3120 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

burden analyzed in the IFR remains the 

same. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

We received no comments on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act portion of the 

IFR and none of the changes to the 

regulation increase or decrease the 

burden associated with the regulation. 

OMB initially approved the collection of 

information necessary to implement the 

150 percent limit under OMB control 

number 1845–0116 on an emergency 

basis, which limited the collection’s 

authority to six months (the emergency 

approval of the collection expires on 

December 31, 2013). The collection is 

currently undergoing full Paperwork 

Reduction Act review, with the 

attendant 60- and 30-day comment 

periods. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In the IFR we requested comments on 

whether the regulations would require 

transmission of information that any 

other agency or authority of the United 

States gathers or makes available. 

Based on the response to this request 

and our review, we have determined 

that these final regulations do not 

require transmission of information that 

any other agency or authority of the 

United States gathers or makes 

available. 

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. 

You may also view this document in 

text or PDF at the following site: 

www.ifap.ed.gov. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number: 84.268 William D. Ford Direct loan 

Program) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 685 

Colleges and universities, Education 

loan programs—education, Student aid. 

Dated: January 14, 2014. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary amends part 

685 of title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 685—WILLIAM D. FORD 

FEDERAL DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 685 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070g, 1087a, et seq., 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 685.200 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (f)(1)(iii), removing 

the words ‘‘down to the nearest quarter’’ 

and adding, in their place, the words ‘‘to 

the nearest tenth’’. 

■ B. In the formula for calculating a 

subsidized usage period in paragraph 

(f)(1)(iii), adding the words ‘‘for annual 

loan limit purposes’’ after the words 

‘‘days in the academic year’’. 

■ C. In paragraph (f)(4)(i), adding the 

word ‘‘full’’ before the words ‘‘annual 

loan limit’’. 

■ D. In paragraph (f)(4)(ii), removing the 

words and punctuation ‘‘Except as 

provided in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this 

section, for’’ and adding ‘‘For’’ in their 

place. 

■ E. Adding paragraph (f)(8). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 685.200 Borrower eligibility. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(8) Special admission degree 

programs. (i) For purposes of calculating 

the maximum eligibility period, a 

bachelor’s degree program that requires 

an associate degree or the successful 

completion of at least two years of 

postsecondary coursework as a 

prerequisite for admission has a 

program length of four years. 

(ii) For purposes of calculating the 

maximum eligibility period, a selective 

admission associate degree program that 

requires an associate degree or the 

successful completion of at least two 

years of postsecondary coursework as a 

prerequisite for admission has a 

program length of four years. For 

purposes of this paragraph (f)(8)(ii), a 

selective admission associate degree 

program— 

(A) Admits only a selected number of 

applicants based on additional 

competitive criteria which may include 

entrance exam scores, class rank, grade 

point average, written essays, or 

recommendation letters; and 

(B) Provides the academic 

qualifications necessary for a profession 

that requires licensure or a certification 

by the State. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–00928 Filed 1–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0650; FRL–9905–54- 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Consent Decree Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of 

Indiana’s construction permit rule for 

sources subject to the state operating 

permit program regulations. These 

provisions authorize the state to 

incorporate terms from Federal consent 

decrees and Federal district court orders 

into these construction permits. EPA is 

also approving public notice 

requirements for these permit actions. 

These rules will help streamline the 

process for making Federal consent 

decree and Federal district court order 

requirements permanent and Federally 

enforceable. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 18, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0650. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 3121 

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 Sam 

Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–3189 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam 

Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–3189, portanova.sam@

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 EPA addressing in this document? 

II. What is EPA’s response to adverse 

comments? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is EPA addressing in this 

document? 

On March 15, 2013, EPA published a 

direct-final rule approving 326 IAC 2–7– 

10.5(b) and 326 IAC 2–7–10.5(k) as 

revisions to Indiana’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) (78 FR 

16412). This rule revision authorizes 

Indiana to issue construction permits to 

sources subject to the state operating 

permit program regulations at 40 CFR 

part 70 (part 70 sources) that include 

requirements from Federal district court 

orders that adjudicate violations and 

Federal consent decrees. Permits 

incorporating these requirements are 

issued to sources that are subject to title 

V of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This rule 

revision also requires public notice 

procedures for these permitting actions. 

On the same date, EPA also proposed 

to approve the revisions (78 FR 16449). 

On May 6, 2013, in a separate action, we 

withdrew the direct final rule because 

we received adverse comments (78 FR 

26258). The proposed approval 

remained in effect. Today, we are 

responding to those comments and 

taking final action to approve Indiana’s 

SIP revision request. 

II. What is EPA’s response to adverse 

comments? 

EPA received one set of adverse 

comments on the March 15, 2013, 

proposed approval of this Indiana rule. 

EPA’s response to these comments is as 

follows: 

Comment: Federal consent decrees 

are not applicable requirements under 

title V and should not be incorporated 

into title V permits. EPA should 

equivocally state whether or not consent 

decree requirements are title V 

applicable requirements as there 

appears to be conflicting guidance on 

this point. 

Response: The title V issue raised by 

this comment is not directly related to 

this action because this action 

authorizes Indiana to incorporate 

consent decree terms in construction 

permits, not title V permits. However, if 

consent decree terms are incorporated 

into a construction permit, there are 

consequences under title V. The 

definition of ‘‘applicable requirement’’ 

in 40 CFR 70.2 includes ‘‘[a]ny term or 

condition of any preconstruction 

permits issued pursuant to regulations 

approved or promulgated through 

rulemaking under title I of the Act. 

. . .’’ These construction permits are 

issued pursuant to programs approved 

by EPA under title I of the CAA. Thus, 

once the title I permits are issued, the 

terms, including terms reflecting 

requirements from Federal district court 

orders and Federal consent decrees, are 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ under this 

provision of the title V regulations and 

must be included in the source’s title V 

permit. See also 326 IAC 2–7–1(6)). 

Comment: Not all consent decree 

requirements are permanent and thus 

some should expire at the time of 

consent decree termination. It should 

also be noted that requirements that 

become ‘‘permanent’’ under title V are 

not really permanent—they can be 

changed or modified by going through a 

new permit application. 

Response: For the reasons discussed 

above, the title V issue raised by this 

comment is not directly related to this 

action. The rule does not require the 

Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) to incorporate all 

consent decree requirements into 

construction permits, only ‘‘control 

requirements and emission limitations.’’ 

However, some requirements are 

intended to remain in effect after the 

consent decree terminates. Specifically, 

some consent decrees require a source 

to establish emission limitations and 

control requirements on a permanent 

basis (e.g., through a SIP revision or a 

construction permit). 

Comment: Not all consent decree 

requirements are necessarily instances 

of noncompliance with existing 

requirements. If some consent decree 

requirements are required to be 

incorporated into title V permits and/or 

construction permits, the consent decree 

requirements can be included in a 

permit application as a compliance 

schedule for the alleged non-compliance 

cited in the consent decree. There is no 

need for this additional authority. 

Response: For the reasons discussed 

above, the title V issue raised by this 

comment is not directly related to this 

action. However, once the title I permits 

are issued, the terms are ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ under subparagraph (2) 

of the definition of ‘‘applicable 

requirement’’ in 40 CFR 70.2 and must 

be included in the source’s title V 

permit. Also, the rule does not require 

IDEM to incorporate all consent decree 

provisions into the construction 

permits, only those relating to control 

requirements and emission limitations. 

Comment: It is also curious why the 

authority is limited to Federal consent 

decrees and does not also include state 

agreed orders. 

Response: The CAA requires SIPs to 

contain enforceable limitations. See 

Section 110(a)(2)(A). It does not address 

the Federal enforceability of state agreed 

orders. As such, it is not necessary to 

establish a Federally enforceable 

requirement pursuant to title I of the 

CAA for state orders. 

Comment: Why is there a need for 

additional public comment for 

incorporating Federal consent decree 

requirements into title V permits? There 

is ample time for the public to comment 

on Federal consent decrees after the 

decree is lodged before it is entered by 

the court. Any requirements that are 

required to be put into a permit should 

be done as an administrative 

amendment without any comment by 

the public or EPA. Why create 

additional un-needed bureaucracy? 

Response: For the reasons discussed 

above, the title V issue raised by this 

comment is not directly related to this 

action because this action authorizes 

Indiana to incorporate consent decree 

terms in construction permits, not title 

V permits. The intent of this rule is to 

lessen the bureaucratic burden on the 

state with regards to implementing 

consent decree requirements. The 

method IDEM currently uses for 

establishing consent decree 

requirements as permanent and 

Federally enforceable is to adopt them 

as source-specific SIP requirements. 

This process is more resource-intensive 

and time consuming than the state 

construction permit process provided 

for in 326 IAC 2–7–10.5(b). 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving Indiana’s source 

construction permit rule provisions 

applicable to Part 70 sources at 326 IAC 

2–7–10.5(b) and 326 IAC 2–7–10.5(k). 

These provisions authorize the state to 

incorporate terms from Federal consent 

decrees or Federal district court orders 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
3122 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

into these construction permits and 

provide a public notice requirement for 

these actions. 

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 

CAA 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 CAA. 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 CAA; 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 the SIP is 

not approved to 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 March 18, 2014. 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 Subject in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 2, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 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. 

■ 2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding a new entry 

in ‘‘Article 2. Permit Review Rules’’ for 

‘‘Rule 7. Part 70 Permit Program’’ in 

numerical order to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana citation Subject 

Indiana 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Notes 

*******

Article 2. Permit Review Rules 

*******

Rule 7. Part 70 Permit Program 

2–7–10.5 ................... Part 70 permits; source modifications.03/7/2012 01/17/2014, [INSERT PAGE 

NUMBER WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

(b) and 

(k) only. 

* * * * * * * 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 12 / Friday, January 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 3123 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–00751 Filed 1–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 4, and 12 

[PS Docket No. 13–75; PS Docket No. 11– 

60; FCC 13–158] 

Improving 9–1–1 Reliability; Reliability 

and Continuity of Communications 

Networks, Including Broadband 

Technologies 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) adopts rules to improve 

the reliability and resiliency of 911 

communications networks nationwide 

by requiring that 911 service providers 

take ‘‘reasonable measures’’ to provide 

reliable 911 service. Providers subject to 

the rule can comply with the reasonable 

measures requirement by either 

implementing certain industry-backed 

‘‘best practices’’ the Commission 

adopted, or by implementing alternative 

measures that are reasonably sufficient 

to ensure reliable 911 service. The FCC 

also requires 911 service providers to 

provide public safety answering points 

(PSAPs) with timely and actionable 

notification of 911 outages. 

DATES: Effective February 18, 2014 

except for § 12.4(c) and (d)(1), which 

contain information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by Office of Management and 

Budget. The Federal Communications 

Commission will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

P. Schmidt, Attorney Advisor, Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 

(202) 418–1214 or eric.schmidt@fcc.gov. 

For additional information concerning 

the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, contact 

Benish Shah, (202) 418–7866, or send 

an email to PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in PS Docket No. 13–75 and 

PS Docket No. 11–60, FCC 13–158, 

released on December 12, 2013. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online 

at http://www.fcc.gov/document/fccadopts-rules-improve-911-reliability. 

I. Introduction 

1. The Commission was spurred to 

adopt these rules following the 

devastating impact many 

telecommunications networks 

experienced as a result of the 

unanticipated ‘‘derecho’’ storm in June 

2012. This storm swiftly struck the 

Midwest and Mid-Atlantic United 

States, leaving millions of Americans 

without 911 service and revealing 

significant, but avoidable, 

vulnerabilities in 911 network 

architecture, maintenance, and 

operation. After a comprehensive 

inquiry into the causes of 911 outages 

during the derecho, as well as 911 

network reliability more generally, the 

FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau) 

determined that many of these failures 

could have been mitigated or avoided 

entirely through implementation of 

network-reliability best practices and 

other sound engineering principles. 

2. The Commission requires 911 

service providers to take ‘‘reasonable 

measures’’ to provide reliable 911 

service, based on best practices 

developed by the FCC’s 

Communications Security, Reliability, 

and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) 

advisory committee, with refinements 

designed to add clarity and specific 

guidance regarding how those practices 

should be implemented in the context of 

911 networks. Providers will 

demonstrate their compliance by filing 

an annual certification. The certification 

elements the Commission are based on 

best practices identified by CSRIC as 

critical or highly important, indicating 

that they significantly reduce the 

potential for a catastrophic failure of 

communications or—at a minimum— 

improve the likelihood of emergency 

call completion. 

3. The Commission seeks to maximize 

flexibility and account for differences in 

network architectures without 

sacrificing 911 service reliability. 

Accordingly, service providers that 

certify annually that they have 

implemented certain industry-backed 

‘‘best practices,’’ will be deemed to 

satisfy the reasonable measures 

requirement. Providers may also certify 

that they have taken alternative 

measures reasonably sufficient in light 

of the provider’s particular facts and 

circumstances to ensure reliable 911 

service, so long as they briefly describe 

such measures and provide supporting 

documentation to the Commission. 

Similarly, service providers may 

respond by demonstrating that a 

particular certification element is not 

applicable to their networks, but they 

must include a brief explanation of why 

the element does not apply. 

4. Based on the information included 

in the certifications, the Commission 

may require remedial action to correct 

vulnerabilities in a service provider’s 

911 network if it determines that (a) the 

service provider has not, in fact, 

adhered to the best practices 

incorporated in our rules or, (b) in the 

case of providers employing alternative 

measures, that those measures were not 

reasonably sufficient to mitigate the 

associated risks of failure in one or more 

of these three key areas. The 

Commission delegates authority to the 

Bureau to review certification 

information and follow up with service 

providers as appropriate to address 

deficiencies revealed by the certification 

process. 

5. The FCC also amends its outage 

reporting rules under part 4 to clarify 

Covered 911 Service Providers’ 

obligations to provide PSAPs with 

timely and actionable notification of 

outages affecting 911 service. 

II. Background 

A. 911 Network Architecture 

6. The primary function of the 911 

network is to route emergency calls to 

the geographically appropriate PSAP 

based on the caller’s location. When a 

caller dials 911 on a wireline telephone, 

the call goes to the local switch serving 

that caller, as is typical with any other 

call. The local switch then sends the 

call to an aggregation point called a 

selective router, which uses the caller’s 

phone number and address to determine 

the appropriate PSAP to which the call 

should be sent. Calls to 911 from 

wireless phones flow through a switch 

called a mobile switching center before 

reaching the selective router. For 

wireless calls, the sector of the cell 

tower serving the call provides the 

approximate location of the caller and is 

used to determine to which PSAP the 

call is sent. To complete the call, a 

connection is set up between the 

selective router and the appropriate 

PSAP, typically through a central office 

serving that PSAP. 

7. Once a 911 call reaches the 

appropriate PSAP, the PSAP queries an 

automatic location information (ALI) 

database to determine the location of the 

caller. For wireline calls, ALI is based 

on the address associated with the 

caller’s phone number. For wireless 

calls, providers use various technologies 

to determine the caller’s location. 

Because ALI is passed to the PSAP 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES