8478 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1The main channels between the Port of Montreal 

and Lake Erie have a controlling depth of 8.23m. 

(2) Have a diameter not greater than 

28 mm for wire line and not greater than 

64 mm for approved synthetic lines; 

* * * * * 

(e) Hand held synthetic lines if 

permitted by the Manager or 

Corporation shall meet the criteria in 

paragraph (a) and shall have a minimum 

length of not less than 65 meters. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 401.14 to read as follows: 

§ 401.14 Anchor marking buoys. 

(a) A highly visible anchor marking 

buoy of a type approved by the Manager 

and the Corporation, fitted with 22 m of 

suitable line, shall be secured directly to 

each anchor so that the buoy will mark 

the location of the anchor when the 

anchor is dropped. 

(b) Every vessel shall deploy the 

anchor marking buoy when dropping an 

anchor in Seaway waters. 

■ 4. In § 401.28, revise paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 401.28 Speed limits. 

* * * * * 

(d) Notwithstanding the above speed 

limits, every vessel approaching a free 

standing lift bridge shall proceed at a 

speed so that it will not pass the Limit 

of Approach sign should the raising of 

the bridge be delayed. 

5. Revise § 401.29 to read as follows: 

§ 401.29. Maximum draft. 

(a) Notwithstanding any provision 

herein, the loading of cargo, draft and 

speed of a vessel in transit shall be 

controlled by the master, who shall take 

into account the vessel’s individual 

characteristics and its tendency to list or 

squat, so as to avoid striking bottom.1

(b) The draft of a vessel shall not, in 

any case, exceed 79.2 dm or the 

maximum permissible draft designated 

in a Seaway Notice by the Manager and 

the Corporation for the part of the 

Seaway in which a vessel is passing. 

(c) Any vessel equipped with an 

operational Draft Information System 

(DIS) verified by a member of the 

International Association of 

Classification Societies (IACS) as 

compliant with the Implementation 

Specifications found at http:// 

www.greatlakes-seaway.com and having 

onboard: 

(1) An operational AIS with 

accuracy=1 (DGPS); and 

(2) Up-to-date electronic navigational 

charts; and 

(3) Up-to-date charts containing highresolution bathymetric data, and 

(4) The DIS Display shall be located 

as close to the primary conning position 

and be visible and legible; and 

(5) A pilot plug, if using a portable 

DIS; will be permitted, when using the 

DIS, subject to paragraph (a) of this 

section, to increase their draft by no 

more than 7 cm above the maximum 

permissible draft prescribed under 

paragraph (b) of this section in effect at 

the time. 

(d) Verification document of the DIS 

must be kept on board the vessel at all 

times and made available for inspection. 

(e) A company letter attesting to 

officer training on use of the DIS must 

be kept on board and made available for 

inspection. 

(f) Any vessel intending to use the DIS 

must notify the Manager or the 

Corporation in writing at least 24-hours 

prior to commencement of its initial 

transit in the System with the DIS. 

(g) Any vessel intending to use the 

DIS to transit at a draft greater than the 

maximum permissible draft prescribed 

under paragraph (b) of this section in 

effect at the time, for subsequent transits 

must fax a completed confirmation 

checklist found at www.greatlakesseaway.com to the Manager or the 

Corporation prior to its transit. 

(h) If for any reason the DIS or AIS 

becomes inoperable, malfunctions, or is 

not used while the vessel is transiting at 

a draft greater than the maximum 

permissible draft prescribed under 

paragraph (b) of this section in effect at 

the time, the vessel must notify the 

Manager or the Corporation 

immediately. 

■ 6. Revise § 401.49 to read as follows: 

§ 401.49. Dropping anchor or tying to 

canal bank. 

Except in an emergency, no vessel 

shall drop anchor in any canal or tie-up 

to any canal bank unless authorized to 

do so by the traffic controller. Every 

anchor shall be suitably rigged for 

immediate release, holding and efficient 

retrieval. 

■ 7. Revise § 401.73 to read as follows: 

§ 401.73 Cleaning tanks—hazardous cargo 

vessels. 

(a) Cleaning and gas freeing of tanks 

shall not take place: 

(1) In a canal or a lock; 

(2) In an area that is not clear of other 

vessels or structures; and 

(3) Before gas freeing and tank 

cleaning has been reported to the 

nearest Seaway station. 

(b) Hot work permission. Before any 

hot work, defined as any work that uses 

flame or that can produce a source of 

ignition, cutting or welding, is carried 

out by any vessel on any designated St. 

Lawrence Seaway Management 

Corporation (SLSMC) approach walls or 

wharfs, a written request must be sent 

to the SLSMC, preferably 24 hours prior 

to the vessel’s arrival on SLSMC 

approach walls or wharfs. The hot work 

shall not commence until approval is 

obtained from an SLSMC Traffic Control 

Center. 

(c) Special Requirements for Tankers 

Performing Hot Work. Prior to arriving 

at any SLSMC designated approach wall 

or wharf, a tanker must be gas free or 

have tanks inerted. The gas-free 

certificate must be sent to the SLSMC 

Traffic Control Center in order to obtain 

clearance for the vessel to commence 

hot work. 

■ 10. In § 401.79 revise paragraph (b)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 401.79 Advance notice of arrival, vessels 

requiring inspection. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Tug/barge combinations not on the 

‘‘Seaway Approved Tow’’ list are 

subject to Seaway inspection prior to 

every transit of the Seaway unless 

provided with a valid Inspection Report 

for a round trip transit. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on January 31, 

2013. 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation. 

Craig H. Middlebrook, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02601 Filed 2–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–61–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0954 and EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0037; FRL–9772–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; States 

of Michigan and Minnesota; Regional 

Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: In this supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking, EPA is soliciting 

additional comments on its proposal to 

disapprove in part the Michigan and 

Minnesota regional haze State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) for failure 

to mandate best available retrofit 

technology (BART) for taconite facilities 

within these states. This proposal 

supplements an August 15,2012, action 

that proposed to disapprove these 

elements of these SIPs and to establish 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8479 

Federal emission limits representing 

BART. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 8, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket IDs No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0954 and EPA–R05–OAR– 

2010–0037, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket IDs No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

0954 and EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0037. 

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. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the 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 

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 John 

Summerhays at (312) 886–6067 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s review of Minnesota and 

Michigan’s BART determinations for 

taconite facilities? 

A. Minnesota 

B. Michigan 

IV. How does this action relate to the action 

to promulgate Federal requirements for 

taconite plants? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

Minnesota submitted its regional haze 

plan on December 30, 2009, and further 

submitted a proposed supplemental 

submission on January 5, 2012, and a 

final supplemental submission on May 

8, 2012. EPA proposed approval of the 

Minnesota plan on January 25, 2012 (77 

FR 3681). Among other actions, this 

proposed rule proposed to approve 

Minnesota’s plan as requiring BART for 

the State’s several taconite plants, 

provided Minnesota submitted its 

proposed taconite plant BART limits 

prior to final EPA action. However, 

comments on Minnesota’s and EPA’s 

proposals provided evidence that better, 

cost-effective technology for control of 

taconite plant emissions was available. 

Therefore, EPA published a final rule 

approving other aspects of the 

Minnesota regional haze plan on June 

12, 2012 (77 FR 34801), but deferred 

action on BART for Minnesota’s taconite 

facilities. 

Michigan submitted its regional haze 

plan on November 5, 2010. EPA 

proposed action on the Michigan 

regional haze plan on August 6, 2012 

(77 FR 46912). This proposed rule 

proposed to approve several aspects of 

Michigan’s regional haze plan, and 

proposed to disapprove Michigan’s 

BART determinations for a Portland 

cement plant and a paper mill and 

proposed Federal limits for those two 

facilities. However, in this proposed 

rule, EPA deferred action on BART for 

the Tilden Mining taconite facility in 

Michigan. EPA published final action 

pursuant to this proposal on December 

3, 2012 (77 FR 71533), again deferring 

action on BART for the Tilden Mining 

taconite plant in Michigan. 

Michigan has a second taconite plant, 

known as Empire Mining. While Empire 

Mining began operation during the 

statutory timeframe such that the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8480 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

facility is BART-eligible, Michigan’s 

plan demonstrates satisfactorily that the 

impact of this facility is sufficiently 

small, as a result of the enforceable 

shutdown of one line, that the facility 

may justifiably be exempted from the 

BART requirement. On the other hand, 

Michigan’s plan identifies Tilden 

Mining as meeting the criteria for being 

subject to BART. Thus, references in 

this action to taconite plants in 

Minnesota and Michigan are meant to 

refer only to taconite plants in 

Minnesota and Michigan that are subject 

to BART, which includes all of the 

taconite plants in Minnesota and Tilden 

Mining in Michigan but does not 

include the Empire Mining plant. 

On August 15, 2012 (77 FR 49308), 

EPA published proposed action on 

BART for taconite plants in Minnesota 

and Michigan. In that action, EPA 

reviewed relevant information regarding 

the feasibility of various options for the 

control of emissions from taconite 

plants and reviewed other information 

relevant to determining BART for these 

plants. 

Based on this review and the 

availability of cost-effective controls, 

EPA proposed Federal emission limits 

requiring more stringent control of 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) than had been 

required by Minnesota or Michigan. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

proposing these limits provided a full 

discussion of why EPA proposed to 

conclude that proper consideration of 

the BART criteria resulted in more 

stringent control than was required by 

the States, thus implicitly concluding 

that the state submittals did not require 

controls representing BART. 

Furthermore, the action proposed 

regulatory text stating that the state 

submittals failed to require BART for 

the taconite plants. 

Nevertheless, EPA is publishing this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking to provide additional 

information regarding the agency’s 

views on Minnesota’s and Michigan’s 

plans and to solicit additional comment 

regarding the proposal to disapprove in 

part the plans for failing to require 

BART at the applicable taconite plants. 

EPA is not soliciting further comment 

on its proposed Federal limits; this 

action only addresses whether the state 

plans must be disapproved for failing to 

provide proper analysis and require 

BART for applicable taconite plants. 

Further discussion regarding the 

relationship between this action and the 

action published August 15, 2012 is 

provided below. 

Previous notices of proposed 

rulemaking addressing the States’ plans, 

i.e., the actions published January 25, 

2012, and August 6, 2012, for Minnesota 

and Michigan, respectively, include 

substantial discussion of the 

requirements under sections 169A and 

169B of the Clean Air Act and subpart 

P of 40 CFR 50 for regional haze plans. 

Most pertinent to today’s action are the 

requirements for BART in Clean Air Act 

section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e). In 

making BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires 

the state to consider the following 

factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

(3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; (4) the 

remaining useful life of the source; and 

(5) the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. 

III. What is EPA’s review of Minnesota 

and Michigan’s BART determinations 

for taconite facilities? 

A. Minnesota 

In its December 30, 2009, regional 

haze SIP submittal, Minnesota 

identified the types of controls that it 

determined to represent BART for its 

taconite plants. In all cases, good 

combustion practice was determined to 

represent BART with respect to the 

control of NOX, existing controls were 

determined to represent BART for the 

control of SO2, and the maximum 

achievable control technology limits in 

40 CFR part 63 subpart RRRRR were 

determined to represent BART for the 

control of particulate matter. However, 

this submittal included no enforceable 

emission limits to require emissions 

control at these facilities. 

To remedy this deficiency, Minnesota 

proposed emission limits nominally 

representing good combustion practice 

for these facilities on December 19, 

2011. EPA provided comments on this 

proposal, stating that more stringent 

limits were warranted and necessary 

because ‘‘information supporting low 

NOX main burners as BART is well 

documented and has been available for 

some time.’’ See letter dated February 

10, 2012, signed by Douglas Aburano. 

These comments provided a timetable 

showing that an analysis in January 

2009 of measures for reducing NOX

emissions at U.S. Steel’s Minntac Iron 

Ore Pelletizing Plant recommended 

pursuing use of low NOX main burners. 

Initial tests were sufficiently successful 

that a report on these efforts, issued on 

April 13, 2010, recommended further 

testing. Then, U.S. Steel submitted a 

report to Minnesota on October 22, 

2010, with test results from Minntac’s 

Line 7 that indicated that a 70 percent 

reduction in NOX emissions was 

achievable via a low NOX main burner. 

U.S. Steel reported similar results for 

Minntac Line 6 to Minnesota on 

December 1, 2011. 

Nevertheless, Minnesota’s submittal 

did not demonstrate requisite 

consideration of this evidence regarding 

the availability and feasibility of this 

more effective control technology. In 

2008, the owners of each taconite 

facility asserted that a low NOX main 

burner was infeasible. Minnesota, in its 

December 2009 SIP submittal 

summarily concurred with the facilities, 

and the State in its May 2012 submittal 

did not reconsider the feasibility of this 

control option. 

EPA’s BART Guidelines identify a 

five-step process for conducting a BART 

analysis, step two of which is to 

determine whether the available options 

identified in step one are technically 

feasible. The state ‘‘should document a 

demonstration of technical infeasibility 

and should explain, based on physical, 

chemical, or engineering principles, 

why technical difficulties would 

preclude the successful use of the 

control option on the emissions unit 

under review.’’ See Section IV Step 2 of 

the BART Guidelines, also at 70 FR 

39163. Minnesota provided no such 

demonstration and included no 

explanation why this control option 

should be considered infeasible. Beyond 

lacking any discussion of relevant 

principles bearing on whether the 

feasibility of low NOX burners in other 

industries suggests that low NOX main 

burners are feasible for taconite 

facilities, Minnesota’s submittals do not 

discuss the successful demonstration of 

this control option at U.S. Steel’s 

facilities or explain why this control 

option should not be considered feasible 

at these plants and at the other 

Minnesota taconite plants. Since 

Minnesota improperly considered low 

NOX main burners to be infeasible, the 

State’s plan lacked the necessary 

analysis of the costs, emission 

reductions, visibility benefits, and other 

relevant information to determine 

whether these controls represent BART. 

Instead, in its May 2012 submittal, 

Minnesota stated ‘‘The [Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)] 

understood the purpose of the 

Supplemental SIP was to establish 

emission limits that correspond to the 

previously determined BART 

technology. The MPCA does not believe 

that completing the emission limits is a 

vehicle for completely re-evaluating the 

BART determinations for the taconite 

facilities.’’ Minnesota conceded that the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8481 

tests at Minntac ‘‘indicate a potential to 

reach a 70 percent reduction in NOX

emissions at the subject lines [under 

certain conditions],’’ but Minnesota 

characterized the tests as ‘‘pilot tests’’ 

that could not be used without 

substantial additional effort to establish 

appropriate BART limits. See the 279th 

page of the Minnesota document 

entitled ‘‘Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan Supplement April 

2012.’’ 

EPA has several objections to 

Minnesota’s rationale for failing to 

require low NOX burners as BART for its 

taconite plants. When EPA proposes an 

action but then receives significant 

evidence favoring an alternate action, 

EPA must consider that evidence and 

take the alternate action if warranted. 

See Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 

(9th Cir. 2012). Although EPA initially 

proposed to approve Minnesota’s 

taconite limits, EPA then received 

evidence that disapproval was 

warranted because more effective 

controls were available. EPA’s 

consideration of this evidence resulted 

in EPA’s August 15, 2012, proposal to 

disapprove in part Minnesota’s regional 

haze plan with respect to BART for 

taconite plants and in EPA’s action 

today to publish this supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

EPA believes that Minnesota is under 

similar obligation to reconsider its 

taconite plant BART limits. The State 

solicited comments regarding the limits 

it proposed to establish for its taconite 

plants, the State received comments 

demonstrating that significantly tighter 

limits were warranted, and the State did 

not give due consideration to those 

comments. The failure to promulgate 

limits reflecting low NOX main burners 

is especially problematic for Minntac, 

where the benefits of this technology 

had been physically demonstrated. 

Minnesota also did not give due 

consideration to the evidence that 

similar technology could be expected to 

achieve similar emission reductions and 

benefits at other Minnesota taconite 

plants. 

Furthermore, even at the time 

Minnesota submitted its original 

regional haze SIP (December 2009), 

information was available that low NOX

main burners, which had been 

successfully demonstrated in several 

other industries, were likely to be a 

successful technology for reducing NOX

emissions from taconite facilities as 

well. Although EPA did not have the 

relevant information when it published 

its January 2012 proposed rulemaking, 

the above chronology suggests that 

Minnesota had information even in 

2009 that warranted considering low 

NOX main burners to be a feasible 

technology. 

The requirements in Minnesota’s final 

submittal also reflect significant 

modifications from the control 

technology that the State determined in 

2009 to reflect BART. Minnesota 

determined in 2009 that good 

combustion practice represented BART. 

However, aside from requiring 

continuation of the heat recuperation 

project at the Hibbing Taconite Plant, 

Minnesota’s final submittal provided no 

evidence that good combustion practice 

is actually required. Minnesota did not 

explain what specific measures 

constitute good combustion practice, 

stating only that good combustion 

practice varies from plant to plant. 

However, Minnesota did not define 

good combustion practice either in 

general or on a plant-by-plant basis. 

Minnesota determined emission 

limits by conducting statistical analyses 

of full sets of recent emissions data 

measured at the taconite plants. While 

existing emissions may in some cases 

reflect some good combustion practices, 

Minnesota did not differentiate whether 

any particular data did or did not 

represent application of good 

combustion practice. Thus, Minnesota’s 

limits must be considered to represent 

simply the existing combustion practice 

in effect during the testing, without 

regard to whether these limits reflect 

application of good combustion 

practices. Because the companies were 

required to collect these data for 

purposes of determining these limits, 

with instructions to operate under worst 

case conditions, it is reasonable to 

conclude that the companies would not 

have employed good combustion 

practices, as those would not have 

created ‘‘worst case conditions.’’ 

Further, Minnesota’s submittal did 

not determine whether good combustion 

practices beyond those currently being 

implemented are feasible, either in 

general or on a plant-specific basis. 

Minnesota’s December 2009 submittal 

determined that BART would be good 

combustion practice, suggesting that 

BART would reflect identification, 

evaluation, and implementation of 

improvements in combustion practice. 

However, Minnesota’s final submittal 

lacks any such identification, 

evaluation, or requirement for any such 

improvement in combustion practice. 

Moreover, the submittal does not 

evaluate whether current combustion 

practice (or, more precisely, the 

combustion practice in place during 

collection of the pertinent emissions 

data) represents good combustion 

practice. In these respects, while 

Minnesota’s December 2009 submittal 

determined BART for NOX to be good 

combustion practice, Minnesota’s final 

submittal contained no provisions 

ensuring that good combustion practice 

will actually be followed. 

Minnesota’s final submittal also 

deviates in other significant respects 

from its December 2009 submittal. 

Minnesota’s final submittal relies on the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to satisfy 

the BART requirement for most of the 

State’s electric generating units, whereas 

its December 2009 plan determines 

BART on a plant-by-plant basis. The 

long-term strategy in Minnesota’s final 

plan provides for taconite plants to 

conduct modeling and to recommend 

emission limits that would provide for 

attainment of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

and SO2 air quality standards, whereas 

the December 2009 plan provides for the 

companies to conduct pilot testing of 

emission control technology. EPA is not 

conducting rulemaking here on these 

features of Minnesota’s regional haze 

plan, but these changes demonstrate 

that Minnesota recognized its latitude to 

update portions of its December 2009 

submittal significantly in light of more 

recent information. Similarly, 

Minnesota cannot argue that it was 

obligated to set limits based on its 

December 2009 BART determination, in 

the face of evidence that more effective 

control is available. 

EPA is also concerned that Minnesota 

rejected flue gas desulfurization as a 

feasible option for control of SO2

emissions at United Taconite (UTac). At 

this facility, Minnesota made its initial 

BART determination at a time when 

UTac’s Line 1 fired only natural gas or 

fuel oil and when UTac’s Line 2 fired a 

variety of fuels including coal and 

petroleum coke. Minnesota determined 

at that time that BART for SO2 for UTac 

reflected the existing particulate matter 

scrubbers on both lines (without further 

optimization to control SO2 emissions) 

and fuel blending to reduce SO2

emissions on Line 2. Minnesota 

concluded that flue gas desulfurization 

for these lines was not cost effective. 

UTac subsequently obtained a permit 

to burn solid fuels on Line 1. Best 

available control technology (BACT) 

was not required in this permit because 

Minnesota concluded that the fuel 

blending measures that it had 

determined to be BART for Line 2, 

which it incorporated into the permit, 

would yield a net SO2 emission 

reduction. Consequently, the fuel 

change did not constitute a major 

modification requiring BACT. 

Minnesota also chose not to conduct a 

revised BART analysis, determining 

limits reflecting existing controls with 

the original fuels and then adopting an 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8482 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1While this rulemaking does not address Federal 

limits that EPA is promulgating elsewhere, it is 

relevant to note that EPA is promulgating final 

limits based on the source burning low sulfur fuels. 

alternate set of limits that it found 

equivalent. 

EPA believes that Minnesota 

improperly rejected the use of flue gas 

desulfurization as a cost effective 

technology for reducing SO2 emissions 

from UTac’s two lines. As discussed in 

the August 15, 2012, notice of proposed 

rulemaking, EPA believes that flue gas 

scrubbing, particularly in combination 

with proper fuel blending, is 

considerably more cost effective than 

the cost effectiveness estimates in 

Minnesota’s plan. Furthermore, the 

significant change in operation at the 

plant warranted reanalysis of BART at 

this plant. The higher sulfur content of 

the new fuels made more aggressive 

emission control more cost effective, so 

that a proper reanalysis of BART could 

have concluded that BART for the new 

configuration reflected more control and 

lower emissions than the original 

configuration. Minnesota’s analysis of 

the plant using its previous fuel mix 

does not adequately evaluate the 

appropriateness of controls for the plant 

as it is currently operated.1

EPA also has a variety of concerns 

about the enforceability of Minnesota’s 

chosen limits. Minnesota’s limits are 

expressed as 30-day rolling averages, 

but Minnesota in many cases does not 

require continuous emission monitoring 

systems (CEMS) to provide data for 

evaluating compliance. In the absence of 

CEMS, Minnesota requires ‘‘stack 

testing * * * for 30 hourly data points.’’ 

Even if the average of the 30 data points 

exceeds the emission limit, the data can 

be contested as not necessarily 

representative of the 720 hours that are 

in a 30-day average. Minnesota has not 

addressed whether 720 consecutive 

hours of stack testing is even 

practicable, though none of the data 

used to develop emission limits appears 

to have been collected in this manner. 

EPA has special concerns about the 

enforceability of the CEMS requirement 

for Hibbing Taconite. Minnesota 

requires that the company submit a plan 

for installing a NOX CEMS, but it is not 

clear from the administrative order 

thatMinnesota or EPA could take 

enforcement action if Hibbing Taconite 

failed to install, certify, and properly 

operate a CEMS at this facility. 

The SO2 emission limits in 

Minnesota’s administrative orders are 

expressed in terms of pounds of SO2

emissions per long ton of pellets 

produced. Pellet production is not 

routinely measured at the end of an 

indurating furnace. Further, the 

administrative orders do not specify 

methods for determining pellet 

production by indurating furnaces and 

do not specify any requirement for the 

companies to keep records of pellet 

production. Therefore, the 

enforceability of these limits is also 

unclear. 

The administrative order for Hibbing 

Taconite also provides that the company 

may determine that its limits are not 

feasible to meet. In that case, the order 

identifies information that the company 

must submit to Minnesota so that the 

State can consider revised emission 

limits. These provisions raise questions 

about whether EPA could enforce the 

terms of the administrative order if the 

company has declared the limits to be 

infeasible. 

EPA also has concerns about the 

methods for computing emission limits. 

For Arcelor/Mittal and Hibbing 

Taconite, Minnesota appears to have set 

the limit using the upper predictive 

limit approach. The equation for 

calculating the upper predictive limit 

for normally distributed data is: 

Where: 

UPL = Upper predictive limit 

n = number of data points 

m = number of future data points 

df = n ¥ 1 

X ̄ is the mean, 

tp,df represents the critical t-value with a pvalue of p and df degrees of freedom, and 

s is the standard deviation 

The available emissions data for these 

facilities appear not to be normally 

distributed, and so the upper predictive 

limit equation that Minnesota used is 

not appropriate for this application. In 

addition, the analyses contained in the 

Minnesota submittal do not 

appropriately apply the upper 

predictive limit approach for normally 

distributed data. Most notable is the use 

of inappropriate values for tp,df and m. 

A normal distribution has a lower tail of 

the distribution with the same 

frequency as the upper tail of the 

distribution. In seeking, for example, to 

establish the 95th percentile value in a 

normal distribution, a one tailed test 

must be applied, such that the upper tail 

contains five percent of the distribution 

and the lower tail is simply part of the 

95 percent of the distribution at or 

below the 95th percentile value. 

However, Minnesota selected its values 

for tp,df based on statistics for two tailed 

tests, which derive, for example, a 95 

percent confidence interval that reflects 

a 2.5 percent upper tail and a 2.5 

percent lower tail, which would yield a 

97.5th percentile value. (Because 

normal distributions are symmetric, this 

error can be addressed by using a value 

of tp,df for twice as much frequency 

outside the confidence interval, e.g., 

using a two-tailed value of tp,df for a 

confidence interval of 90 percent in 

order to derive the 95th percentile 

value, but Minnesota did not make this 

adjustment.) Thus, Minnesota selected 

values of tp,df that were unduly high, and 

higher in the emissions distribution 

than Minnesota was purporting to 

choose. 

In the above formula, m represents the 

number of future runs, i.e., the number 

of future data points. Given that the data 

sets being used in the analyses are onehour averages, with CEMS, the value of 

m should be 720 (30 days times 24 

hours). At a minimum, under 

administrative orders that in the 

absence of CEMS apparently determine 

compliance on the basis of 30 hourly 

data points (presumably intended to 

represent 30-day average emissions), the 

appropriate value of m would be 30. 

For ArcelorMittal, Minnesota appears 

to have set the limit based on a p-value 

of 0.01 (which in a normal distribution 

would yield an upper tail of 0.5 percent 

and thus a 99.5 percentile value) and m 

= 3. These values do not represent 

appropriate values for p or m. 

Furthermore, Minnesota did not base 

its limits for this facility directly on the 

original data set, but instead used the 

157 original data points to create 

multiple artificial data sets, each 

including 2000 sets of 30 values 

randomly selected from the original 157 

values. Minnesota then performed 

statistical analysis of these data sets, 

using the mean of the original 157 data 

points plus an adjustment based on the 

highest standard deviation among the 

various artificial data sets that was 

intended to provide a 99th percent 

upper predictive limit value. Minnesota 

does not justify use of these artificial 

data sets as providing a better 

representation of emissions or being a 

better basis for determining an 

appropriate emission limit than direct 

use of the original data set, nor does 

Minnesota justify using this particular 

combination of statistics. 

Also of note is the fact that the 

average of the 157 data points is 

significantly higher than the results of 

stack tests conducted between June 

2000 and April 2009; specifically, the 

average is 17 percent higher than the 

highest of these stack test results and 32 

percent higher than the average of these 

stack test results. This suggests that the 

data set on which Minnesota used to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06FE13.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8483 

derive its emission limits reflected 

poorer combustion practice than was in 

place during the prior stack tests. This 

raises further questions as to whether 

the data sets on which Minnesota bases 

its limits can even be considered to 

reflect good combustion practice, much 

less BART-level emission control. 

For Hibbing Taconite, Minnesota 

appears to have set the limit based on 

a p-value of 0.05 (which would 

represent a 97.5% confidence interval) 

and m = 1. Again, these are not 

appropriate values for p or m. 

For Northshore Mining, Minnesota 

appears to have had very little 

emissions data available as a basis for 

setting a limit. The hood exhaust 

portion of the limit appears to be based 

on one test data point multiplied by a 

‘‘compliance margin’’ of 1.73. The state 

provided inadequate justification for the 

1.73 multiplier. The waste gas portion of 

the limit appears to be based on a 95 

percent upper confidence limit (onetailed test) and three data points. 

For the U.S. Steel-Minntac and 

-Keetac facilities, Minnesota set facilitywide limits in terms of tons of SO2 per 

day. Minnesota has not demonstrated 

that limiting the sum of emissions 

across multiple lines requires control 

and visibility benefits that are better 

than those that would be obtained by 

requiring BART on each line. 

In summary, the BART 

determinations for taconite facilities in 

Minnesota’s plan reflect several 

deficiencies. Most notably, Minnesota 

inappropriately rejects significant 

emission control options as being 

infeasible. Minnesota summarily states 

that low NOX main burners are 

infeasible, without providing the 

necessary explanation as to why this 

technology could not be applied and 

without properly considering evidence 

at U.S. Steel’s Minntac plant 

demonstrating successful operation of 

this control. Similarly, Minnesota 

inappropriately rejected control options 

requiring significant reductions in SO2

emissions. Minnesota determined that 

good combustion practice represents 

BART for NOX control for these plants, 

but the State did not define the 

measures that constitute good 

combustion practice, the State did not 

evaluate what good combustion 

practices might be implemented either 

in general or at specific plants, and the 

State provided no basis to believe that 

its adopted limits in fact reflect good 

combustion practice. Finally, EPA has 

concerns about the enforceability and 

the derivation of several of the limits in 

Minnesota’s plan. 

B. Michigan 

As with Minnesota’s plan, EPA’s 

primary concern with Michigan’s plan 

for the Tilden Mining facility is the 

failure of the plan to require emission 

control that fully represents BART. The 

Michigan plan provides no limits on 

NOX emissions, and Michigan relies on 

a state permit to provide a limit on SO2

emissions that is over four times higher 

than current emissions. Thus, rather 

than require implementation of BART, 

Michigan’s plan allows Tilden Mining 

to increase emissions to levels 

substantially higher than the levels that 

are occurring now. 

For NOX, Michigan nominally is 

defining BART to reflect ‘‘good 

combustion practices,’’ but in fact 

neither Michigan nor Tilden Mining 

provide any analysis of what these 

practices might be and whether any 

such measures that are not currently 

being implemented might be required to 

be instituted. Michigan’s plan thus 

might be considered to define BART to 

reflect existing combustion practices, 

except that Michigan’s plan provides no 

limits that would require even the 

existing combustion practices to be 

maintained. Instead, Michigan’s plan 

states that Michigan ‘‘accepts Tilden’s 

proposal to set a BART NOX emission 

limit in a manner similar to the 

Minnesota Regional Haze SIP. The new 

NOX limits will be set after testing to 

determine appropriate limits based on 

‘good combustion practices’ before 

December 31, 2012.’’ See page 36 of the 

document entitled, ‘‘State 

Implementation Plan Submittal for 

Regional Haze’’ dated October 2010. The 

plan anticipates that the company will 

perform stack testing to develop 

information on which to base such 

limits. However, Michigan has provided 

no information to EPA that it has taken 

any of the steps that it would need to 

take to establish these limits. In 

response to a request under authority of 

Clean Air Act section 114, Tilden 

Mining provided EPA the results of 

three stack tests at each of the two 

furnace stacks. However, Michigan has 

submitted no information providing any 

analysis of emission limits to indicate 

what limit it might find appropriate, 

and Michigan has evidently not adopted 

and has not submitted any emission 

limit that would make any definition of 

NOX BART at this facility enforceable. 

Appendix 9H of Michigan’s submittal, 

a document labeled Tilden BART 

Technical Analysis that was apparently 

prepared by Tilden Mining, states that 

‘‘[l]ow NOX burners have been installed 

in the preheating section of a straightgrate furnace at another taconite plant; 

however, the [Tilden] indurating 

furnace does not contain a pre-heat 

burner section. If [low NOX burners] 

were to be applied in the indurating 

zone of the furnace, the reduced flame 

temperatures associated with [low NOX

burners] were to be applied in the 

indurating zone of the furnace, the 

reduced flame temperatures associated 

with [low NOX burners] would 

adversely affect taconite pellet product 

quality. [Low NOX burners have] not 

been applied to the indurating or 

preheat zones of any grate-kiln taconite 

furnace. Therefore, this option is not 

technically feasible.’’ Michigan’s plan 

accepts Tilden Mining’s conclusion that 

low NOX burners are not technically 

feasible at this facility. 

As noted above, low NOX burners 

now have been applied to a taconite 

furnace, in particular to the indurating 

zones of two grate-kiln furnaces. These 

applications were found not to have 

adverse effects on product quality. 

Thus, low NOX burners must be 

considered technically feasible for 

Tilden Mining’s indurating furnace. 

Michigan was aware of the testing of 

low NOX main burners at U.S. Steel’s 

Minntac plant and received comments 

on the subject before the end of the 

public comment period on its SIP. 

Insofar as Michigan has not conducted 

an adequate review of the costs, benefits 

and other consequences of 

implementing this technology, and 

since this control would provide 

substantially better control compared to 

current practice at the plant and 

compared to the unlimited NOX

emissions that Michigan allows, 

Michigan’s plan cannot be considered to 

require BART for NOX at Tilden Mining. 

With respect to SO2, Michigan found 

several emission control options to be 

feasible, but the State ultimately 

concurred with Tilden Mining’s view 

that none of the options were costeffective, based on costs per ton of SO2

removal ranging from $6,557 per ton to 

$22,407 per ton. Michigan rejected use 

of alternative fuels such as natural gas 

as not required by the BART Guidelines. 

In its August 15, 2012 proposed 

rulemaking, EPA reviewed the cost 

effectiveness of SO2 emission controls 

and concluded that flue gas 

desulfurization would be more cost 

effective than the Michigan plan 

indicated. EPA has received comments 

on the cost effectiveness of this control, 

and EPA has also received comments 

from Cliffs Natural Resources indicating 

that limits reflecting the firing of natural 

gas would also be an appropriate basis 

for setting SO2 emission limits for 

Tilden. EPA will evaluate these 

comments and any additional comments 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8484 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

that EPA receives in response to today’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking, in order 

to determine whether it considers these 

findings in Michigan’s plan to be 

problematic. In any case, EPA believes 

that the SO2 emission limit for this 

facility set by Michigan, allowing more 

than four times more emissions than the 

facility currently emits, cannot be 

considered to represent BART. 

Michigan’s plan also states that 

‘‘modeling results showed SO2

emissions [from Tilden Mining] do not 

cause visibility impairment to the Class 

I areas.’’ However, Michigan’s plan does 

not include the information that would 

be necessary to support a statement that 

is so at odds with the results of other 

modeling provided in the plan. In any 

case, the furnace and other parts of the 

facility have sufficient impact to be 

subject to the requirement for BART, 

and the impact of the emissions of one 

pollutant can be considered as part of a 

five factor analysis of BART but does 

not justify failing to perform the 

necessary BART analysis, nor can such 

an analysis justify a conclusion that 

BART reflects substantially greater 

emissions than the facility currently 

emits. 

IV. How does this action relate to the 

action to promulgate Federal 

requirements for taconite plants? 

As noted above, in an action 

published August 15, 2012, EPA 

proposed both to promulgate Federal 

limits representing BART for taconite 

plants in Minnesota and Michigan and 

to disapprove Minnesota and 

Michigan’s plans with respect to BART 

for these plants. In response, EPA 

received comments objecting that the 

agency had not adequately explained its 

rationale for proposing to disapprove 

the state submittals. EPA notes that it 

expressly proposed revisions to 40 CFR 

52.1183 and 52.1235 to disapprove 

Michigan and Minnesota’s plans with 

respect to taconite plant BART and 

provided extensive discussion of the 

limits needed to satisfy the taconite 

plant BART requirement, which 

implicitly demonstrated the inadequacy 

of the states’ plans. Nonetheless, EPA 

agrees that further explanation of the 

basis for its proposal to disapprove the 

state plans is warranted. Therefore, EPA 

is providing this further explanation in 

this action and is soliciting further 

comments on this topic. 

In these circumstances, EPA views the 

promulgation of a Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) and the 

disapproval of the relevant elements of 

the state plans as separable actions. A 

mandate for promulgating Federal limits 

applies in cases where EPA ‘‘finds that 

a State has failed to make a required 

submission.’’ EPA ‘‘shall promulgate [a 

FIP] within two years’’ of such a 

finding, ‘‘unless the State corrects the 

deficiency, and [EPA] approves the plan 

or plan revision, before [EPA] 

promulgates such Federal 

implementation plan.’’ See Clean Air 

Act section 110(c)(1)(A). Here, EPA 

made findings, published on January 14, 

2009, at 74 FR 2392, that Minnesota and 

Michigan had failed to make complete 

submittals addressing regional haze 

requirements. Minnesota and Michigan 

subsequently made complete submittals, 

but because of the deficiencies 

discussed in detail in this notice, EPA 

has not approved these submittals with 

respect to BART for taconite plants. 

Therefore, the mandate remains for EPA 

to promulgate a FIP with respect to 

taconite plant BART. EPA notes that the 

agency’s mandate to promulgate such a 

FIP applies without regard to whether 

EPA has disapproved a state submittal. 

While EPA has proposed to disapprove 

Michigan and Minnesota’s regional haze 

SIPs in this instance, publication of 

final disapproval of the states’ 

submittals is not a prerequisite for 

promulgating a FIP, and EPA must 

promulgate a FIP in these circumstances 

irrespective of whether it has 

disapproved the state submittals. 

As a result, EPA today is publishing 

a separate action to promulgate a FIP 

addressing BART for taconite plants in 

Minnesota and Michigan. That action 

does not address the approvability of 

the state submittals, a subject that will 

be addressed only after EPA considers 

any additional comments it receives in 

response to this supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. Conversely, this 

action only addresses the deficiencies in 

the states’ submittals without 

addressing the limits that EPA would 

find necessary, through Federal 

promulgation or state adoption, to 

satisfy the BART requirement for these 

sources. Similarly, this action is 

soliciting further comments on the 

approvability of the state plans with 

respect to BART for taconite plants, but 

EPA is not soliciting further comments 

on the FIP that EPA proposed to 

promulgate. In addition, commenters 

that submitted comments on the August 

15, 2012, action that addressed the 

approvability of the state submittals 

need not resubmit those comments; EPA 

will consider those comments as well as 

any comments it receives in response to 

today’s proposal as it prepares final 

action on the elements of Minnesota and 

Michigan’s plans addressing BART for 

their taconite plants. 

In summary, on August 15, 2012, EPA 

proposed to partially disapprove 

Minnesota and Michigan’s plans as 

failing to satisfy the requirements for 

BART for their taconite plants. Today’s 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking provides further explanation 

of EPA’s rationale for proposing that 

action and solicits further comment on 

that proposed action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews. 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action merely solicits comment 

on a proposal to disapprove state law as 

not meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule solicits comment on 

a proposal to disapprove pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it 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). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

solicits comment on a proposal to 

disapprove a state plan, and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the Clean Air Act. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8485 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may 

not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implication, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this action, in 

conjunction with the FIP promulgation, 

may have tribal implications. For 

example, although the FIP does not 

apply to sources in Indian country, 

controls and emission reductions arising 

from the program may affect Indian 

country or other tribal interests. 

However, the regulations arising under 

that action, and the SIP disapproval 

being addressed here, will neither 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on tribal governments, nor 

preempt Tribal law. 

EPA initiated consultation with Tribal 

officials early in the process of 

developing this regulation to permit 

them to have meaningful and timely 

input into its development. EPA sent an 

invitation to consult to each Region 5 

Tribe on August 15, 2012, along with a 

copy of the proposed taconite FIP 

Federal Register notice. Conference 

calls were held on the taconite FIP 

proposal on August 22, 2012 and 

September 12, 2012 to provide all 

Region 5 Tribes with more information 

on the proposed rulemaking and an 

opportunity to ask questions of EPA 

technical staff and request formal 

individual consultation if desired. Four 

Region 5 Tribes participated in the 

August 22, 2012 call. Two Region 5 

Tribes participated in the September 12, 

2012 discussion. One Region 5 Tribe 

provided verbal testimony at the public 

hearing held on the proposed taconite 

FIP rulemaking on August 29, 2012. One 

Region 5 Tribal Chair expressed 

appreciation for the consultation 

discussions held with the Tribes and 

gratitude for EPA’s careful consideration 

of the regional haze situation in 

northeast Minnesota. 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it solicits 

comment on a proposal to disapprove a 

state rule. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) 

of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 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. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to disapprove certain state 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it 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. 

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, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: January 11, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01463 Filed 2–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0566; FRL–9776–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Michigan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the State of Michigan’s New 

Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) including 

their revised Part 2 NSR permitting 

rules, and the addition of their Part 19 

rules revising Michigan’s NSR rules for 

major sources in nonattainment areas to 

include the Federal NSR reform rules, 

and other revisions that are affected by 

the Federal NSR rules. The Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) submitted these revisions to 

EPA on March 24, 2009. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 8, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0566, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: damico.genevieve@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 886–0968. 

4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, 

Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS