24700 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 81 / Friday, April 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

13. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 023–01, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves amendments to navigation 

regulations and thus, is categorically 

excluded under paragraph 34(i) of the 

Commandant Instruction. A preliminary 

Categorical Exclusion Determination 

(CED) and a preliminary environmental 

analysis checklist are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 162 

Navigation (water), Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 162 as follows: 

PART 162—INLAND WATERWAYS 

NAVIGATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 162 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 162.117 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 162.117, revise paragraph (g)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 162.117 St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, 

Michigan. 

* * * * * 

(g) Speed Rules. (1) The following 

speed limits indicate speed over the 

ground. Vessels, other than those under 

20 meters (65 feet) in length, must 

adhere to the following speed limits. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 5, 2013. 

M.N. Parks, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09853 Filed 4–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0406; FRL–9807–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Dakota; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for 

Interstate Transport of Pollution 

Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze; 

Reconsideration; Announcement of 

Public Hearings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of public hearings; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On March 15, 2013, EPA 

initiated reconsideration of its approval 

of North Dakota’s best available retrofit 

technology (BART) emission limits for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) for Milton R. 

Young Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland 

Olds Station Unit 2, which are coal-fired 

power plants in North Dakota. EPA is 

holding public hearings on May 15, 

2013 to accept written and oral 

comments on this proposed action. The 

comment period for this action was 

scheduled to close on May 14, 2013. 

EPA is extending the comment period to 

June 17, 2013 to allow for a full 30-day 

public comment period for the 

submission of additional public 

comment following the public hearings. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published March 15, 2013 

at 78 FR 16452, is extended. Comments 

must be received on or before June 17, 

2013. The public hearings will be held 

on May 15, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be 

held at the North Dakota Department of 

Health, Environmental Training Center, 

2639 East Main Avenue, Bismarck, ND 

58506. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail 

Fallon, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6281, 

Fallon.Gail@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

15, 2013, we published a proposed rule 

initiating reconsideration of EPA’s 

approval of North Dakota’s BART 

emission limits for NOX for Milton R. 

Young Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland 

Olds Station Unit 2, which are coal-fired 

power plants in North Dakota. See 78 

FR 16452. Public hearings will be held 

on Wednesday, May 15, 2013, from 3 

p.m. until 5 p.m., and again from 6 p.m. 

until 8 p.m. 

The public hearings will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 81 / Friday, April 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24701 

present information and opinions to 

EPA concerning our proposal. Interested 

parties may also submit written 

comments, as discussed in the proposal. 

Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments and supporting information 

presented at the public hearings. We 

will not respond to comments during 

the public hearings. When we publish 

our final action, we will provide written 

responses to all oral and written 

comments received on our proposal. 

At the public hearings, the hearing 

officer may limit the time available for 

each commenter to address the proposal 

to five minutes or less if the hearing 

officer determines it to be appropriate. 

The limitation is to ensure that everyone 

who wants to make comments has the 

opportunity to do so. We will not be 

providing equipment for commenters to 

show overhead slides or make 

computerized slide presentations. Any 

person may provide written or oral 

comments and data pertaining to our 

proposal at the public hearings. 

Verbatim transcripts, in English, of the 

hearings and written statements will be 

included in the rulemaking docket. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: April 12, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09949 Filed 4–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 130213133–3133–01] 

RIN 0648–XC508 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on Petitions To List the 

Great Hammerhead Shark as 

Threatened or Endangered Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: 90-day petition finding, request 

for information, and initiation of status 

review. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90- 

day finding on two petitions to list the 

great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna 

mokarran) range-wide or, in the 

alternative, the Northwest Atlantic 

distinct population segment (DPS) or 

any other identified DPSs as threatened 

or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), and to designate 

critical habitat. We find that the 

petitions and information in our files 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We will conduct a status review of the 

species to determine if the petitioned 

action is warranted. To ensure that the 

status review is comprehensive, we are 

soliciting scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to this species 

from any interested party. 

DATES: Information and comments on 

the subject action must be received by 

June 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

information, or data on this document, 

identified by the code NOAA–NMFS– 

2013–0046, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- 

0046, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

• Fax: 301–713–4060, Attn: Maggie 

Miller. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, (301) 427–8403. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 21, 2012, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians 

(WEG) to list the great hammerhead 

shark (Sphyrna mokarran) as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA 

throughout its entire range, or, as an 

alternative, to list any identified DPSs as 

threatened or endangered. The 

petitioners also requested that critical 

habitat be designated for the great 

hammerhead under the ESA. On March 

19, 2013, we received a petition from 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) to list the northwest Atlantic 

DPS of great hammerhead shark as 

threatened, or, as an alternative, to list 

the great hammerhead shark range-wide 

as threatened, and to designate critical 

habitat. The joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS)/NMFS Endangered 

Species Act Petition Management 

Guidance (1996) states that if we receive 

two petitions for the same species, the 

requests only differ in the requested 

status of the species, and a 90-day 

finding has not yet been made on the 

earlier petition, then the later petition 

will be combined with the earlier 

petition and a combined 90-day finding 

will be prepared. Since the initial 

petition requested listing of the species 

as threatened or endangered and the 

second petition only requested a 

threatened listing, and a finding has not 

been made on the initial petition, we 

have combined the WEG and NRDC 

petitions and this 90-day finding will 

address both. Copies of the petitions are 

available upon request (see ADDRESSES, 

above). 

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 

Provisions and Evaluation Framework 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

requires, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that within 90 days of 

receipt of a petition to list a species as 

threatened or endangered, the Secretary 

of Commerce make a finding on whether 

that petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, and to promptly 

publish such finding in the Federal 

Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When 

it is found that substantial scientific or 

commercial information in a petition 

indicates that the petitioned action may 

be warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day 

finding’’), we are required to promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species concerned during which we will 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1