Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34801 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0037; FRL–9683–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to 

the Minnesota State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze for 

the first implementation period, 

extending through July 31, 2018. 

Minnesota submitted its regional haze 

plan on December 30, 2009. A draft 

supplemental submission was made on 

January 5, 2012, and in final on May 8, 

2012. EPA proposed to approve this 

plan on January 25, 2012. In response to 

comments, EPA is deferring action on 

emission limitations that Minnesota 

intended to represent best available 

retrofit technology (BART) for taconite 

facilities. As proposed, EPA is also 

deferring action on the requirements for 

Xcel Energy’s Sherburne County 

(Sherco) facility resulting from its 

certification as a source of reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

(RAVI). After reviewing the comments, 

EPA continues to believe approval is 

warranted for the remaining regional 

haze plan elements. This approval is 

being taken in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s rules for states to prevent and 

remedy future and existing 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

in mandatory Class I areas through a 

regional haze program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0037. 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 

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 Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@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 action did EPA propose? 

II. What are EPA’s responses to public 

comments it received? 

III. What is EPA’s plan to address RAVI 

BART for Sherco? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action did EPA propose? 

Minnesota submitted its regional haze 

plan on December 30, 2009, a draft 

supplement on January 5, 2012, and a 

final supplement on May 8, 2012. This 

plan is intended to address regional 

haze requirements for the first 

implementation period, which extends 

through July 31, 2018. These 

requirements are given in CAA section 

169A, and are implemented in the 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) as codified at 

40 CFR 51.308. This rule was 

promulgated on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 

35713), and subsequently amended on 

July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), and on 

October 16, 2006 (70 FR 60631). The 

July 6, 2005, rule provides guidance on 

provisions related to BART. 

EPA proposed approval of the 

Minnesota regional haze plan on 

January 25, 2012 (77 FR 3681). The 

proposed rule described the nature of 

the regional haze problem and the 

statutory and regulatory background for 

EPA’s review of Minnesota’s regional 

haze plan. The proposed rule described 

the regional haze plan requirements 

including requirements for mandating 

BART, consultation with other states in 

establishing goals representing 

reasonable further progress in mitigating 

anthropogenic visibility impairment, 

and adoption of limitations as necessary 

to implement a long term strategy for 

reducing visibility impairment. 

EPA received comments on several 

elements of the Minnesota regional 

plan, including comments on the BART 

determinations for both the electric 

generating units (EGUs) and the taconite 

facilities. 

II. What are EPA’s responses to public 

comments it received? 

In response to its proposed 

rulemaking, EPA received comments 

from ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, 

Incorporated (ArcelorMittal), Cliffs 

Natural Resources (Cliffs), Earthjustice, 

Fresh Energy, the Fond du Lac Band of 

Lake Superior Chippewa (Fond du Lac), 

National Park Service (NPS), Xcel 

Energy, and many citizens. Earthjustice 

commented on behalf of the National 

Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), 

the Minnesota Center for Environmental 

Advocacy, the Friends of the Boundary 

Waters Wilderness, Voyageurs National 

Park Association, and the Sierra Club. 

Fresh Energy is a Saint Paul, Minnesota 

based nonprofit organization that 

focuses on the development of clean 

energy policy. ArcelorMittal and Cliffs 

operate taconite facilities, while Xcel 

Energy operates EGUs in Minnesota. 

The Fond du Lac Band is a tribe based 

in Cloquet, Minnesota. The comments 

are included in the docket, EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0037. The following 

discussion provides a summary of the 

comments and provides EPA’s 

responses. 

Comment: Several commenters, 

including Earthjustice, Fond du Lac, 

and Fresh Energy, urged that EPA not 

allow participation in the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to serve as 

a substitute for meeting the 

requirements for source-by-source 

BART for EGUs. These commenters 

believe that reliance on CSAPR fails to 

meet the CAA requirements for BART, 

and have asserted that EPA’s 

determination that CSAPR is better than 

BART is flawed both as a national rule 

and as applied to Minnesota. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenters. The requirements for a 

BART alternative program, specific to 

trading programs in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), 

state that ‘‘such an emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure 

must achieve greater reasonable 

progress than would be achieved 

through the installation and operation of 

BART.’’ EPA has also completed an 

analysis and proposed CSAPR as an 

alternative to BART for EGUs located in 

the CSAPR states, which include 

Minnesota (76 FR 82219, December 30, 

2011). In finalizing that rule on May 30, 

2012, EPA responded to similar 

comments in the context of that 

rulemaking. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the emissions controls for the EGUs 

are inadequate and that EPA should 

require stricter emission limits. 

Response: In a final rule signed on 

May 30, 2012, EPA finalized its 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34802 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

determination that CSAPR is an 

alternative program to source-specific 

BART for EGUs. This finding allows 

states to substitute participation in the 

CSAPR program for source-specific 

BART. Minnesota has elected to use 

CSAPR as an alternative to BART for 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) emissions from its 

subject EGUs, as it is allowed to do. EPA 

is approving the CSAPR as an 

alternative means of satisfying the 

BART requirement for pertinent 

pollutants for Minnesota’s EGUs. 

Comment: Several commenters 

considered the emissions controls 

required for the taconite facilities to be 

inadequate and urged EPA to require 

stricter emission limits. 

Response: Since proposing approval 

of Minnesota’s regional haze plan, 

including the BART limits for taconite 

facilities, EPA has learned of control 

technology with the potential for further 

emission reductions from taconite 

facilities. EPA is now in the process of 

determining new BART emission limits 

for the BART-subject units at the 

taconite facilities. Therefore, EPA is 

deferring action on the proposed BART 

emission limits for the taconite facilities 

while proceeding with final approval of 

the other plan elements. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

from a substantial number of citizens 

urging that EPA protect the air quality 

at Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness, 

Isle Royale National Park, and 

Voyageurs National Park. 

Response: EPA is committed to the 

goal of the regional haze program, that 

is, to achieve natural visibility 

conditions at mandatory Federal Class I 

areas by 2064. EPA is acting on the 

Minnesota regional haze plan for the 

first implementation period, which 

extends through July 31, 2018. 

Subsequent implementation periods are 

each for approximately 10 years. Future 

emission reductions will be evaluated 

by Minnesota and EPA during the 

midcourse review of Minnesota’s 

regional haze plan and in future 

implementation periods. These further 

emission reductions in the future will 

result in better air quality. Minnesota 

has already developed its Northeast 

Minnesota Plan, which sets a target for 

the combined NOX and SO2 emissions 

in a six county area not to exceed 66,894 

tons per year through 2018. 

Comment: Earthjustice commented 

that the Sherco plant has been certified 

to impair visibility by the Department of 

Interior. Sherco is among the biggest 

contributors to visibility impairment in 

the state. The commenter believes that 

EPA needs to establish BART limits for 

Sherco that comply with Federal 

requirements. 

Response: RAVI involves separate 

requirements from the requirements for 

regional haze, to be met on a different 

timetable. In a separate action, which 

will be subject to public notice and 

comment, EPA will respond to the RAVI 

certification for Sherco. See the 

discussion on planned EPA actions in 

Section III. 

Comment: A citizen commenter stated 

that EPA should not approve a plan that 

is not acceptable to the Federal land 

managers (FLMs). EPA should give due 

weight to the views of the FLMs. 

Response: EPA has provided multiple 

opportunities for consultation on the 

Minnesota regional haze plan with the 

FLMs, and has evaluated and responded 

to, FLM comments on the draft plan, the 

final plan, and our proposed approval. 

EPA has given careful consideration to 

the comments from the FLMs on the 

Minnesota regional haze plan. EPA has 

agreed with many of the comments 

made by the FLMs and, 

correspondingly, has worked with the 

state to make appropriate revisions to 

the SIP. Nevertheless, final 

responsibility for approving or 

disapproving the plan solely belongs to 

EPA. 

Comment: Earthjustice, Cliffs, 

ArcelorMittal, and several citizens 

commented that EPA could not have 

adequately considered public comments 

made to Minnesota during the comment 

period for its regional haze plan 

supplement as EPA issued its proposed 

rule prior to the state finalizing the 

supplement. Plainly, according to 

Earthjustice, the public comment period 

was not considered meaningful by 

Minnesota given that it had already 

decided to submit the supplement to 

EPA and EPA had already proposed 

approval, thereby frustrating the very 

goal of public process. 

Response: As stated in the proposed 

rule, EPA proposed to approve 

Minnesota’s SIP addressing regional 

haze for the first implementation period 

provided it adopted and submitted 

administrative orders consistent with its 

proposed orders. Minnesota submitted 

its regional haze plan supplement on 

May 8, 2012, with the final 

administrative orders. The state had a 

public comment period prior to 

finalizing its supplement. EPA also held 

a public comment period on the 

proposed rule. EPA uses the process, 

known as parallel processing, when a 

final action is warranted on a more 

expedited schedule than would be 

achieved if EPA waits for the state to 

finalize its submission. The criteria for 

parallel processing are given in section 

2.3 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. 

Further discussion of this procedure is 

provided in the rulemaking 

promulgating appendix V, published in 

final on February 16, 1990, at 55 FR 

5824. In this approach, EPA applies a 

premise that the final state submission 

will be sufficiently similar to the draft 

submission such that no significant 

issues are expected to arise in the final 

submission that were not included in 

EPA’s proposed action on the draft 

submission. In cases where this premise 

holds true, the public has adequate 

opportunity to comment on the 

pertinent issues, and a more efficient 

and more expeditious rulemaking is 

achieved. In cases where this premise 

does not hold true, EPA will issue a 

subsequent proposed rule to solicit 

comment on issues that it did not 

anticipate in its initial proposed action. 

By this means, everyone has an 

opportunity to comment on pertinent 

issues, as mandated under Federal law. 

In the specific case of the Minnesota 

regional haze plan, based on comments 

received on the proposed rule, EPA has 

changed what it is approving in the final 

rule. Thus, this process did not preclude 

EPA from receiving new information 

that affected its final action. Further, 

Minnesota supplemented the regional 

plan it submitted on December 30, 2009. 

The supplement updated the BART 

determinations for the EGUs and 

taconite facilities as well as the 

Northeast Minnesota Plan. All other 

elements of the regional haze plan have 

not been changed since being finalized 

in December 2009. 

Comment: The Fond du Lac tribe and 

several citizens commented on plans to 

expand certain existing taconite 

facilities in northeastern Minnesota. 

New taconite facilities are also being 

planned in northeastern Minnesota. The 

commenters noted that the proximity of 

the state’s six taconite facilities to Class 

I areas, along with the magnitude of 

their emissions of haze-causing 

pollutants and the potential new 

sources, makes northeastern Minnesota 

an area of concern with regard to 

visibility. 

Response: EPA is approving the 

Northeast Minnesota Plan as part of the 

Minnesota regional haze plan. The 

Northeast Minnesota Plan is written to 

restrict the total combined SO2 and NOX

emissions from a six county area. 

Minnesota will consider the Northeast 

Minnesota Plan emission targets before 

it issues permits for new and expanding 

sources. There are also best available 

control technology requirements for 

new or expanding sources (that exceed 

certain emissions criteria) to ensure 

sources use the appropriate emission 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34803 

control technology. Minnesota will 

submit an updated regional haze plan 

for each approximately 10-year 

implementation period. These plans 

will include state updates to its long 

term strategy to plan and implement 

visibility protection. Further tracking of 

changes in visibility over time at its 

Class I areas will be provided in 

midcourse reviews required during each 

10-year progress review. EPA is 

confident that the state’s Northeast 

Minnesota Plan, the requirements on 

new sources, and the mandated updates 

to the regional haze plan will 

adequately address potential visibility 

impairment from new or expanded 

sources. 

Comment: Earthjustice commented 

that EPA should issue a Minnesota 

regional haze plan that ensures clean air 

in the Boundary Water Canoe 

Wilderness Area and Isle Royale and 

Voyageurs National Parks. Earthjustice 

believes that EPA should not approve 

the state’s plan and should promulgate 

a replacement plan that more fully 

improves visibility. 

Response: EPA’s evaluation of the 

Minnesota regional haze plan led to the 

conclusion that many plan elements can 

be approved in accordance with the 

requirements of the RHR, and thus EPA 

has finalized its approval of those 

elements in this rule. As noted, EPA is 

not acting on the BART emission limits 

for taconite facilities. EPA is evaluating 

the appropriate emission controls for 

the taconite facilities. Once that is 

determined, EPA will go through a 

public notice and comment rulemaking 

on the BART emission limits for 

taconite facilities. When those BART 

emission limits are finalized, that will 

complete approval of the regional haze 

plan for the first implementation period. 

Comment: Earthjustice commented 

that Minnesota has failed to 

demonstrate that it is unreasonable to 

achieve the Uniform Rate of Progress 

(URP). Minnesota will not attain natural 

visibility by 2064. Minnesota has 

proposed a reasonable progress goal 

(RPG) that will attain natural visibility 

conditions in Boundary Waters in 2093 

and in Voyageurs in 2177. The state will 

consider the reductions that would be 

necessary to achieve the URP and 

demonstrate why such reductions are 

unreasonable. 

Response: EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance states that the URP is not a 

presumptive target for the RPG. The 

state followed the proper approach in 

setting its RPGs through 2018. 

Minnesota considered the four factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). The factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each Class 

I area. Minnesota considered the costs of 

compliance, the time needed for 

compliance, the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts, and the 

remaining useful life of the facility. 

Minnesota also investigated additional 

control options. It investigated 

additional SO2 and NOX control on 

EGUs, SO2 and NOX control on 

industrial boilers, NOX control from 

turbines, and mobile source NOX

reductions. The visibility improvement 

at issue here is the visibility 

improvement for the first 

implementation period, which extends 

until July 31, 2018. New control 

programs in the future that reduce 

emissions may be implemented, which 

would hasten visibility improvement 

and possibly yield an earlier year to 

achieve natural conditions. Minnesota 

will include any additional control 

measures it finds reasonable along with 

any additional measures implemented 

by contributing states in the next 

implementation period. For the first 

implementation period, EPA finds 

adequate Minnesota’s assessment of 

reasonable measures for its long term 

strategy. 

Comment: Earthjustice commented 

that Minnesota’s 2009 source-specific 

BART determinations are wholly 

inadequate, because Minnesota failed to 

engage in a proper five-factor analysis as 

required by the BART guidance. The 

BART guidance provides a methodology 

that assures a careful and detailed 

analysis of the criteria as well as 

consistency within the regional haze 

program. Further, Earthjustice made 

specific comments on the BART 

determinations for the North Shore 

Mining—Silver Bay, Sherco, Minnesota 

Power—Taconite Harbor, Minnesota 

Power—Boswell, and Rochester—Silver 

Lake. 

Response: Minnesota has elected in 

its supplement to use CSAPR 

participation in place of the sourcespecific BART determinations 

submitted in 2009, supplemented by the 

submission of limits for Sherco. EPA 

has determined in a final rule signed on 

May 30, 2012, that CSAPR is an 

alternative program to source-specific 

BART. Therefore, it is acceptable for 

Minnesota to substitute participation in 

the CSAPR trading programs for sourcespecific BART determinations it had 

originally submitted for the EGUs. Thus, 

aside from the limits for Sherco, the 

original BART determinations for the 

EGUs are thus replaced and no longer at 

issue. As for Sherco, EPA in this 

rulemaking is not evaluating whether 

the submitted limits would represent 

BART on a source-specific basis. 

Instead, EPA views the limits for Sherco 

as an enhancement that make the 

Minnesota’s submission more stringent 

than it would be if it simply relied on 

CSAPR to address EGU BART 

requirements. EPA notes that while this 

finding applies to BART requirements 

with respect to regional haze, EPA is 

separately evaluating the RAVI BART 

requirement as it applies to Sherco. EPA 

will consider the comments on the 

BART determination for Sherco during 

this process. 

Comment: Earthjustice commented 

that the taconite facilities in Northern 

Minnesota, due to their discrete location 

and the size of this industry, have not 

been subject to many of the control 

requirements that have been imposed on 

other industrial sectors, such as power 

plants, cement kilns, or refineries. The 

taconite industry is responsible for a 

significant share of visibility 

impairment in Boundary Waters and 

Voyageurs, due to their proximity to the 

Class I areas and high NOX and SO2

emissions. Earthjustice commented that 

these facilities should be subject to 

adequate BART determinations and 

controls, and that neither Minnesota’s 

2009 regional haze plan submission nor 

the plan supplement provide for valid 

BART determinations that will result in 

any real reductions in pollution coming 

from taconite facilities. 

Earthjustice further commented that 

‘‘Minnesota has not done proper BART 

analyses for the taconite facilities and 

therefore the emission limits require no 

real pollution reductions and do not 

satisfy BART requirements.’’ 

Earthjustice further asserted that 

Minnesota failed to conduct an adequate 

BART determination and rejected 

potential control technologies without 

an adequate explanation. Earthjustice 

commented that selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) must be considered for 

controlling NOX at taconite facilities 

and that low NOX burners must be 

considered the absolute minimum NOX

control at taconite facilities. 

Response: In response to this and 

other similar comments, EPA is 

reevaluating the emission controls that 

are warranted to satisfy the BART 

requirements at the taconite facilities in 

Michigan and Minnesota. 

Comment: Earthjustice commented 

that because Minnesota calculated 

emission limits at a 99% confidence 

limit, on a 30-day rolling average, it is 

unlikely that pollution reduction will be 

achieved. 

Response: EPA’s reevaluation of the 

taconite facility emission limits will 

include a reassessment of appropriate 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34804 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

statistics to use in determining the 

appropriate limits. 

Comment: Earthjustice echoed 

comments made by the NPS to EPA that 

the taconite facilities are major causes of 

visibility impairment in several Class I 

areas. Earthjustice (as well as NPS) 

further commented that US Steel 

recently installed modern emission 

monitoring systems and has proposed to 

install, or has already installed, 

emission controls for SO2, NOX, and 

mercury. Data from US Steel’s Minntac 

facility demonstrate that low NOX

burners are economically achieving 

70% reductions of NOX at the facility. 

In its comments, Earthjustice 

encouraged Minnesota and EPA to 

apply this data to require taconite 

facilities to meet lower emission limits 

that reflect the capabilities of available 

technology. 

Response: In light of this comment 

and related new information, EPA is 

reviewing the control technology 

proposed for the taconite facilities. EPA 

is also studying potential controls for 

each facility. Once this review is 

complete, EPA will propose a rule with 

the appropriate controls for those units 

of taconite facilities that are subject to 

BART. Thus, EPA is not taking final 

action on the taconite BART limits of 

the Minnesota regional haze plan. 

Comment: Earthjustice commented 

that it does not agree that CSAPR is 

better than source-specific BART in 

Minnesota. Earthjustice commented that 

the U.S. Forest Service analysis (January 

13, 2012 letter) shows that the predicted 

effect of CSAPR in 2014 is an increase 

in emissions over 2012 actual emissions 

and above what Minnesota proposed as 

source-specific BART and what FLMs 

proposed as source-specific BART. 

Earthjustice asserts that source-specific 

BART to be far superior to CSAPR. 

Response: This comment pertains to a 

separate rulemaking where EPA 

proposed CSAPR as an alternative 

program to source-specific BART for 

EGUS in the CSAPR region. The 

rulemaking was made on May 30, 2012. 

A complete response to this and similar 

comments is provided in that rule and 

the associated response to comments 

document. 

Comment: In its comments, Xcel 

Energy agrees with EPA’s conclusion 

that, if implemented, CSAPR will 

achieve greater environmental 

improvement than BART. Based on the 

emission reductions already achieved 

on Xcel’s units, including emission 

controls installed on Sherco Units 1 and 

2, and the broad reductions that will be 

achieved if CSAPR is implemented in 

Minnesota, Xcel Energy concludes that 

compliance with CSAPR is superior to 

unit specific requirements under section 

169A. Nonetheless, because of the 

uncertain status of EPA’s rulemakings 

and challenges to the CSAPR, Xcel 

Energy believes it is premature to rely 

solely on CSAPR for meeting BART 

requirement in Minnesota. In its 

comments, Xcel Energy urged 

Minnesota and EPA to eliminate the 

risks associated with one or more of 

these rules not proceeding by approving 

both the source-specific BART 

determinations and the BART 

alternative compliance option. If the 

alternative option could not go forward 

for any reason, the Minnesota regional 

haze plan would still contain the 

source-specific BART limits that source 

could use to satisfy their BART 

obligations without requiring Minnesota 

and EPA to undertake further SIP 

revisions. Xcel Energy asserts that 

Minnesota’s BART determination is 

fully approvable, because Minnesota’s 

December 2009 determination for 

Sherco Units 1 and 2 fully satisfies all 

applicable BART requirements. Xcel 

Energy believes that the BART 

determination for these units should be 

retained. 

Response: EPA proposed approving 

CSAPR participation as a BART 

alternative for SO2 and NOX emissions 

from EGUs. Minnesota requested in its 

supplement to the regional haze plan to 

use the CSAPR participation as an 

alternative to the previously submitted 

source specific BART determination for 

EGUs. Thus, EPA did not propose 

approving source-specific BART 

determinations for the EGUs. EPA 

nevertheless believes that it can take 

final action to approve the new limits 

for Sherco units 1 and 2, as set in the 

May 2, 2012, administrative order, as a 

SIP strengthening measure. First, EPA 

received numerous comments urging 

substantial tightening of the limits for 

this plant, and even the source 

requested EPA approval of the tightened 

emission limits. In that respect, this 

final action may be considered to be in 

response to public comments. Second, 

EPA’s action reflects a limited 

evaluation of the administrative order, 

evaluating only whether approving the 

order would result in a more stringent 

SIP. Although the order includes a 

statement that the state and the 

company find the limits to represent 

BART, EPA has not evaluated whether 

these limits would represent BART on 

a source-specific basis. EPA is expressly 

not rulemaking on this question. While 

the administrative order that EPA is 

approving states the opinion of Xcel 

Energy and Minnesota that the limits 

represent BART, EPA’s approval of the 

administrative order should not be 

construed as rendering any EPA opinion 

as to whether the limits would satisfy 

BART on a source-specific basis. Third, 

EPA intends to act in the future 

concerning the BART requirements that 

apply to Sherco as it has been certified 

as a source of RAVI. Rulemaking on that 

matter will provide an opportunity for 

public comment on the appropriate 

limits for Sherco. 

Comment: Xcel Energy commented on 

its Metropolitan Emission Reduction 

Program projects, toward which Xcel 

Energy has invested one billion dollars 

to modernize and reduce emissions 

from three coal-fired generating stations, 

reducing NOX and SO2 emissions from 

those plants by approximately 90%. 

Xcel Energy’s customers are paying for 

these reductions and the reductions are 

key to environmental progress in 

Minnesota. Xcel Energy further 

commented that it has installed the 

pollution controls for NOX indicated by 

Minnesota’s BART determination for 

Sherco. Furthermore, Xcel Energy is 

moving forward with the upgrades to its 

scrubbers to reduce SO2 emissions from 

Sherco. Xcel Energy asserts that these 

projects achieve substantial 

improvements in visibility. 

Response: Reductions in NOX and 

SO2 emissions from Minnesota EGUs 

will aid the state in improving visibility. 

The emission reductions will also 

provide health benefits resulting from 

the improved air quality. EPA 

acknowledges the emission reductions 

resulting from these investments and 

EPA is approving the limits submitted 

by Minnesota as strengthening the SIP. 

Nevertheless, EPA plans further 

rulemaking to address whether this 

plant has addressed its RAVI 

obligations. 

Comment: In its comments, Xcel 

Energy asserts that it relied on EPA’s 

statements in the proposed rule that 

requirements of the RAVI regulations, 

potentially applicable to Sherco, are not 

being addressed in the proposed rule. 

Xcel Energy has reviewed the RAVI 

regulations and seeks to reserve the 

right to comment to EPA on the 

interpretation of the RAVI requirements. 

Xcel Energy also noted that RAVI 

involves different analyses and applies 

different BART guidelines. Further, Xcel 

Energy commented that given that 

almost ten years have passed since the 

modeling baseline was developed for 

the Minnesota regional haze plan and 

emissions have declined significantly in 

the interim, EPA will need to commence 

a new RAVI analysis and 

implementation planning process for 

Minnesota. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34805 

Response: EPA has decided to address 

the RAVI BART emission requirements 

for Sherco separately from the regional 

haze program elements. EPA will offer 

a comment period during the Sherco 

RAVI BART rulemaking. Xcel Energy 

and other interested parties will be able 

to comment on the RAVI BART 

determination for Sherco at that time. 

During subsequent rulemaking on RAVI, 

EPA will take steps to solicit any further 

information that Xcel Energy wishes to 

provide for purposes of determining 

BART under RAVI. 

Comment: In its comments, 

ArcelorMittal expresses its concern that 

EPA published its January 25, 2010, 

proposed rule before Minnesota had 

completed its public comment period 

and Citizens’ Board meeting on the 

regional haze plan supplement. 

Response: EPA’s rulemaking is 

premised on Minnesota submitting a 

final supplement that is sufficiently 

similar to its proposed supplement such 

that the proposed rule provides 

adequate notice for comments. In fact, 

the final supplement does not propose 

any new issues, and therefore, EPA 

believes that its rulemaking on 

Minnesota’s plan provided sufficient 

opportunity for public comment on the 

relevant issues to merit EPA granting 

final approval with respect to most SIP 

elements without requiring an amended 

proposed rule. Note, however, that on 

the issues most likely of concern to 

ArcelorMittal, that is BART for taconite 

plants, EPA plans further rulemaking 

with further opportunity for 

ArcelorMittal and other interested 

parties to comment. 

Comment: ArcelorMittal commented 

that it worked extensively with 

Minnesota to gather the data necessary 

to propose appropriate BART limits for 

the taconite industry. ArcelorMittal 

commented that there is still significant 

work to be done to generate appropriate 

numeric BART limits for the taconite 

industry. It urged EPA to postpone 

action on Minnesota’s SIP to give the 

state more time to fully evaluate the 

appropriate emission limits for the 

taconite industry and to extend the 

Federal comment period to allow a 

reasonable period of time for the public 

to comment. 

Response: EPA agrees that more effort 

is needed to set apposite BART limits 

for the taconite facilities. EPA is 

studying potential controls for each 

taconite facility. Once this review is 

complete, EPA will propose a rule 

requiring the appropriate controls for 

the units subject to BART at the taconite 

facilities. There will be an opportunity 

for public comment during the 

rulemaking process. 

Comment: Cliffs commented that it 

has worked extensively with Minnesota 

for the purpose of developing BART 

limits for the taconite industry. Cliffs 

commented that although Minnesota 

has identified BART determinations, 

developed and implemented 

administrative orders to gather emission 

information, and has proposed numeric 

emission limits, there is still significant 

work to be done to generate appropriate 

numeric limits for the taconite industry. 

Cliffs requested that Minnesota receive 

an opportunity to complete its SIP 

process before EPA proposed a Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) for 

applicable facilities in the taconite 

industry in Minnesota. 

Response: EPA is evaluating the 

BART determinations for the taconite 

facilities in light of new information. 

EPA agrees that considerable work 

remains in determining the correct 

BART limits. EPA will continue to work 

with Minnesota in determining the 

correct limits. Once that is resolved, 

EPA and Minnesota will select the 

appropriate course of action for setting 

the final BART limits for taconite 

facilities. 

Comment: Cliffs commented that it is 

inappropriate to approve Minnesota’s 

SIP before all public comments have 

been submitted and considered, and 

asserts that EPA offered no indication as 

to how this parallel processing can 

comply with the procedural 

requirements of the CAA, the 

Administrative Procedures Act, and 

Minnesota law. 

Response: Appendix V to 40 CFR part 

51 provides relevant guidance on the 

completeness of SIP submittals. Section 

2.3 of this appendix outlines the criteria 

for parallel processing. Further 

discussion of this procedure is provided 

in the rulemaking promulgating 

appendix V, published in final on 

February 16, 1990, at 55 FR 5824. That 

rulemaking addresses in more detail 

how parallel processing is consistent 

with the CAA and the Administrative 

Procedures Act. In the parallel process, 

EPA presumes that the final state 

submission will be sufficiently similar 

to the draft submission such that no 

significant issues would be expected to 

arise in the final submission that had 

not already been raised in the proposed 

rule. Where the premise is correct, the 

public has adequate opportunity to 

comment on the pertinent issues, and a 

more efficient and more expeditious 

rulemaking is achieved. Where the 

premise is not correct, EPA will issue a 

subsequent proposed rule to solicit 

comment on those issues that were not 

included in the initial proposed action. 

By this process, commenters are 

provided an opportunity to comment on 

all pertinent issues, as mandated under 

Federal law. 

In this particular case, EPA believed 

that the circumstances warranted 

parallel processing. EPA anticipated a 

final state regional haze plan 

supplement similar to the proposed 

supplement, such that a parallel 

processing approach would provide the 

public with an opportunity for comment 

on the pertinent issues. EPA followed 

this process in order to expedite action 

on Minnesota’s plan. However, several 

of the comments that EPA received have 

led EPA to believe that more effective 

emission control at taconite plants is 

warranted. EPA intends to issue another 

proposed rule on emission limits for 

taconite plants to provide the public the 

opportunity to comment on EPA’s 

revised views regarding taconite facility 

emission controls. Therefore, the 

commenter’s concern about having an 

adequate opportunity to comment on 

EPA’s proposed action on a final state 

submission is fully addressed. 

Comment: In its comments, Cliffs 

asserts that the numeric limits that were 

included in the proposed 

Administrative Orders for the Cliffs’ 

facilities in Minnesota’s supplement 

were erroneously derived and do not 

reflect the application of BART. Cliffs 

asserts that alternate product lines, fuel 

flexibility, and other considerations 

must be included in developing 

numeric limits that Cliffs will be 

required to meet on a continuous basis. 

Response: EPA is considering new 

information on the BART emission 

limits for taconite facilities. EPA will 

issue a subsequent proposed rule before 

taking final action on the emission 

limits for taconite facilities. EPA will 

consider information from Cliffs 

regarding its taconite facilities before 

taking final action. 

Comment: In its comment letter, Cliffs 

states as follows, 

‘‘Minnesota is clearly under pressure from 

EPA to rush the SIP submission to the 

detriment of Cliffs and the rest of 

Minnesota’s taconite industry. Rather than 

wait for Minnesota’s SIP to be complete, EPA 

is proposing the highly unusual step of 

conditionally approving Minnesota’s SIP 

before Minnesota has had a chance to gather 

all necessary data, let alone finalize its SIP. 

EPA should take all necessary steps to relax 

its own negotiated deadlines to relieve the 

pressure on Minnesota, so that the 

collaborative process that has brought us this 

far is not scuttled by an unfortunate and 

arbitrary rush to codify numeric limits before 

they have completed the critical public 

review process with adequate time and 

resources for reasoned consideration of those 

comments.’’ 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34806 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: The July 1, 1999 RHR (64 

FR 35714) required states to submit a 

regional haze plan by December 17, 

2007. However, many states still 

submitted regional haze plans late, 

including Minnesota, which submitted 

its plan on December 30, 2009. 

Therefore, the taconite industry clearly 

had sufficient time to work with 

Minnesota in setting appropriate BART 

limits. Nevertheless, comments on the 

proposed rule have yielded information 

indicating that greater control of 

taconite facilities is feasible and 

warranted. Consistent with the 

commenter’s recommendation, EPA has 

negotiated additional time to perform a 

review of pollution control options for 

taconite facilities. EPA will issue 

another proposed rule before taking 

final action on emission limits for the 

taconite industry. This process will 

provide an adequate opportunity to 

review any information that the 

commenter provides EPA. 

III. What is EPA’s plan to address RAVI 

BART for Sherco? 

On October 21, 2009, the Department 

of Interior certified that a portion of the 

visibility impairment in Isle Royale 

National Park and Voyageurs National 

Park is caused by emissions from 

Sherco, and thus certified that Sherco 

causes RAVI at these Class I areas. The 

RAVI requirements that were due prior 

to this certification were addressed by a 

Federally promulgated plan because 

Minnesota did not submit a plan 

addressing these requirements. See 40 

CFR 52.1236. In its notice of proposed 

rulemaking, EPA stated its intention to 

act on RAVI requirements in separate 

rulemaking action. EPA is continuing to 

defer action in response to this 

certification of RAVI for Sherco. 

EPA’s final rule, signed on May 30, 

2012, finding that CSAPR addresses 

pertinent EGU BART requirements 

predominantly addresses BART as a 

requirement for regional haze plans but 

also includes limited discussion of 

BART as a requirement for RAVI 

sources. In light of the fact that the 

pertinent notice of proposed rulemaking 

did not request comment on the 

interplay of the RAVI requirements in 

40 CFR 51.302–306 with the 

requirements of the RHR and because 

EPA had not proposed any revisions to 

the applicable regulatory text, EPA did 

not adopt any clarifying interpretations 

of the applicable rules in that 

rulemaking. As a result, neither that 

final rule nor this final action on the 

regional haze SIP for Minnesota alters 

the authority of a FLM to certify RAVI 

nor the obligation of states (or EPA) to 

respond to a RAVI certification under 40 

CFR part 51 subpart P (Protection of 

Visibility). EPA expects at a later date to 

clarify the scope of the RAVI 

requirements through a rule 

amendment, general guidance, or action 

on a SIP or FIP in the context of a 

specific RAVI case, such as that of 

Sherco. Whatever the form, we intend to 

provide an opportunity for public 

comment before applying a new 

interpretation. 

EPA, in fact, intends to conduct 

further rulemaking regarding RAVI 

BART for Sherco within the next few 

months. EPA expects that this 

rulemaking will address the particular 

circumstances for Sherco. This 

rulemaking may also discuss the general 

criteria and considerations that apply in 

determining RAVI BART as compared to 

BART for regional haze purposes. Of 

note here is a letter sent on June 6, 2011, 

from Douglas Aburano, Chief of the 

Control Strategies Section of EPA 

Region 5. This letter states that to the 

extent that source-specific BART is 

required, the available evidence 

suggests that source-specific BART for 

this facility would include installation 

and operation of SCR of NOX emissions. 

The contemplated rulemaking regarding 

RAVI BART for Sherco will provide full 

opportunity for public review of both 

the general issues regarding the 

relationship between BART for RAVI 

purposes and BART for regional haze 

purposes, as well as the particular, 

current facts regarding the 

circumstances at Sherco. 

Xcel Energy commented on EPA’s 

proposal for this final rule that if EPA 

concluded that source-specific BART 

was necessary and that if stricter limits 

than those submitted by the state 

(reflecting combustion controls) were 

required, Xcel Energy requested the 

opportunity to evaluate alternative 

strategies to achieve the emission 

reductions needed to satisfy such a 

BART requirement. Under this scenario, 

EPA would honor this request and 

would conduct discussions with the 

state and with Xcel Energy to assure 

both that the environmental objectives 

of the applicable visibility regulations 

are achieved and that alternate 

approaches allowed by these regulations 

are fully considered. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving Minnesota’s 

regional haze plan as satisfying the 

applicable requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308, except for BART emission limits 

for the taconite facilities. These 

requirements include identifying 

affected Class I areas, calculating the 

baseline and natural visibility, 

establishing RPGs, mandating BART 

emission reductions for the five subject 

to BART EGUs (in this case through 

participation in CSAPR), adopting a 

long term strategy for making reasonable 

progress toward visibility goals, 

providing a monitoring strategy, and 

consulting with other states and the 

FLMs before adopting its regional haze 

plan. 

EPA is deferring action on the BART 

emission limits for the taconite 

facilities. In the proposed rule, we 

stated that the taconite processing 

facilities are a small, unique industry 

with little known about potential 

emission controls. EPA received 

significant information about NOX

controls at one of the Minnesota 

taconite facilities in comments on EPA’s 

proposed rulemaking. EPA has elected 

to defer acting on the BART 

determinations for the taconite facilities 

with the other regional haze plan 

elements. This allows EPA time to 

evaluate properly additional potential 

emission controls for the taconite 

facilities. Under a schedule mandated 

by NPCA consent decree, EPA plans 

additional review of the taconite BART 

determinations leading to a subsequent 

proposed rule by July 13, 2012, and a 

final rule by November 15, 2012. Once 

suitable limits satisfying BART 

requirements for taconite plants are 

established, all requirements for the first 

implementation period for regional haze 

for Minnesota will be satisfied. 

As proposed, EPA intends to act on 

RAVI BART in a separate action. A 

BART determination under the RAVI is 

similar to, but independent from the 

BART determination made under the 

RHR. EPA views Minnesota’s plan as 

addressing regional haze as regulated 

under 40 CFR 51.308 and not RAVI as 

regulated under 40 CFR 51.302 to 

51.306. This rulemaking only addresses 

the regional haze requirements and does 

not address whether the plan addresses 

requirements that apply as a result of 

the certification of Xcel Energy’s Sherco 

power plant as a RAVI source. Thus, 

EPA is not acting on RAVI BART for 

Sherco in this rule. EPA will address the 

requirements that apply based on 

Sherco’s RAVI certification in a separate 

action. Further, while Minnesota 

provided emission limits for Sherco 

units 1 and 2, we are approving these 

limits solely as a SIP strengthening 

measure. EPA is not acting on any 

source-specific BART determinations in 

this rule. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34807 

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 August 13, 2012. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: May 30, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1220 is amended by 

adding an entry in alphabetical order in 

the table in paragraph (d) for ‘‘Xcel 

Energy—Northern States Power 

Company, Sherburne County Generating 

Station’’ and by adding an entry in 

alphabetical order in the table in 

paragraph (e) for ‘‘Regional Haze Plan’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS

Name of source Permit No. State effective 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Xcel Energy—Northern States 

Power Company, Sherburne 

County Generating Station.

Administrative Order .............. 05/02/12 6/12/2012, [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

See Final Rule for details. 

*******

* * * * * (e) * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34808 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective date EPA approved date Comments 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ........... statewide ........................... 12/30/2009 and 5/8/2012 .. 6/12/2012, [Insert page 

number where the document begins].

Includes all regional haze 

plan elements except 

BART emission limitations for the taconite facilities. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–14101 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0394; FRL–9684–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Permit To Construct 

Exemptions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revisions pertain to sources 

which are exempt from preconstruction 

permitting requirements under 

Maryland’s New Source Review (NSR) 

program. EPA is approving these 

revisions in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

13, 2012 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by July 12, 2012. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0394 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: cox.kathleen@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0292, 

Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, Office 

of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 

3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0394. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On October 17, 2011, the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) submitted a formal 

revision (#11–07) to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP 

revision consists of the addition of an 

exemption from preconstruction 

permitting requirements for 

insignificant sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC’s). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Regulation .10 under COMAR 

26.11.02 (Permits, Approvals, and 

Registration) contains exemptions for 

certain sources that are not required to 

obtain approvals or permits to construct 

prior to the construction or modification 

of the affected source. Specifically, 

COMAR 26.11.02.10X (as it currently 

exists in the Maryland SIP) provides 

such an exemption for sources that emit 

less than one (1) ton per year (tpy) of 

each pollutant which is a Class II toxic 

air pollutant, or a pollutant for which 

there is a federal ambient air quality 

standard. Regulation .10X also provides 

such an exemption for sources that emit 

less than one (1) pound per day of a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES