Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 17157 

29 and 30, ‘‘(Ref. 85. Ref. 94. Ref. 27)’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 44, 46)’’. 

57. On page 3593, in the first column, 

in the second complete paragraph, in 

lines 5 and 6, ‘‘(Ref. 85. Ref. 94. Ref. 

194)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 44, 

46)’’. 

58. On page 3593, in the third 

column, in the first complete paragraph, 

in lines 5 and 6, ‘‘(Ref. 85. Ref. 94. Ref. 

194)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 44, 

46)’’. 

59. On page 3594, in the third 

column, in the third complete 

paragraph, in line 17, ‘‘(Ref. 38. Ref. 

191. Ref. 192. Ref. 193)’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘(Refs. 47, 240, 242, 245)’’. 

60. On page 3596, in the first column, 

in the first complete paragraph, in lines 

19 and 20, ‘‘(Ref. 16. Ref. 196., Ref. 192., 

Ref. 197)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 

16, 241, 242)’’. 

61. On page 3596, in the third 

column, in the first paragraph, in lines 

26 and 27, ‘‘(Ref. 16. Ref. 18. Ref. 192. 

Ref. 193)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 

16, 18)’’. 

62. On page 3596, in the third 

column, in the first complete paragraph, 

in line 18, ‘‘(Ref. 38. Ref. 18. Ref. 192. 

Ref. 193)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 

18, 47, 240, 245)’’. 

63. On page 3597, in the first column, 

in the second complete paragraph, in 

lines 10 and 11, ‘‘(Ref. 193. Ref. 191. 

Ref. 38)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 47, 

240, 245)’’. 

64. On page 3597, in the second 

column, in line 6, ‘‘(Ref. 192. Ref. 201)’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 242, 243)’’. 

65. On page 3597, in the third 

column, in the second complete 

paragraph, in lines 15 and 16, ‘‘(Ref. 17. 

Ref. 252)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Ref. 

252)’’. 

66. On page 3598, in the second 

column, in line 8, ‘‘(Ref. 38. Ref. 191. 

Ref. 193)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 

47, 240, 245)’’. 

67. On page 3598, in the second 

column, in the first complete paragraph, 

in line 9, ‘‘(Ref. 16. Ref. 74)’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘(Refs. 16, 50)’’. 

68. On page 3598, in the second 

column, in the first complete paragraph, 

in lines 20 and 21, ‘‘(Ref. 15. Ref. 198. 

Ref. 209)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 

15, 243, 255)’’. 

69. On page 3598, in the third 

column, in the second complete 

paragraph, in line 8, ‘‘(Ref EU OB)’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘(Ref. 244)’’. 

70. On page 3599, in the second 

column, in the first paragraph, in line 

11, ‘‘(Ref. 211. Ref. 212)’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘(Refs. 257, 259)’’. 

71. On page 3599, in the second 

column, in the last paragraph, in the 6th 

line, ‘‘(Ref. 213. Ref. 212)’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘(Refs. 257, 258)’’. 

72. On page 3599, in the third 

column, in lines 19 and 20, ‘‘(Ref. 175. 

Ref. 212)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 

207, 257)’’. 

73. On page 3599, in the third 

column, in the first complete paragraph, 

in lines 12 and 13, ‘‘(Ref. 175. Ref. 211)’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 254, 258, 

259)’’. 

74. On page 3600, in the first column, 

in line 27, ‘‘(Ref. 175. Ref. 211)’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 207, 259)’’. 

75. On page 3600, in the first column, 

in the first complete paragraph, in line 

7, ‘‘(Ref. 175. Ref. 211) (Ref. 257)’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘(Ref. 257)’’. 

76. On page 3600, in the third 

column, in the second complete 

paragraph, in lines 28 and 29, ‘‘(Ref. 

180. Ref. 221. Ref. 219)’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘(Refs. 207, 257, 259)’’. 

77. On page 3601, in the first column, 

in the first paragraph, in lines 25 and 

26, ‘‘(Ref. 15. Ref. 206. Ref. 201. Ref. 

203)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 15, 

240, 242, 245)’’. 

78. On page 3601, in the first column, 

in the first complete paragraph, in lines 

8 and 9, ‘‘(Ref. 15. Ref. 223. Ref. 224)’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘(Refs. 15, 255)’’. 

79. On page 3604, in the third 

column, in the first complete paragraph, 

in line 33, ‘‘(Ref. 44)’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘(Ref. 262)’’. 

80. On page 3608, in the third 

column, in the first complete paragraph, 

in line 4, ‘‘II.D.’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘II.E’’. 

81. On page 3619, in the second 

column, in lines 3 and 4, ‘‘(Ref. 268. Ref. 

269. Ref. 270. Ref. 271. Ref. 272. Ref. 

267)’’ is corrected to read (‘‘Refs. 267, 

268, 269, 270, 271)’’. 

82. On page 3625, in the first column, 

in Reference 156, the year ‘‘1988’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘1998’’. 

83. On page 3628, in the first column, 

Reference 274 is added in numerical 

order to read: ‘‘274. Stine, S. W., Song, 

I., Choi, C. Y., Gerba, C. P., ‘‘Application 

of Microbial Risk Assessment to the 

Development of Standards for Enteric 

Pathogens in Water Used to Irrigate 

Fresh Produce.’’ Journal of Food 

Protection, 68(5): 913–918, 2005.’’ 

84. On page 3628, in the first column, 

Reference 275 is added in numerical 

order to read: ‘‘275. Todd E. C. D., Greig 

J. D., Bartleson C. A. et al., Outbreaks 

Where Food Workers Have Been 

Implicated in the Spread of Foodborne 

Disease. Part 6. Transmission and 

Survival of Pathogens in the Food 

Processing and Preparation 

Environment. Journal of Food 

Protection, 72(1): 202–219, 2009.’’ 

II. Reference 

The following reference has been 

placed on display in the Division of 

Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) 

and may be seen by interested persons 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday. This reference is also 

available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.go. 

1. FDA, ‘‘Standards for the Growing, 

Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of 

Produce for Human Consumption; 

Proposed Rule’’ (corrected version), 

2013. 

Dated: March 15, 2013. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06357 Filed 3–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0965; FRL–9792–4] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State 

Implementation Plan Revision for 

ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2009, 

Indiana submitted a request for a 

revision to its sulfur dioxide (SO2) state 

implementation plan (SIP) for the 

ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor facility in 

Porter County, Indiana. This revision 

would remove the SO2 emission limit 

for the blast furnace gas flare at the 

facility. For the reasons discussed 

below, EPA is proposing to disapprove 

this requested revision. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0965, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17158 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0965. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 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 Mary Portanova, 

Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353– 

5954 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Portanova, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954, 

portanova.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s 

submittal? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

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? 

On December 10, 2009, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted a 

request to EPA, asking EPA to approve 

a revision to its SO2 SIP. This revision 

would amend 326 Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC) 7–4–14, 

Porter County SO2 Emission 

Limitations, by removing the SO2

emission limit for the blast furnace flare 

at the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC 

(ArcelorMittal) steel mill. In Indiana’s 

current SO2 SIP, which EPA approved 

on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2112), the 

blast furnace flare had a limit of 0.07 

pounds of SO2 per million British 

Thermal Units (lbs/mmBtu). The 

approved SO2 SIP also contains SO2

emission limits for a number of 

combustion units at ArcelorMittal, 

including blast furnace stoves, coke 

battery underfire, and power station 

boilers. Indiana’s December 10, 2009 

SIP revision request did not alter these 

emission limits. 

ArcelorMittal’s blast furnace flare is 

used as a safety device to reduce excess 

pressure in the blast furnace gas lines 

and as a method for disposing of excess 

blast furnace gas. Blast furnace gas is 

generated during the process of iron 

production in the blast furnace. The gas 

is collected from the facility’s blast 

furnace and used as fuel, along with 

coke oven gas and natural gas, in the 

facility’s blast furnace stoves, power 

plant boilers, slab mill soaking pits, and 

coke batteries. It should be noted that 

the existing SIP flare limit does not 

restrict the total amount of blast furnace 

gas that may be burned in the flare, or 

limit the frequency or duration of the 

flare’s usage. The actual SO2 emissions 

from the flare are determined by the 

total amount of gases it burns, and the 

sulfur content of those gases. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

State’s submittal? 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) states that the Administrator 

shall not approve a SIP revision if it 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment of 

the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) and reasonable 

further progress, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

Under 40 CFR 51.112(a), each SIP must 

demonstrate that the measures, rules, 

and regulations it contains are adequate 

to provide for the timely attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. For the 

reasons discussed below, EPA believes 

that the State has not demonstrated that 

this SIP revision submission satisfies 

the requirements for approval under 

section 110(l) of the CAA. 

The State maintains that removing the 

blast furnace flare limit from the SIP 

will not result in or allow an increase 

in actual SO2 emissions, and that the 

emission limit for the flare is redundant 

and unnecessary for continued 

protection of the SO2 NAAQS. EPA 

disagrees with these claims. For the 

blast furnace flare limit to be considered 

redundant, the sulfur content of the 

blast furnace gas must be addressed 

elsewhere in the SIP, but this is not the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 17159 

1The Burns Harbor facility was operated by ISG 

Burns Harbor, LLC, in 2007. 

case. There are limits on individual 

combustion sources that use blast 

furnace gas, such as the blast furnace C 

and D stoves and the power station 

boilers, in 326 IAC 7–4–14 (1)(B) and 

(C). These sources are allowed to use a 

combination of blast furnace gas and 

coke oven gas, and their emission limits 

reflect this combination. The emission 

limits in 326 IAC 7–4–14 (1)(B) and (C) 

do not specifically limit the sulfur 

content of either coke oven gas or blast 

furnace gas. 

The State, in the August 8, 2007, 

Second Notice of Comment Period for 

the rulemaking action on the December 

10, 2009, SIP revision request, notes that 

‘‘ISG Burns Harbor LLC1 states that the 

sulfur content present in raw materials 

processed at the blast furnace is highly 

variable. Because the nature of the 

steelmaking process requires a 

continuous addition of raw materials to 

the blast furnace, it is technically 

infeasible to manage the sulfur content 

of materials charged in the blast furnace 

to achieve compliance with the blast 

furnace flare SO2 emission limit.’’ If this 

variability provides for the production 

of blast furnace gas exceeding 0.07 lbs/ 

mmBtu, and if some of this gas is 

occasionally flared, then the removal of 

the flare limit could result in and allow 

an increase in actual SO2 emissions 

from the flare. 

The State asserts that because the 

facility fully intends to use all the blast 

furnace gas it produces, the flare’s 

emissions would be infrequent and 

therefore inconsequential. However, in a 

June 29, 2011, letter which IDEM 

forwarded to EPA, ArcelorMittal 

indicated that when a boiler or stove 

must be curtailed or shut down, some 

blast furnace gas may be redirected to 

the blast furnace flare. The letter also 

acknowledged that the flare is necessary 

for the safe operation of the blast 

furnace gas systems, as it is used to 

regulate pressure by accommodating gas 

surges, which could present safety risks 

at the boilers or stoves. 

EPA believes that unless gas pressure 

surges are impossible while the stoves 

and boilers are operating normally, or 

unless the stoves and boilers always 

revert to a lower rate of operation 

whenever a pressure surge occurs, the 

flare’s emissions may not be negligible 

for SIP planning purposes. Since the 

stoves and boilers operate on a 

combination of blast furnace gas, coke 

oven gas, and natural gas, their full 

operating rates could be maintained 

with the other fuel gases during 

pressure surges that affect the flow of 

blast furnace gas and necessitate the use 

of the flare. Therefore, the December 10, 

2009, SIP revision request would enable 

an increase in allowable emissions. 

IDEM did not include a revised 

attainment demonstration of the SO2

NAAQS with its December 10, 2009, 

submission. Instead, it relied on its 1988 

demonstration of attainment, which 

included a detailed air dispersion 

modeling analysis of the steel mill. The 

1988 modeling demonstration presumed 

that blast furnace gas and coke oven gas 

would be used together in the units at 

ArcelorMittal which are allowed to use 

both fuels. For example, the blast 

furnace stoves were modeled at an 

emission rate corresponding to 60% 

blast furnace gas usage and 40% coke 

oven gas usage. The SO2 emission rate 

used for blast furnace gas combustion in 

the 1988 modeling analysis was 0.07 

lbs/mmBtu. The blast furnace flare was 

modeled at its SIP emission limit of 0.07 

lbs/mmBtu. IDEM used an emission rate 

of 1.96 lbs/mmBtu for coke oven gas in 

the 1988 analysis. 

IDEM asserts that the SO2 SIP 

emission limits in 326 IAC 7–4–14 

(1)(B) and (C), which are applicable to 

the facility’s combustion sources, 

account for all of the blast furnace gas 

that the facility can produce. Therefore, 

IDEM states, a limit on the flare is 

unnecessary to protect the NAAQS. 

Although the company provided 

evidence that recent gas production 

rates have kept the facility well within 

its SIP emission limits, IDEM has not 

provided sufficient information to EPA 

to confirm the company’s maximum 

capacity for producing either blast 

furnace gas or coke oven gas. The coke 

oven gas production capacity is relevant 

because many of the stoves and boilers 

are able to use both fuels, and the 1988 

analysis modeled the combustion units 

as using both fuels together in specific 

ratios. The facility does not store either 

gas, so the gases must be combusted as 

they are produced. IDEM did not 

provide EPA with any information 

regarding the amount of flaring that 

actually occurred during the data years. 

Regardless, the flare limit acts to 

address the sulfur content of the blast 

furnace gas, rather than to limit the 

amount of time the flare operates, or 

how much gas it combusts in total. If the 

flare limit is removed, then 

ArcelorMittal could produce and use 

blast furnace gas with sulfur content 

greater than 0.07 lbs/mmBtu. If 

ArcelorMittal does so, and sends some 

of this gas to the flare, the higher sulfur 

gas could lead to increased ambient 

impacts from the flare which would not 

be covered by the 1989 modeling. 

A proposed SIP ‘‘must demonstrate 

that the measures, rules, and regulations 

contained in it are adequate to provide 

for the timely attainment and 

maintenance of the national standard 

that it implements.’’ Montana Sulphur 

& Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 

1189 (9th Cir. 2012). Courts have also 

recognized the importance of including 

numerical emission limits in SIPs for 

flares. In the Montana Sulphur case, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit affirmed this concept, 

noting that flare emissions ‘‘can affect 

attainment, and limits on them 

reasonably can be required, particularly 

where the state has relied on such limits 

to demonstrate attainment.’’ Id. 

In conclusion, EPA disagrees with 

IDEM’s assertion that ArcelorMittal’s 

blast furnace gas flare limit is 

redundant, unnecessary, or that its 

removal would not result in or allow an 

increase in actual SO2 emissions. The 

revised rule does not adequately address 

the potential for variability in blast 

furnace gas sulfur content, which could 

affect the validity of the emission rates 

used in the existing attainment 

demonstration, thus undermining the 

SIP’s ability to ensure protection of the 

SO2 NAAQS. EPA believes that the 

revised rule does not satisfy the 

requirements for approval under section 

110(l) of the CAA. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to disapprove Indiana’s 

December 10, 2009, submittal requesting 

a SIP revision to remove the SO2

emission limit on the blast furnace gas 

flare at ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor in 

Porter County. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. 

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 

under the Executive Order. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17160 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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., because this 

proposed SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens but 

simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule 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 today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself 

create any new requirements but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, 

it affords no opportunity for EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from 

this disapproval does not mean that 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will 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 it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove would not apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions 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. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

EPA believes that this action is not 

subject to requirements of Section 12(d) 

of NTTAA because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the CAA. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 17161 

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 CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will 

not in-and-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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: March 8, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06419 Filed 3–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0132; FRL– 9792–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; 

Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for the Washington, 

DC–MD–VA Moderate Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the attainment demonstration portion of 

the attainment plan submitted by the 

District of Columbia, the State of 

Maryland and the Commonwealth of 

Virginia as revisions to each of their 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs). 

These revisions demonstrate attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (1997 

ozone NAAQS) for the Washington, DC– 

MD–VA, moderate nonattainment area 

(the Washington Area) by the applicable 

attainment date of June 2010. EPA has 

determined that each of the three SIP 

revisions meet the applicable 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). This action is being taken in 

accordance with the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0132 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristinia@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0132, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Planning Program, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

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

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0132. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the States’ submittals are 

available at the District of Columbia, 

Department of the Environment, Air 

Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 

5th floor, Washington, DC 20002; 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230; and the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

629 East Main Street, Richmond, 

Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or 

by email at cripps.christopher@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is provided to aid in locating 

information in this preamble. 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

II. Background Information 

III. CAA Requirements for Moderate 8-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

IV. Description of the States’ SIP Submittals 

V. EPA’s Review of the States’ Modeled 

Attainment Demonstration and Weight of 

Evidence Analysis for the Washington 

Area 

VI. Description of the Control Measures and 

Emission Reductions Included in the 

Plan for Attainment and Contingency 

Measures 

VII. Transportation Conformity Budgets 

VIII. Proposed Action 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

attainment demonstration, failure to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS