16452 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the omission of condensables in the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ 

were not submitted by West Virginia to 

meet either of those requirements. 

Therefore, if EPA takes final action to 

disapprove these submissions, no 

sanctions under CAA section 179 will 

be triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

CAA section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) no later than two years from 

the date of the disapproval unless the 

State corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. From discussions 

with the State, EPA anticipates that 

WVDEP will make a submission 

rectifying the deficiency regarding 

condensables. Further, EPA anticipates 

acting on WVDEP’s submissions within 

the two year time frame prior to our FIP 

obligation on this very narrow issue. In 

the interim, EPA expects WVDEP to 

account for condensable emissions of 

PM consistent with Federal regulations 

for PSD permitting. EPA is soliciting 

public comments only on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

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. In this case, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove a narrow portion of the 

West Virginia August 2011 SIP 

submittal and PSD portions of other 

related infrastructure submissions 

required by the CAA that do not meet 

Federal requirements. This proposed 

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 proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the 

proposed rule to disapprove a narrow 

provision in the August 2011 SIP 

submission and to disapprove narrow 

portions related to the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ in portions 

of the West Virginia infrastructure SIP 

submissions is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that this action will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects 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. 

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

Dated: March 6, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06068 Filed 3–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0406; FRL–9790–8] 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 6, 2012, EPA 

published a final rule partially 

approving and partially disapproving a 

North Dakota State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submittal addressing regional haze 

submitted by the Governor of North 

Dakota on March 3, 2010, along with 

SIP Supplement No. 1 submitted on July 

27, 2010, and part of SIP Amendment 

No. 1 submitted on July 28, 2011. The 

Administrator subsequently received a 

petition requesting EPA to reconsider 

certain provisions in the final rule. 

Specifically, the petition raised several 

objections to EPA’s approval of the 

State’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. 

In this action, EPA is initiating the 

reconsideration of its approval of the 

NOX BART limits for these units, 

proposing to affirm its approval of these 

limits, and requesting comment on this 

proposal. We are not reconsidering or 

requesting comment on any other 

provisions of the final rule. 

DATES: Comments: Comments must be 

received on or before May 14, 2013 

unless a public hearing is held, which 

would extend the comment period (see 

below). 

Public Hearing: If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by April 8, 2013, a public 

hearing will be held in May 2013 in 

Bismarck, North Dakota. If a public 

hearing is held, the record for this 

action will remain open for 30 days after 

the hearing to accommodate submittal 

of information related to a public 

hearing and any other comments on this 

action, and EPA will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

extending the comment period. For 

more information on a public hearing 

and requests to speak, see the General 

Information section of this preamble. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 16453 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0406, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: r8airrulemakings@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are 

faxing comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2010– 

0406. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://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 http:// 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail 

Fallon, EPA Region 8, at (303) 312– 

6281, or Fallon.Gail@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

B. What information should I know about 

a public hearing? 

II. Background 

III. Today’s Action 

A. Reconsideration and Proposal To Affirm 

B. Rationale for Our Proposal To Affirm 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

• The word Act or initials CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

• The initials ASOFA mean or refer to 

advanced separated overfire air. 

• The initials BACT mean or refer to 

best available control technology. 

• The initials BART mean or refer to 

best available retrofit technology. 

• The initials EGU mean or refer to 

electric generating unit. 

• The words we, us or our or the 

initials EPA mean or refer to the United 

States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

• The initials FIP mean or refer to 

federal implementation plan. 

• The initials LOS mean or refer to 

Leland Olds Station. 

• The initials MRYS mean or refer to 

Milton R. Young Station. 

• The words North Dakota and State 

mean the State of North Dakota unless 

the context indicates otherwise. 

• The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

• The initials PSD mean or refer to 

prevention of signification deterioration. 

• The initials SCR mean or refer to 

selective catalytic reduction. 

• The initials SIP mean or refer to 

state implementation plan. 

• The initials SNCR mean or refer to 

selective non-catalytic reduction. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16454 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1For a full discussion of regional haze 

requirements, please see our proposal at 76 FR 

58574, 58576. 

2Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay and 

Motion for Dispute Resolution, United States, et al., 

v. Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., et al., United 

States District Court for the District of North Dakota, 

Southwestern Division, Civil Action No. 1:06–cv– 

034, Docket EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0406–0365. 

3Among other things, EPA’s BART guidelines, 

codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, describe a 

set of steps for determining BART. CAA section 

169A(b)(2) requires that BART be determined 

pursuant to the BART guidelines for power plants 

with a total generating capacity over 750 megawatts. 

With respect to other BART sources, the BART 

guidelines reflect EPA’s interpretations regarding 

certain key principles related to BART, including 

the two principles described in the text. 

B. What information should I know 

about a public hearing? 

EPA will hold a public hearing on 

today’s document only if it receives a 

request to present oral testimony on the 

issues addressed in today’s document 

by April 8, 2013. Any person wishing to 

present oral testimony should notify Ms. 

Gail Fallon at (303) 312–6281 by 5 p.m. 

mountain time on April 8, 2013. If a 

public hearing is held, it will be held in 

May 2013 in Bismarck, North Dakota. 

We will post information on the 

specifics on our Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/region8/air/ and by 

publishing a Federal Register document 

at least 15 days before the date of the 

hearing. The document announcing a 

hearing would also extend the public 

comment period for 30 days following 

the date of the public hearing. A public 

hearing would provide interested 

parties the opportunity to present data, 

views, or arguments concerning this 

document. 

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 a public 

hearing. We will not respond to 

comments during a public hearing, may 

limit oral testimony to five minutes, and 

will not provide equipment for showing 

overhead slides or computerized slide 

presentations. When we publish our 

final action, we will provide written 

responses to all oral and written 

comments received on our proposal. 

II. Background 

On March 3, 2010, the State of North 

Dakota submitted a regional haze SIP 

submittal for approval into the North 

Dakota SIP.1 The SIP included the 

State’s NOX BART determinations for 

Milton R. Young Station (MRYS) Units 

1 and 2 and Leland Olds Station (LOS) 

Unit 2. Based on its conclusion that 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

plus advanced separated overfire air 

(ASOFA) represented BART at these 

units, the State adopted NOX BART 

limits of 0.36, 0.35, and 0.35 pounds per 

million British thermal units (lb/ 

MMBtu), respectively, on a 30-day 

rolling average basis. The State rejected 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a 

more effective NOX control technology, 

as BART. 

In our proposed action, we proposed 

to disapprove the State’s NOX BART 

determinations for these units. See 76 

FR 58570, 58573 (September 21, 2011). 

In our final rule, we changed our 

position and approved the State’s NOX

BART determinations for these units. 77 

FR 20894, 20897 (April 6, 2012). We 

based our change on a December 21, 

2011, U.S. District Court decision that 

was issued after the close of the public 

comment period. Id. at 20897–20898. 

On June 4, 2012, Earthjustice, on 

behalf of the National Parks 

Conservation Association and the Sierra 

Club, submitted a petition for 

reconsideration of our final rule under 

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

requesting that EPA reconsider its 

approval of the State’s NOX BART 

determinations for MRYS Units 1 and 2 

and LOS Unit 2. The petition asserts 

that the environmental groups were 

unable to raise their objections to EPA’s 

reliance on the District Court decision 

during the comment period because of 

the timing of that decision and that their 

objections are of central relevance to 

EPA’s final rule because EPA relied on 

the District Court decision in explaining 

the basis for its final rule. In a letter to 

Earthjustice dated November 19, 2012, 

EPA granted reconsideration of its final 

rule in order to allow for public 

comment on the specific issues raised in 

the petition. In that letter, we indicated 

that we would publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to address the 

State’s NOX BART determinations and 

limits for the three units as part of a 

reasonable progress analysis. 

III. Today’s Action 

A. Reconsideration and Proposal To 

Affirm 

EPA is initiating the reconsideration 

of its approval of the State’s NOX BART 

determination and limits for MRYS 

Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2 and 

proposing to affirm its approval of the 

determination and limits. We are not 

reconsidering or requesting comment on 

any other provisions of the final rule. 

B. Rationale for Our Proposal To Affirm 

On July 27, 2006, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of North Dakota 

entered a consent decree between EPA, 

the State, and Minnkota Power 

Cooperative (‘‘Minnkota’’). The consent 

decree resulted from an enforcement 

action that EPA and the State brought 

against Minnkota for alleged violations 

of prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting requirements at MRYS 

Units 1 and 2. The consent decree called 

for North Dakota to make a best 

available control technology (BACT) 

determination for NOX for MRYS Units 

1 and 2 and provided a dispute 

resolution procedure in the event of 

disagreement regarding the BACT 

determination. 

In November 2010, North Dakota 

determined BACT for NOX to be limits 

of 0.36 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 1 and 

0.35 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 2 based 

on the use of SNCR technology, with 

separate limits during startup. In 

reaching this decision, North Dakota 

eliminated SCR as BACT based on its 

finding that SCR was not technically 

feasible to control emissions from an 

electric generating unit (EGU) burning 

North Dakota lignite coal. In particular, 

North Dakota noted that no SCR has 

ever been employed on an EGU burning 

North Dakota lignite, that North Dakota 

lignite has unique properties that have 

the potential to quickly degrade the SCR 

catalyst, and that no catalyst vendor 

supplied with the specifications for the 

coal at MRYS Units 1 and 2 would 

provide a guarantee of catalyst life 

without first conducting slipstream or 

pilot tests at MRYS. 

EPA disagreed with North Dakota’s 

findings and the selection of SNCR as 

BACT and initiated the dispute 

resolution process under the consent 

decree. Under the consent decree, the 

court was to uphold North Dakota’s 

BACT determination unless the 

disputing party was able to demonstrate 

that North Dakota’s decision was 

unreasonable. 

On December 21, 2011, following 

briefing by the parties, and 

consideration of North Dakota’s record 

for its BACT determination, the court 

determined that EPA had not 

demonstrated that North Dakota’s 

findings were unreasonable.2 The court 

decided that North Dakota, based on the 

administrative record for its BACT 

determination, had a reasonable basis 

for concluding that SCR is not 

technically feasible for treating North 

Dakota lignite at MRYS. Id. The court 

upheld North Dakota’s determination 

that SNCR is BACT. Id. 

Two critical principles expressed in 

our BART guidelines3 are relevant here. 

First, as part of a BART analysis, 

technically infeasible control options 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 16455 

4See docket EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0406–0038. 

5We note that the State submitted the record from 

the BACT proceeding to us on July 28, 2011 as a 

SIP revision and again during the comment period 

on our September 21, 2011 notice of proposed 

rulemaking on the State’s regional haze SIP. 

6The associated BART limits are 0.36 lb/MMBtu 

for MRYS Unit 1, 0.35 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 

2, and 0.35 lb/MMBtu for LOS Unit 2, on a 30-day 

rolling average basis. The SIP contains separate 

limits for MRYS Units 1 and 2 during startup of 

2070.1 and 3995.6 pounds per hour, respectively, 

on a 24-hour rolling average basis. See SIP section 

7.4.2, p. 74. 

are eliminated from further review. For 

BART, EPA’s criteria for determining 

whether a control option is technically 

infeasible are substantially the same as 

the criteria used for determining 

technical infeasibility in the BACT 

context. 70 FR 39165; EPA’s ‘‘New 

Source Review Workshop Manual,’’ 

pages B.17–B.22.4 In the BART context, 

a technology is feasible if it is available 

and applicable. 70 FR 39165. A 

technology is available if it can be 

obtained through commercial channels. 

An available technology is applicable if 

it can reasonably be installed and 

operated on the source under 

consideration.Id. The BACT analysis for 

technical feasibility employs the same 

approach. It, too, uses the concepts of 

availability and applicability and 

defines those terms in the same manner 

as the BART guidelines. 

The second critical principle is that 

states generally may rely on a BACT 

determination for a source for purposes 

of determining BART for that source, 

unless new technologies have become 

available or best control levels for recent 

retrofits have become more stringent. 70 

FR 39164. As a general rule, the 

selection of a recent BACT level as 

BART is the equivalent of selecting the 

most stringent level of control, and 

consideration of the five statutory BART 

factors becomes unnecessary. 

In deciding our challenge to the 

information and analyses relied upon by 

North Dakota, the U.S. District Court 

upheld North Dakota’s recent BACT 

determination based on the same 

technical feasibility criteria that apply 

in the BART context. In light of the 

court’s decision and the views we have 

expressed in our BART guidelines on 

the relationship of BACT to BART, we 

concluded in our final rule that it would 

be inappropriate to proceed with our 

proposed disapproval of SNCR as BART 

and our proposed federal 

implementation plan (FIP) to impose 

SCR at MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS 

Unit 2. 77 FR 20898. While LOS Unit 2 

was not the subject of the BACT 

determination, the same reasoning that 

applies to MRYS Units 1 and 2 also 

applies to LOS Unit 2. It is the same 

type of boiler burning North Dakota 

lignite coal, and North Dakota’s views 

regarding technical infeasibility that the 

U.S. District Court upheld in the MRYS 

BACT case apply to it as well. 

While we do not view the U.S. 

District Court’s decision regarding 

technical infeasibility as legally binding 

concerning our evaluation of the State’s 

BART determinations at MRYS Units 1 

and 2 and LOS Unit 2, we find it 

appropriate, under the unique 

circumstances involved here, to accord 

substantial weight to the District Court’s 

decision and the State’s BACT 

determination. The District Court 

evaluated competing arguments 

advanced by the State, Minnkota, and 

EPA, as well as an extensive record,5

and concluded that the State had not 

reached an unreasonable conclusion 

about technical feasibility. The District 

Court affirmed the State’s choice of 

SNCR plus ASOFA as BACT. Our BART 

guidelines indicate that recent BACT 

determinations generally may be 

considered BART without further 

analysis. Based on these facts, we are 

not acting arbitrarily or capriciously, or 

unreasonably, in determining that the 

State’s selection of SNCR plus ASOFA 

as BART at MRYS Units 1 and 2 and 

LOS Unit 2 is reasonable and should be 

approved.6 We note that evaluations of 

technical feasibility often change over 

time and that we may reach a different 

conclusion about the technical 

feasibility of SCR at these plants in the 

future as part of a reasonable progress 

analysis. The regional haze program 

requires additional reasonable progress 

reviews over time on the multi-year 

path for states to reach the ultimate 

visibility goal of the CAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action would merely approve 

state law as meeting federal 

requirements and would impose no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. In this 

reconsideration, EPA is proposing to 

affirm its prior approval of North Dakota 

SIP requirements for two sources in 

North Dakota. This type of action is 

exempt from review under Executive 

Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 

21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the 

action applies to just two facilities, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act does not 

apply. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s action on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this action on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

this reconsideration, EPA is proposing 

to affirm its prior approval of North 

Dakota SIP requirements for two sources 

in North Dakota. The proposed action, 

if finalized, merely would approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

would impose no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. We continue to be interested 

in the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires federal agencies, 

unless prohibited by law, to assess the 

effects of their regulatory actions on 

state, local, and tribal governments and 

the private sector. The action imposes 

no enforceable duty on any state, local 

or tribal governments or the private 

sector. In this reconsideration, EPA is 

proposing to affirm its prior approval of 

North Dakota SIP requirements for two 

sources in North Dakota. The proposed 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16456 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

action, if finalized, merely would 

approve state law as meeting federal 

requirements and would impose no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Again, in this reconsideration, EPA is 

proposing to affirm its prior approval of 

North Dakota SIP requirements for two 

sources in North Dakota. The proposed 

action, if finalized, merely would 

approve state law as meeting federal 

requirements and would impose no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action would not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because, if 

finalized, it merely would approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

would impose no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. In the 

spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and state 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this action from 

state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 because it does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs and 

does not preempt tribal law. In this 

reconsideration, EPA is proposing to 

affirm its prior approval of North Dakota 

SIP requirements for two sources in 

North Dakota. The proposed action, if 

finalized, merely would approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

would impose no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it implements specific standards 

established by Congress in statutes. In 

addition, it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action because it 

applies to only two facilities and merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements; it would 

impose no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. This 

action would not present a 

disproportionate health or safety risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

VCS are inapplicable to this action 

because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this action, 

if finalized, will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. The 

action, if finalized, merely would 

approve state law as meeting federal 

requirements and would impose no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Nitrogen dioxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 8, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06072 Filed 3–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–284] 

Service Obligations for Connect 

America Phase II and Determining Who 

Is an Unsubsidized Competitor 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission seeks 

comment on how it will determine 

which census blocks are served by an 

unsubsidized competitor, how price cap 

carriers will demonstrate they are 

meeting the Commission’s requirements 

for reasonable comparability, and what 

other providers will need to 

demonstrate to be deemed unsubsidized 

competitors. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 28, 2013 and reply comments are 

due on or before April 12, 2013. If you 

anticipate that you will be submitting 

comments, but find it difficult to do so 

within the period of time allowed by 

this notice, you should advise the 

contact listed below as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 10–90, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People With Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS