and is available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

1. Recommendations for Tobacco 

Product Good Manufacturing Practices 

Regulation and Request for Meeting, 

submitted to FDA, January 10, 2012. 

Dated: March 12, 2013. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06288 Filed 3–15–13; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 49 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0009; FRL–9791–8] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze 

Requirements for Navajo Generating 

Station; Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On February 5, 2013, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed a source-specific federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requiring the 

Navajo Generating Station (NGS), 

located on the Navajo Nation, to reduce 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

under the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) provision of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) in order to 

reduce visibility impairment resulting 

from NGS at 11 National Parks and 

Wilderness Areas. EPA provided a 90- 

day public comment period for the 

proposed rule that is scheduled to close 

on May 6, 2013. The Navajo Nation and 

other stakeholders have submitted 

requests to extend the comment period 

an additional 90 days to allow time for 

interested parties to explore alternatives 

to BART that provide additional 

flexibility and also ensure greater 

reasonable progress than would be 

achieved under BART. In today’s action, 

EPA is extending the comment period 

an additional 90 days. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

rulemaking published on February 5, 

2013 (78 FR 8274) must be submitted no 

later than August 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0009, by one of the 

following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

Email: r9ngsbart@epa.gov. 

Mail or deliver: Anita Lee (Air–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Hearings: EPA intends to hold public 

hearings, at least 30 days prior to the 

close of the comment period, to accept 

oral and written comments on the 

proposed rulemaking. EPA will provide 

notice and additional details related to 

the hearings in the Federal Register, on 

our Web site, and in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at EPA Region 9 

(e.g., maps, voluminous reports, 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Lee, EPA Region 9, (415) 972– 

3958, r9ngsbart@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Today’s Action 

I. Background 

NGS is a coal-fired power plant 

located on the Navajo Nation Indian 

Reservation, just east of Page, Arizona, 

approximately 135 miles north of 

Flagstaff, Arizona. Emissions of NOX

from NGS affect visibility at 11 National 

Parks and Wilderness Areas that are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16826 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Please refer to 78 FR 8274 (February 5, 2013) for 

additional background information related to NGS, 

regional haze and the protection of visibility at 

mandatory Class I federal areas, and the statutory 

and regulatory framework for addressing visibility 

impairment from sources located in Indian country. 

2The CAWCD manages the Central Arizona 

Project, a water delivery system that relies on 

electricity from NGS to pump surface water from 

the Colorado River for use by numerous tribes in 

Arizona, as well as agricultural, municipal, and 

industrial water users. Please refer to 78 FR 8274 

(February 5, 2013) for additional information about 

CAWCD and its relationship to NGS and tribes 

located in Arizona. 

designated as Class I federal areas, 

mandated by Congress to receive 

heightened protection. NGS is subject to 

the BART requirement of the CAA and 

the Regional Haze Rule based on its age 

and its effects on visibility in Class I 

areas.1

On February 5, 2013, EPA proposed a 

BART determination to require NGS to 

achieve a nearly 80 percent reduction of 

its current overall NOX emission rate. 

EPA also proposed an alternative to 

BART that would provide flexibility to 

NGS in the schedule for the installation 

of new post-combustion control 

equipment. EPA’s proposed alternative 

to BART credits NGS for its early and 

voluntary installation of new 

combustion controls to reduce NOX

emissions beginning in 2009 and 

therefore achieves greater reasonable 

progress than BART. 

In recognition that there may be other 

approaches that could result in 

equivalent or better visibility benefits 

than BART, as well as the singular 

importance of NGS to the Navajo 

Nation, Hopi Tribe, and other numerous 

tribes located in Arizona, EPA also 

outlined a framework for evaluating 

other alternatives to provide greater 

flexibility than EPA’s proposed 

alternative to BART. EPA requested 

comment on Alternatives 2 and 3 that 

provide until 2025 or 2026 for 

compliance but would require the 

owners of NGS to implement additional 

emission reductions in order to assure 

greater reasonable progress than would 

otherwise be achieved under BART. 

EPA encouraged a robust public 

discussion of our proposed BART 

determination and alternative, as well as 

Alternatives 2 and 3, and recognized the 

potential need for a supplemental 

proposal if Alternatives 2 or 3, or other 

approaches developed by other parties, 

are identified as meeting the needs of 

stakeholders and meeting the 

requirements of the CAA. 

On February 15, 2013, Salt River 

Project (SRP), co-owner and operator of 

NGS, requested a 90-day extension of 

the public comment period. SRP stated 

that identifying and analyzing 

alternatives and discussing options with 

interested parties would require a 

significant amount of time. On February 

21, 2013, the Central Arizona Water 

Conservation District (CAWCD) 

submitted a similar request for a 90-day 

extension of the comment period.2 On 

March 1, 2013, the Navajo Nation also 

requested a 90-day extension of the 

comment period in order to allow the 

Navajo Nation the time and opportunity 

to participate with NGS owners and 

other stakeholders in examining the 

feasibility of additional alternatives, 

including Alternatives 2 and 3. 

II. Today’s Action 

EPA recognizes that the stakeholder 

process, to develop viable alternatives to 

BART that provide additional flexibility 

to the owners of NGS while achieving 

more emission reductions to assure 

greater reasonable progress than BART, 

will require a significant amount of 

time. EPA also recognizes the critical 

importance of active participation by 

the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and 

other affected tribes located in Arizona 

in the development of alternatives to 

BART. Therefore, EPA is extending the 

comment period by an additional 90 

days. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Indians, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 8, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06196 Filed 3–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0884; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0970 FRL–9790–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and Columbus 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

Revisions to Approved Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the request by Ohio to revise the 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and Columbus, 

Ohio, 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

air quality State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) under the Clean Air Act to 

replace the previously approved motor 

vehicle emissions budgets with budgets 

developed using EPA’s Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 

emissions model. Ohio submitted the 

SIP revision requests to EPA on October 

30, 2012, and December 12, 2012, 

respectively. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0884 for Cleveland-AkronLorain or EPA–RO5–OAR–2012–0970 

for Columbus, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, 

maietta.anthony@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 adverse comments are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS