41694 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0572] 

Safety Zone; Fireworks Events in 

Captain of the Port New York Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

safety zones in the Captain of the Port 

New York Zone on the specified dates 

and times. This action is necessary to 

ensure the safety of vessels and 

spectators from hazards associated with 

fireworks displays. During the 

enforcement period, no person or vessel 

may enter the safety zones without 

permission of the Captain of the Port 

(COTP). 

DATES: The regulation for the safety 

zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will 

be enforced on the dates and times 

listed in the table in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email Lieutenant Junior Grade 

Kristopher Kesting, Coast Guard Sector 

New York; telephone 718–354–4154, 

email Kristopher.R.Kesting@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the safety zones 

listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the 

specified dates and times as indicated in 

Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1 

1. Midland Beach Sea Turtle Fireworks Display, 

Midland Beach, Staten Island Safety Zone.

• Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°34′12′′ N, 074°04′29.6′′ W (NAD 

1983), approximately 800 yards southeast of Midland Beach. This Safety Zone is a 500-yard 

radius from the barge. 

• Dates: June 29, July 13, August 17 2013. 

33 CFR 165.160(2.11) ........................................ • Times: 8:30 p.m.–10:00 p.m. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.160, a vessel may not enter the 

regulated area unless given express 

permission from the COTP or the 

designated representative. Spectator 

vessels may transit outside the regulated 

area but may not anchor, block, loiter in, 

or impede the transit of other vessels. 

The Coast Guard may be assisted by 

other Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement agencies in enforcing this 

regulation. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.160 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

In addition to this notice in the Federal 

Register, the Coast Guard will provide 

mariners with advanced notification of 

enforcement periods via the Local 

Notice to Mariners and marine 

information broadcasts. If the COTP 

determines that the regulated area need 

not be enforced for the full duration 

stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners may be used to grant general 

permission to enter the regulated area. 

Dated: June 24, 2013. 

G. Loebl, 

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

Port New York. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16618 Filed 7–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OESE–0062; CFDA 

Number: 84.215T] 

Final Priority and Requirements; 

Education Facilities Clearinghouse 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority and requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

announces a priority and requirements 

under the Education Facilities 

Clearinghouse (EFC) program and may 

use one or more of the priority and 

requirements for competitions in fiscal 

year (FY) 2013 and later years. Through 

this action, we intend to support the 

collection and dissemination of best 

practices for the planning, design, 

financing, procurement, construction, 

improvement, operation, and 

maintenance of safe, healthy, and highperforming elementary and secondary 

education facilities. Specifically, this 

priority and requirements will support 

the establishment of a clearinghouse to 

help stakeholders recognize the linkages 

between the school facility and three 

areas: Academic instruction, student 

and community well-being, and school 

fiscal health. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priority 

and requirements are effective August 

12, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat 

Rattler, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 

3E254, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–6718 or by email: 

Pat.Rattler@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Education Facilities Clearinghouse 

program is to provide technical 

assistance and training on the planning, 

design, financing, procurement, 

construction, improvement, operation, 

and maintenance of safe, healthy, and 

high-performing elementary and 

secondary education facilities. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131; 7243– 

7243b. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority and requirements in the Federal 

Register on May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27129). 

That notice contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the particular priority and 

requirements. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority and requirements, four parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priority and requirements. We group 

major issues according to subject. 

Generally, we do not address technical 

and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority and 

requirements since publication of the 

notice of proposed priority and 

requirements follows. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concerns about whether the initiatives 

proposed in the priority and 

requirements could be maintained or 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41695 

lead to change on a long-term basis. The 

commenter also suggested that other 

variables affecting student achievement, 

such as inequality of funding or the 

effect of the community on the school, 

should be addressed in the priority and 

requirements. 

Discussion: We believe that the 

proposal to award a grant under this 

program for multiple years will help 

sustain the effort to support the 

collection and dissemination of best 

practices for the planning, design, 

financing, procurement, construction, 

improvement, operation, and 

maintenance of safe, healthy, and highperforming elementary and secondary 

education facilities. By providing 

support to help increase the capacity of 

States and local educational agencies 

(LEAs), the priority will help support 

long-term change in these specific areas 

by increasing the knowledge and skills 

that education providers have to 

support effective improvements to their 

facilities. We provide funding and 

support through other programs, such as 

Title I, Part A of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (Title I) to help meet the 

additional needs of disadvantaged 

students and to support parent and 

community engagement. For example, 

Title I targets more than $13.7 billion in 

resources to LEAs and schools with high 

numbers or percentages of children from 

low-income families to provide 

additional services that improve the 

teaching and learning of educationally 

at-risk children to help ensure they meet 

State academic standards. In order to 

receive Title I funds, LEAs are required 

under ESEA to ensure that their Title I 

schools, which tend to be those with the 

highest poverty levels, receive resources 

from local and State sources that are 

comparable to those received by nonTitle I schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended we specify in the notice 

of final priority and requirements the 

designations of the priority as absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational. 

Discussion: We appreciate these 

recommendations and have considered 

them in developing the notice inviting 

applications for the fiscal year 2013 EFC 

competition. However, specifying a 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational in a notice of 

final priority commits the Department to 

using the priority that way in all future 

competitions. In order to preserve our 

ability to use this priority as needed and 

to better serve States and LEAs, we are 

not specifying in this notice of final 

priority and requirements whether the 

priority is absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational. We do so in 

the notice inviting applications for the 

2013 competition, published elsewhere 

in this issue of the Federal Register. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we add specific 

qualifications that a successful 

applicant funded under the EFC 

program should have beyond the 

educational sector, namely expertise in 

recognizing and disseminating 

information about specific definitions of 

high-performance buildings identified 

in the Energy Independence and 

Security Act, securing connections to 

relevant professional societies and other 

key stakeholders, executing a complex 

outreach and engagement program, 

managing a robust Web site, and 

influencing decision makers. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

importance of the EFC provider having 

expertise in specific areas; however, we 

decline to require more specific 

qualifications that an applicant must 

meet in order to be eligible for funding. 

Because the EFC will have to 

disseminate information on a range of 

facilities topics, we do not want to limit 

specific areas in which the grantee must 

have knowledge. In addition, some of 

the qualifications recommended by the 

commenter, namely the ability to 

execute outreach and engagement 

programs and manage a Web site, may 

be evaluated through selection criteria 

for this program. Finally, the purpose of 

the EFC is to disseminate information 

on facilities and provide assistance to 

facilities managers; and specifically 

influencing decision makers is beyond 

the scope of this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EFC should provide balanced 

information on best practices for school 

safety and security and school facilities. 

The commenter emphasized that it is 

important for school staff to be able to 

make informed choices about school 

facilities. 

Discussion: In the notice of proposed 

priority and requirements, we included 

a requirement that an applicant for the 

EFC grant must have a plan to track and 

compile research and best practices, as 

well as develop resources that support 

safe, healthy, and high-performing 

school facilities. In addition, this grant 

will be a cooperative agreement, which 

will allow us to work with the grantee 

to ensure that the resources presented 

are supported by evidence, 

comprehensive, and balanced. These 

resources will help support education 

stakeholders in making informed 

decisions about improvements to school 

facilities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we establish an 

absolute priority requiring the grantee to 

collect and disseminate information on 

Green Schools. The commenter 

indicated that having an absolute 

priority would help ensure alignment 

between the ED-Green Ribbon Schools 

program and the EFC program and 

maximize the use of limited resources. 

Discussion: We agree that providing 

information to support the maintenance 

and creation of Green Schools is 

important, and we envision that Green 

Building may be one area in which the 

EFC may provide technical assistance, 

training, and products. However, there 

are numerous organizations that provide 

information to support the adoption of 

green practices in schools. Since this 

information is already provided by 

many organizations and because we 

have limited funds to provide support 

for improving educational facilities, we 

do not believe that including a priority 

on Green Schools would be the most 

effective use of these funds. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we expand the work 

of the EFC to include both collecting 

and analyzing data about the state of 

elementary and secondary school 

facilities and publishing these analyses 

so that they can inform research on the 

relationship between school facilities 

and school quality. 

Discussion: We understand that there 

is a need for data to support additional 

research on the effect of school facilities 

on a number of elements related to 

student learning; however, the central 

purpose of the EFC grant is to provide 

technical assistance and training on the 

planning, design, financing, 

procurement, construction, 

improvement, operation, and 

maintenance of elementary and 

secondary school facilities. Toward this 

end, the EFC may provide links to 

appropriate collections of this 

information, or develop briefs 

summarizing what research and 

statistics currently exist. However, with 

limited funds, we cannot support 

original data collection and analysis, 

especially if the collection and analysis 

are duplicative of what currently exists. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the important balance 

between student safety and creating a 

learning environment that supports trust 

and collaboration. The commenter 

recommended that we include language 

to support this balance in the priority. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

importance of the EFC provider 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
41696 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

understanding the various aspects of, 

and the links between, the school’s 

physical environment and the creation 

of a learning environment that supports 

safety and nurtures trust and 

collaboration. We believe that we have 

included language that supports the 

balance between student safety and 

creating a learning environment that 

supports trust and collaboration. 

Specifically, through the priority and 

requirements, we have included 

specifications that the EFC should 

disseminate research and best practices. 

We consider facilities that serve to keep 

students secure, while supporting a 

nurturing environment, to be an 

example of best practice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Web site created 

by the EFC should include tools to 

facilitate interaction between site 

visitors. The commenter specifically 

recommended using blogs or forums to 

support interaction. 

Discussion: We envision that the Web 

site created by the EFC grantee may 

support a number of resources and 

services to encourage interaction 

between site visitors. However, we do 

not want to be overly prescriptive about 

the specific functions of the Web site, 

which would inhibit applicant 

flexibility to propose and build a site 

that fulfills the goals of the EFC. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed concern over the training 

requirements for the EFC grantee. One 

commenter recommended that the 

requirement to provide trainings be 

changed to an invitational priority so 

that the grantee could focus on resource 

collection and dissemination. This 

commenter also pointed out that an 

entity that is highly skilled at collecting 

and disseminating information on 

school facilities may not be very skilled 

at providing technical assistance and 

training. Other commenters stated that 

by holding only two trainings per year, 

the EFC grantee would not be able to 

provide services to a large number of 

schools that need assistance with their 

facilities. One commenter recommended 

that the trainings occur more than twice 

a year, be open to all stakeholders, and 

include a follow-up component to 

ensure that trainees can effectively 

implement the practices they learned. 

Discussion: We believe that training is 

an important component of the EFC 

grant because it is essential that the 

resources collected and disseminated by 

the EFC also have practical application. 

Providing training helps ensure that the 

resources selected by the EFC support 

the work of school administrators and 

should be a mandatory component of a 

project. Therefore, we decline to change 

requirement 3 to an invitational priority. 

Although requirement 3 states that the 

EFC grantee must conduct a minimum 

of two trainings per year, this does not 

limit the grantee to this minimum. With 

regard to the comment about the 

training audience, we recognize that 

training could be a very valuable tool for 

all education stakeholders; however, 

this grant program provides a limited 

amount of funding and likely cannot 

support training for potentially 

thousands of education stakeholders. 

We believe that the most effective use of 

resources is to focus training on those 

individuals in leadership positions who 

can use their training to effect change 

for a large number of schools. 

Finally, while we recognize that 

follow-up activities would be valuable 

to support the lessons taught at the 

training sessions, we do not want to be 

too prescriptive about the specific 

structure of these trainings. Detailed 

requirements for training provided by 

the EFC will be established in the EFC’s 

cooperative agreement with the 

Department. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority 

Establishment of the Clearinghouse 

Establish a Clearinghouse to collect 

and disseminate research and other 

information on effective practices 

regarding the planning, design, 

financing, procurement, construction, 

improvement, operation, and 

maintenance of safe, healthy, and highperforming facilities for elementary and 

secondary schools in order to— 

(a) Help education stakeholders 

increase their use of education facilities 

to turn around low-performing schools 

and close academic achievement gaps; 

(b) Increase understanding of how 

education facilities affect community 

health and safety and student 

achievement; 

(c) Identify potential cost-saving 

opportunities through procurement, 

energy efficiency, and preventative 

maintenance; 

(d) Increase the use of education 

facilities and outdoor spaces as 

instructional tools and community 

centers (e.g., outdoor classrooms, school 

gardens, school-based health centers); 

and 

(e) Increase capacity to identify 

hazards and conduct vulnerability 

assessments, and, through facility 

design, increase safety against hazards, 

natural disasters, and intruders. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Requirements 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

announces the following requirements 

for this program. We may apply one or 

more of these requirements in any year 

in which this program is in effect. 

Requirement 1—Establish and Maintain 

a Web Site 

An applicant must include in its 

application a plan to establish and 

maintain a dedicated, easily-accessible 

Web site that will include electronic 

resources (e.g., links to published 

articles and research) about the 

planning, design, financing, 

procurement, construction, 

improvement, operation, and 

maintenance of safe, healthy, and highperforming facilities for elementary and 

secondary schools. The Web site must 

be established within 120 days of 

receipt of the award and must be 

maintained for the duration of the 

project. 

Requirement 2—Track and Compile 

Best Practices and Develop Resource 

Materials 

An applicant must include in its 

application a plan to track and compile 

best practices at the State, LEA, and 

school levels and a plan to develop 

resources that support the planning, 

design, financing, procurement, 

construction, improvement, operation, 

and maintenance of safe, healthy, and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41697 

high-performing facilities for elementary 

and secondary schools. 

Requirement 3—Training 

An applicant must include in its 

application a plan to develop and 

conduct at least two training programs 

per year for individuals in leadership 

positions (such as business or 

operations managers) in elementary or 

secondary schools or LEAs, who are 

responsible for the construction and or 

maintenance of elementary and 

secondary education facilities. Training 

topics must include information on the 

planning, design, financing, 

procurement, construction, 

improvement, operation, and 

maintenance of education facilities in 

order to improve the capacity of 

elementary and secondary schools or 

LEAs to make quality decisions 

regarding safe, healthy, and highperforming elementary and secondary 

education facilities. Training must be 

conducted upon request by the 

Department, elementary and secondary 

schools, States, or LEAs, and must be 

conducted by appropriate Clearinghouse 

staff or contractors. 

Requirement 4—Technical Assistance 

An applicant must include in its 

application a plan to provide technical 

assistance, including a plan for 

providing on-site technical assistance to 

elementary schools, secondary schools, 

or LEAs, about issues related to the 

planning, design, financing, 

procurement, construction, 

improvement, operation, and 

maintenance of education facilities. The 

technical assistance may be provided in 

the form of electronic or telephone 

assistance when requested by these 

schools, LEAs, or the Department. Onsite technical assistance visits will be 

conducted upon request by, or based on 

input from, the Department, elementary 

schools, secondary schools, or LEAs and 

must be completed using appropriate 

Clearinghouse staff or contractors. The 

Department must approve in advance all 

technical assistance visits. 

The technical assistance must consist 

of consultation regarding the planning, 

design, financing, procurement, 

construction, improvement, operation, 

and maintenance of education facilities. 

Specific technical assistance topics may 

include information related to: assessing 

facilities and construction plans for 

energy efficiency; conducting 

vulnerability assessments; and 

developing written plans to retrofit 

education facilities to address identified 

hazards and security concerns. 

Technical assistance may also address 

low-cost measures that can be taken to 

enhance the safety and security of 

schools. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority or one or more of these 

requirements, we invite applications through 

a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this final priority and 

these requirements, only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We have determined, also, that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
41698 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: July 8, 2013. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16668 Filed 7–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0839; FRL–9832–3] 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Indiana’s 

request to redesignate the Indianapolis, 

Indiana nonattainment area (Hamilton, 

Hendricks, Johnson, Marion, and 

Morgan Counties) to attainment for the 

1997 annual National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) 

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

because the request meets the statutory 

requirements for redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted this 

request to EPA on October 20, 2009, and 

supplemented it on May 31, 2011, 

January 17, 2013, and March 18, 2013. 

EPA’s approval involves several related 

actions. EPA is making a determination 

that the Indianapolis area has attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. EPA is 

approving, as a revision to the Indiana 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), the 

state’s plan for maintaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 in 

the area. EPA is approving the 

comprehensive emissions inventories 

submitted by IDEM for Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOX), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), primary 

PM2.5, Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOC), and ammonia as meeting the 

requirements of the CAA. Finally, EPA 

finds adequate and is approving 

Indiana’s NOX and PM2.5 Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 2015 and 

2025 for the Indianapolis area. 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 

11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0839. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for the actions? 

II. What actions is EPA taking? 

III. What is EPA’s response to comments? 

IV. Why is EPA taking these actions? 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for the 

actions? 

On October 20, 2009, IDEM submitted 

its request to redesignate the 

Indianapolis, Indiana nonattainment 

area (Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, 

Marion, and Morgan Counties) to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and for EPA approval of the 

SIP revision containing an emissions 

inventory and a maintenance plan for 

the area. IDEM supplemented its 

submission on May 31, 2011, January 

17, 2013, and March 18, 2013. On 

September 27, 2011, EPA published 

proposed (76 FR 59599) and direct final 

(76 FR 59512) rules making a 

determination that the Indianapolis area 

is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard and that the area has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA 

subsequently received adverse 

comments on the direct final rule and 

withdrew it on November 27, 2011 (76 

FR 70361). The proposal was not 

withdrawn. EPA published a 

supplemental proposal on April 8, 2013 

(78 FR 20856). EPA received an adverse 

comment on the supplemental proposal. 

II. What actions is EPA taking? 

EPA is making a determination that 

the Indianapolis area has attained and 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard, that the area has 

attained this standard by its applicable 

attainment date of April 5, 2010, and 

that the area meets the requirements for 

redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

of the CAA. EPA proposed this 

determination based on monitoring data 

showing attainment of the standard for 

the 2006–2008, 2007–2009, and 2008– 

2010 time periods. Quality-assured, 

certified monitoring data for 2011 show 

that the area continues to attain the 

standard, with a 2009–2011 design 

value of 13.1 mg/m3 (see http:// 

www.epa.gov/pm/2012/ 

20092011table.pdf). Monitoring data 

that are now available for 2012 have 

been certified and are consistent with 

continued attainment as well (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/). 

Because the area continues to attain 

the standard and meets all other 

requirements for redesignation under 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), EPA is 

approving the request from Indiana to 

change the legal designation of the 

Indianapolis area from nonattainment to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES