Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 16449 

The advisory committee will hold its 

fifth meeting on March 26 and 27, 2013. 

The agenda includes the following: 

• Review of previous committee 

work; 

• Review and discussion of 

subcommittee work and 

recommendations; 

• Continued discussion on 

recommendations for transfer surface 

height and Transfer support location 

and configuration 

• Consideration of issues proposed by 

committee members; and 

• Discussion of administrative issues. 

The preliminary meeting agenda, 

along with information about the 

committee, is available at the Access 

Board’s Web site (http://www.accessboard.gov/medical-equipment.htm). 

Committee meetings are open to the 

public and interested persons can attend 

the meetings and communicate their 

views. Members of the public will have 

opportunities to address the committee 

on issues of interest to them during 

public comment periods scheduled on 

each day of the meeting. 

The meetings will be accessible to 

persons with disabilities. An assistive 

listening system, computer assisted realtime transcription (CART), and sign 

language interpreters will be provided. 

Persons attending the meetings are 

requested to refrain from using perfume, 

cologne, and other fragrances for the 

comfort of other participants (see 

www.access-board.gov/about/policies/ 

fragrance.htm for more information). 

Also, persons wishing to provide 

handouts or other written information to 

the committee are requested to provide 

electronic formats to Rex Pace via email 

prior to the meetings so that alternate 

formats can be distributed to committee 

members. 

David M. Capozzi, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05936 Filed 3–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0650; FRL–9789–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Consent Decree Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a portion of Indiana’s construction 

permit rule for sources subject to the 

state operating permit program 

regulations at 40 CFR part 70. These 

provisions authorize the state to 

incorporate terms from Federal consent 

decrees or Federal district court orders 

into these construction permits. EPA is 

also approving public notice 

requirements for these permit actions. 

These rules will help streamline the 

process for making Federal consent 

decree and Federal district court order 

requirements permanent and Federally 

enforceable. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 15, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0650, 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) 385–5501. 

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 

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. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam 

Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–3189, 

portanova.sam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: March 4, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05953 Filed 3–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0113; FRL–9790–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a narrow portion of a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of West Virginia 

on August 31, 2011. EPA is proposing 

this action because a narrow portion of 

the submittal does not satisfy the 

Federal requirement for the inclusion of 

condensable emissions of particulate 

matter (condensables) within the 

definition of ‘‘regulated new source 

review (NSR) pollutant.’’ Additionally, 

because West Virginia’s August 31, 2011 

SIP revision does not adequately 

account for condensable emissions 

within the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant,’’ EPA is also proposing to 

disapprove specific Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) portions 

of related infrastructure submissions 

required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2008 lead and ozone 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16450 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

NAAQS. This action is being taken 

under the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 15, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0113 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0113, 

Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, Office 

of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 

3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

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

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0113. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE., Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Gordon, (215) 814–2039, or by 

email at gordon.mike@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Federal Definition of ‘‘Regulated NSR 

Pollutant’’ 

On May 16, 2008, EPA promulgated a 

rule to implement the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, including changes to the NSR 

program (the NSR PM2.5 Rule). See 73 

FR 28321. The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule 

revised the NSR program requirements 

to establish the framework for 

implementing preconstruction permit 

review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both 

attainment and nonattainment areas. 

Among other things, the 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Rule required states to account for 

condensables in emissions of particulate 

matter (PM), PM less than or equal to 

ten micrometers in diameter (PM10), and 

PM2.5 no later than January 1, 2011. In 

an October 25, 2012 final rule (77 FR 

65107), EPA clarified that condensable 

PM should be included as part of the 

emissions measurements only for 

regulation of PM2.5 and PM10. The final 

rule removed the inadvertent 

requirement in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule 

that measurements of condensable PM 

be included as part of the measurement 

and regulation of PM. 

B. U.S. Court of Appeals’ Decision in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250, 2013 WL 

45653 (D.C. Cir., filed July 15, 2008) 

(consolidated with 09–1102, 11–1430), 

issued a judgment that remanded EPA’s 

2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Court ordered 

the EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these rules 

pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with 

this opinion.’’ Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of 

Part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes 

additional provisions for particulate 

matter nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 implementation rule 

addressed by the court decision, 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ 73 

FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), promulgated 

NSR requirements for implementation 

of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/ 

unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the 

requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain 

to nonattainment areas, EPA does not 

consider the portions of the 2008 rule 

that address requirements for PM2.5

attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the Court’s opinion. 

Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the 

need to revise any PSD requirements 

promulgated in the 2008 rule in order to 

comply with the Court’s decision. 

Accordingly, EPA’s narrow disapproval 

of West Virginia’s infrastructure SIP as 

to elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) with 

respect to the PSD requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

implementation rule does not conflict 

with the Court’s opinion. 

The Court’s decision with respect to 

the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s current action on the related 

infrastructure submittals. EPA interprets 

the Act to exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program, from infrastructure SIP 

submissions due three years after 

adoption or revision of a NAAQS. 

Instead, these elements are typically 

referred to as nonattainment SIP or 

attainment plan elements, which would 

be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as 10 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

C. West Virginia’s August 2011 SIP 

Submission 

On August 31, 2011, the State of West 

Virginia through the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(WVDEP) submitted a formal revision to 

its SIP (the August 2011 SIP 

submission). The August 2011 SIP 

submission consisted of amendments to 

the PSD permitting regulations under 

West Virginia State Rule 45CSR14. On 

July 31, 2012 (77 FR 45302), EPA 

proposed full approval of West 

Virginia’s August 2011 SIP submission, 

as well as the PSD portions of other 

related infrastructure submissions 

required by the CAA which are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 16451 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone 

NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS. 

During the public comment period, EPA 

received adverse comment on West 

Virginia State Rule 45CSR14 and the 

extent to which condensables were not 

included in the rule. The commenter 

stated that West Virginia’s PSD 

regulations did not properly account for 

condensable emissions of PM. The 

inclusion of condensable emissions of 

PM is required by the Federal 

counterpart language in 40 CFR 52.21 

and 51.166 and the NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

In light of this comment, in an 

October 17, 2012 final rule (77 FR 

63736), EPA granted full approval of 

West Virginia’s August 2011 SIP 

submission, as well as the PSD portions 

of other related infrastructure SIP 

submissions required by the CAA, with 

the exception of the narrow issue of the 

requirement to include condensables in 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ In the October 17, 2012 final 

rule, EPA stated that West Virginia State 

Rule 45CSR14 would be reviewed to 

determine the extent to which 

condensables were addressed in the 

August 2011 SIP submission and that 

this issue would be addressed in a 

separate rulemaking action. See 77 FR 

63736. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

As previously stated, on October 17, 

2012, EPA granted full approval to the 

August 2011 SIP submission and PSD 

portions of other related infrastructure 

elements required by the CAA, with the 

exception of the narrow issue of the 

requirement to include condensables in 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ Subsequently, EPA has 

reviewed the remaining portion of the 

West Virginia August 2011 SIP 

submission regarding the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ and is 

proposing to determine that 

condensable emissions are omitted from 

the 45CSR14 definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant.’’ Therefore, this 

remaining portion of the August 2011 

SIP submission does not satisfy the 

requirements of the corresponding 

Federal definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ and the NSR PM2.5 Rule. EPA 

is therefore proposing to disapprove this 

remaining narrow portion of the August 

2011 SIP submission. Also, because 

condensable emissions are a 

requirement for a PSD program by CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J), 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

narrow part of the PSD portions related 

to the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ in other related West Virginia 

infrastructure SIP submissions required 

by the CAA which are necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead and 

ozone NAAQS. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

narrow portion of West Virginia’s 

August 2011 SIP submission related to 

the failure to include condensables in 

the ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

definition on which we took no action 

in the October 17, 2012 final rule. See 

77 FR 63736. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a narrow portion of West 

Virginia’s August 2011 SIP submission 

because it does not satisfy the 

requirement that PM2.5 and PM10

emissions shall include gaseous 

emissions from a source or activity 

which condense to form PM at ambient 

temperatures. Because these grounds for 

disapproval are narrow and extend only 

to the lack of condensable emissions 

within the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant,’’ this proposal does not alter 

EPA’s October 17, 2012 approval of the 

remaining portions of West Virginia’s 

August 2011 SIP submittal. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove specific portions of West 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions dated December 3, 2007, 

December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, 

October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, and 

February 17, 2012 (collectively, the 

West Virginia Infrastructure SIP 

Submissions) which address certain 

obligations set forth at CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) relating to 

the West Virginia PSD permit program. 

In the October 17, 2012 final rule, EPA 

granted full approval of the PSD 

portions of the West Virginia 

infrastructure SIP submissions, with the 

exception of the narrow issue of the 

requirement to include condensables in 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ Because West Virginia’s 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

in 45CSR14 does not address 

condensables, EPA is proposing to 

determine that West Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions do not 

meet certain statutory and regulatory 

obligations relating to a PSD permit 

program set forth at CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for the 

narrow issue of condensables as set 

forth in the table below. EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the narrow 

portion of the October 26, 2011 and 

February 17, 2012 infrastructure SIP 

submissions from West Virginia because 

West Virginia has not met its obligations 

relating to the PSD permit program 

pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) due to the failure to 

include condensables in the definition 

of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ EPA is 

also proposing to disapprove the narrow 

portion of the December 3, 2007, 

December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, and 

October 1, 2009 infrastructure SIP 

submissions from West Virginia because 

West Virginia has not met its obligations 

relating to the PSD permit program 

pursuant to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS due to the failure to include 

condensables in the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ Specific 

infrastructure elements and submittal 

dates are listed in the following table. 

Submittal(s) dated NAAQS 

Infrastructure element(s) 

proposed to be disapproved in 

this action 

December 11, 2007 ....................................................... 1997 PM2.5 ..................................................................... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

April 3, 2008. 

December 3, 2007 ......................................................... 1997 ozone .................................................................... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

December 11, 2007. 

October 1, 2009 ............................................................. 2006 PM2.5 ..................................................................... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

October 26, 2011 ........................................................... 2008 lead ....................................................................... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). 

February 17, 2012 ......................................................... 2008 ozone .................................................................... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). 

Under CAA section 179(a), final 

disapproval of a submission that 

addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan 

(CAA sections 171–193), or is required 

in response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in CAA section 

110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock. The 

specific provisions in the submissions 

we are proposing to disapprove, due to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16452 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the omission of condensables in the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ 

were not submitted by West Virginia to 

meet either of those requirements. 

Therefore, if EPA takes final action to 

disapprove these submissions, no 

sanctions under CAA section 179 will 

be triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

CAA section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) no later than two years from 

the date of the disapproval unless the 

State corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. From discussions 

with the State, EPA anticipates that 

WVDEP will make a submission 

rectifying the deficiency regarding 

condensables. Further, EPA anticipates 

acting on WVDEP’s submissions within 

the two year time frame prior to our FIP 

obligation on this very narrow issue. In 

the interim, EPA expects WVDEP to 

account for condensable emissions of 

PM consistent with Federal regulations 

for PSD permitting. EPA is soliciting 

public comments only on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this case, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove a narrow portion of the 

West Virginia August 2011 SIP 

submittal and PSD portions of other 

related infrastructure submissions 

required by the CAA that do not meet 

Federal requirements. This proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the 

proposed rule to disapprove a narrow 

provision in the August 2011 SIP 

submission and to disapprove narrow 

portions related to the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ in portions 

of the West Virginia infrastructure SIP 

submissions is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that this action will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 6, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0406; FRL–9790–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Dakota; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for 

Interstate Transport of Pollution 

Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze; 

Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 6, 2012, EPA 

published a final rule partially 

approving and partially disapproving a 

North Dakota State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submittal addressing regional haze 

submitted by the Governor of North 

Dakota on March 3, 2010, along with 

SIP Supplement No. 1 submitted on July 

27, 2010, and part of SIP Amendment 

No. 1 submitted on July 28, 2011. The 

Administrator subsequently received a 

petition requesting EPA to reconsider 

certain provisions in the final rule. 

Specifically, the petition raised several 

objections to EPA’s approval of the 

State’s best available retrofit technology 

(BART) emission limits for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) for Milton R. Young 

Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds 

Station Unit 2, which are coal-fired 

power plants in North Dakota. 

In this action, EPA is initiating the 

reconsideration of its approval of the 

NOX BART limits for these units, 

proposing to affirm its approval of these 

limits, and requesting comment on this 

proposal. We are not reconsidering or 

requesting comment on any other 

provisions of the final rule. 

DATES: Comments: Comments must be 

received on or before May 14, 2013 

unless a public hearing is held, which 

would extend the comment period (see 

below). 

Public Hearing: If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by April 8, 2013, a public 

hearing will be held in May 2013 in 

Bismarck, North Dakota. If a public 

hearing is held, the record for this 

action will remain open for 30 days after 

the hearing to accommodate submittal 

of information related to a public 

hearing and any other comments on this 

action, and EPA will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

extending the comment period. For 

more information on a public hearing 

and requests to speak, see the General 

Information section of this preamble. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS