Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 64403 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it does not 

apply in Indian country located in the 

State, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 30, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 25, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(432) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(432) The following plan was 

submitted on November 14, 2011, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved]. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District Proposed 

Contingency Measures for the 2007 

PM2.5 SIP (dated October 2011) 

(‘‘Contingency Measures SIP’’), adopted 

October 7, 2011. 

(2) SCAQMD Resolution No. 11–24, 

dated October 7, 2011, adopting the 

Contingency Measures SIP. 

(3) Letter dated April 24, 2013 from 

Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, 

SCAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Director, 

Air Division, EPA Region 9, Re: ‘‘Update 

of the 2012 RFP Emissions and 2015 

Reductions from Contingency Measures 

for the 2007 Annual PM2.5 Air Quality 

Management Plan for the South Coast 

Air Basin,’’ including attachments. 

(B) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) CARB Executive Order S–11–023, 

dated November 14, 2011, adopting the 

Contingency Measures SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25182 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 312 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0513; FRL–9902– 

22–OSWER] 

Amendment to Standards and 

Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Because EPA received 

adverse comment, we are withdrawing 

the direct final rule for the Amendment 

to Standards and Practices for All 

Appropriate Inquiries published on 

August 15, 2013. 

DATES: Effective October 29, 2013, EPA 

withdraws the direct final rule 

published at 78 FR 49690, on August 15 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Lentz, Office of Brownfields and 

Land Revitalization (5105–T), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0002; telephone number: 

202–566–2745; fax number: 202–566– 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64404 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1476; email address: lentz.rachel@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because 

EPA received adverse comment, we are 

withdrawing the direct final rule for the 

Amendment to Standards and Practices 

for All Appropriate Inquiries published 

on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49690). We 

stated in that direct final rule that if we 

received adverse comment by 

September 16, 2013, the direct final rule 

would not take effect and we would 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register. We subsequently 

received adverse comment on that direct 

final rule. We will address the 

comments received in any subsequent 

final action. As stated in the direct final 

rule and the parallel proposed rule, we 

will not institute a second comment 

period on the parallel proposed rule 

published on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 

49714). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 312 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Hazardous substances. 

Dated: October 22, 2013. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

Accordingly, EPA withdraws the 

amendments to 40 CFR 312.11(c), 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49690), as of 

October 29, 2013. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25592 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[PS Docket Nos. 11–153 and 10–255; FCC 

13–127] 

Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next 

Generation 911 Applications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) amends the text-to-911 

‘‘bounce-back’’ requirement as it applies 

to Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

(CMRS) providers when consumers are 

roaming. In the May 2013 Bounce-Back 

Order, FCC 13–64, the Commission 

required all CMRS providers and 

providers of interconnected text 

messaging services to provide an 

automatic ‘‘bounce-back’’ text message 

in situations where a consumer attempts 

to send a text message to 911 in a 

location where text-to-911 is not 

available. This document amends the 

rule to specify that when a consumer 

attempts to send a text to 911 while 

roaming on a CMRS network, the CMRS 

provider offering roaming service (host 

provider) satisfies its bounce-back 

obligation provided that it does not 

impede the consumer’s text to the 

consumer’s home network provider 

(home provider) or impede any bounceback message generated by the home 

provider back to the consumer. 

DATES: Effective October 29, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole McGinnis, Federal 

Communications Commission, Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 

445 12th Street SW., Room 7–A814, 

Washington, DC 20554. Telephone: 

(202) 418–2877, email: 

nicole.mcginnis@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration, PS Docket Nos. 11– 

153, 10–255; FCC 13–127, adopted 

September 27, 2013 and released 

September 30, 2013. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20554. This document will also be 

available via ECFS (http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/) or on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.fcc.gov/document/text-911- 

bounce-back-message-order. This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–478–3160 or via the company’s 

Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

I. Background 

1. Bounce-Back Order. In the BounceBack Order, the Commission required 

‘‘all CMRS providers to provide an 

automatic bounce-back message when a 

consumer roaming on a network 

initiates a text-to-911 in an area where 

text-to-911 service is not available.’’ 

Given the important public safety 

implications of the bounce-back 

requirement, the Commission stated that 

‘‘carriers should make automatic 

bounce-back messages available to 

consumers roaming on their network to 

the same extent they provide such 

messages to their own subscribers.’’ 

Accordingly, the bounce-back rule in 

§ 20.18(n) of the Commission’s rules 

contains a specific subsection relating to 

roaming. Section 20.18(n)(7) currently 

provides that: ‘‘A CMRS provider 

subject to § 20.12 shall provide an 

automatic bounce-back message to any 

consumer roaming on its network who 

sends a text message to 911 when (i) the 

consumer is located in an area where 

text-to-911 service is unavailable, or (ii) 

the CMRS provider does not support 

text-to-911 service at the time.’’ 

2. CTIA Petition. On June 28, 2013, 

CTIA filed a petition for 

reconsideration, or in the alternative, for 

clarification, of the roaming provision of 

the Bounce-Back Order. CTIA’s core 

concern is that in a situation where a 

wireless consumer attempts to send a 

text to 911 while roaming on a CMRS 

provider’s network, § 20.18(n)(7) could 

be read to impose an obligation on the 

host provider to originate a bounce-back 

message, which CTIA contends is 

technically infeasible for the host 

provider. CTIA claims that in current 

network architecture for Short Message 

Service (SMS) texting, only the 

consumer’s home provider has the 

technical ability to initiate a bounceback message when the consumer is 

roaming on another network. CTIA also 

contends that § 20.18(n)(7) was adopted 

‘‘with minimal discussion of the rule’s 

practicality or technical feasibility.’’ 

CTIA therefore requests that the 

Commission either eliminate 

§ 20.18(n)(7) or, in the alternative, 

clarify that § 20.18(n)(7) ‘‘applies only to 

home network operators.’’ CTIA further 

suggests that the clarification could be 

accomplished by deleting § 20.18(n)(7) 

and adding language to § 20.18(n)(3), 

which specifies the circumstances 

under which a covered text provider 

must provide an automatic bounce-back 

message, to state that the bounce-back 

requirement applies where the 

consumer is roaming on the network of 

another CMRS provider. CTIA states 

that ‘‘the relief it requests will not 

prevent wireless subscribers who are 

roaming from receiving a bounce-back 

message’’ but merely seeks to ‘‘allocate 

carrier responsibilities in a way that 

aligns with technical realities.’’ 

3. Responsive Pleadings. On July 11, 

2013, the Commission released a Public 

Notice seeking comment on the Petition. 

Several parties filed in support of the 

CTIA petition. AT&T supports the 

Commission ‘‘clarifying that, while 

covered text providers must send a 

bounce-back message alerting end users 

that text-to-911 is unavailable, it is the 

Home Carrier (and not the Host Carrier) 

that is responsible for sending that 

bounce-back message when the end user 

is texting while roaming on another 

carrier’s network.’’ T-Mobile similarly 

contends that, in a roaming scenario, the 

host provider will automatically pass an 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES