```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16452-16456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06072]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 16453]]

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2010-0406, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: r8airrulemakings@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are faxing 
comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday 
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2010-0406. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy 
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, EPA Region 8, at (303) 
312-6281, or Fallon.Gail@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    B. What information should I know about a public hearing?
II. Background
III. Today's Action
    A. Reconsideration and Proposal To Affirm
    B. Rationale for Our Proposal To Affirm
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
     The word Act or initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials ASOFA mean or refer to advanced separated 
overfire air.
     The initials BACT mean or refer to best available control 
technology.
     The initials BART mean or refer to best available retrofit 
technology.
     The initials EGU mean or refer to electric generating 
unit.
     The words we, us or our or the initials EPA mean or refer 
to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to federal implementation 
plan.
     The initials LOS mean or refer to Leland Olds Station.
     The initials MRYS mean or refer to Milton R. Young 
Station.
     The words North Dakota and State mean the State of North 
Dakota unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen 
oxides.
     The initials PSD mean or refer to prevention of 
signification deterioration.
     The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic 
reduction.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to state implementation 
plan.
     The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic 
reduction.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

[[Page 16454]]

B. What information should I know about a public hearing?

    EPA will hold a public hearing on today's document only if it 
receives a request to present oral testimony on the issues addressed in 
today's document by April 8, 2013. Any person wishing to present oral 
testimony should notify Ms. Gail Fallon at (303) 312-6281 by 5 p.m. 
mountain time on April 8, 2013. If a public hearing is held, it will be 
held in May 2013 in Bismarck, North Dakota. We will post information on 
the specifics on our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/ and by 
publishing a Federal Register document at least 15 days before the date 
of the hearing. The document announcing a hearing would also extend the 
public comment period for 30 days following the date of the public 
hearing. A public hearing would provide interested parties the 
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning this 
document.
    Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed 
in the proposal. Written statements and supporting information 
submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same 
weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at a 
public hearing. We will not respond to comments during a public 
hearing, may limit oral testimony to five minutes, and will not provide 
equipment for showing overhead slides or computerized slide 
presentations. When we publish our final action, we will provide 
written responses to all oral and written comments received on our 
proposal.

II. Background

    On March 3, 2010, the State of North Dakota submitted a regional 
haze SIP submittal for approval into the North Dakota SIP.\1\ The SIP 
included the State's NOX BART determinations for Milton R. 
Young Station (MRYS) Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds Station (LOS) Unit 
2. Based on its conclusion that selective non-catalytic reduction 
(SNCR) plus advanced separated overfire air (ASOFA) represented BART at 
these units, the State adopted NOX BART limits of 0.36, 
0.35, and 0.35 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu), 
respectively, on a 30-day rolling average basis. The State rejected 
selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a more effective NOX 
control technology, as BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a full discussion of regional haze requirements, please 
see our proposal at 76 FR 58574, 58576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed action, we proposed to disapprove the State's 
NOX BART determinations for these units. See 76 FR 58570, 
58573 (September 21, 2011). In our final rule, we changed our position 
and approved the State's NOX BART determinations for these 
units. 77 FR 20894, 20897 (April 6, 2012). We based our change on a 
December 21, 2011, U.S. District Court decision that was issued after 
the close of the public comment period. Id. at 20897-20898.
    On June 4, 2012, Earthjustice, on behalf of the National Parks 
Conservation Association and the Sierra Club, submitted a petition for 
reconsideration of our final rule under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 
requesting that EPA reconsider its approval of the State's 
NOX BART determinations for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 
2. The petition asserts that the environmental groups were unable to 
raise their objections to EPA's reliance on the District Court decision 
during the comment period because of the timing of that decision and 
that their objections are of central relevance to EPA's final rule 
because EPA relied on the District Court decision in explaining the 
basis for its final rule. In a letter to Earthjustice dated November 
19, 2012, EPA granted reconsideration of its final rule in order to 
allow for public comment on the specific issues raised in the petition. 
In that letter, we indicated that we would publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to address the State's NOX BART determinations 
and limits for the three units as part of a reasonable progress 
analysis.

III. Today's Action

A. Reconsideration and Proposal To Affirm

    EPA is initiating the reconsideration of its approval of the 
State's NOX BART determination and limits for MRYS Units 1 
and 2 and LOS Unit 2 and proposing to affirm its approval of the 
determination and limits. We are not reconsidering or requesting 
comment on any other provisions of the final rule.

B. Rationale for Our Proposal To Affirm

    On July 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of North 
Dakota entered a consent decree between EPA, the State, and Minnkota 
Power Cooperative (``Minnkota''). The consent decree resulted from an 
enforcement action that EPA and the State brought against Minnkota for 
alleged violations of prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 
permitting requirements at MRYS Units 1 and 2. The consent decree 
called for North Dakota to make a best available control technology 
(BACT) determination for NOX for MRYS Units 1 and 2 and 
provided a dispute resolution procedure in the event of disagreement 
regarding the BACT determination.
    In November 2010, North Dakota determined BACT for NOX 
to be limits of 0.36 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 1 and 0.35 lb/MMBtu for 
MRYS Unit 2 based on the use of SNCR technology, with separate limits 
during startup. In reaching this decision, North Dakota eliminated SCR 
as BACT based on its finding that SCR was not technically feasible to 
control emissions from an electric generating unit (EGU) burning North 
Dakota lignite coal. In particular, North Dakota noted that no SCR has 
ever been employed on an EGU burning North Dakota lignite, that North 
Dakota lignite has unique properties that have the potential to quickly 
degrade the SCR catalyst, and that no catalyst vendor supplied with the 
specifications for the coal at MRYS Units 1 and 2 would provide a 
guarantee of catalyst life without first conducting slipstream or pilot 
tests at MRYS.
    EPA disagreed with North Dakota's findings and the selection of 
SNCR as BACT and initiated the dispute resolution process under the 
consent decree. Under the consent decree, the court was to uphold North 
Dakota's BACT determination unless the disputing party was able to 
demonstrate that North Dakota's decision was unreasonable.
    On December 21, 2011, following briefing by the parties, and 
consideration of North Dakota's record for its BACT determination, the 
court determined that EPA had not demonstrated that North Dakota's 
findings were unreasonable.\2\ The court decided that North Dakota, 
based on the administrative record for its BACT determination, had a 
reasonable basis for concluding that SCR is not technically feasible 
for treating North Dakota lignite at MRYS. Id. The court upheld North 
Dakota's determination that SNCR is BACT. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Stay and Motion for 
Dispute Resolution, United States, et al., v. Minnkota Power 
Cooperative, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the 
District of North Dakota, Southwestern Division, Civil Action No. 
1:06-cv-034, Docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two critical principles expressed in our BART guidelines\3\ are 
relevant here. First, as part of a BART analysis, technically 
infeasible control options

[[Page 16455]]

are eliminated from further review. For BART, EPA's criteria for 
determining whether a control option is technically infeasible are 
substantially the same as the criteria used for determining technical 
infeasibility in the BACT context. 70 FR 39165; EPA's ``New Source 
Review Workshop Manual,'' pages B.17-B.22.\4\ In the BART context, a 
technology is feasible if it is available and applicable. 70 FR 39165. 
A technology is available if it can be obtained through commercial 
channels. An available technology is applicable if it can reasonably be 
installed and operated on the source under consideration.Id. The BACT 
analysis for technical feasibility employs the same approach. It, too, 
uses the concepts of availability and applicability and defines those 
terms in the same manner as the BART guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Among other things, EPA's BART guidelines, codified at 40 
CFR part 51, appendix Y, describe a set of steps for determining 
BART. CAA section 169A(b)(2) requires that BART be determined 
pursuant to the BART guidelines for power plants with a total 
generating capacity over 750 megawatts. With respect to other BART 
sources, the BART guidelines reflect EPA's interpretations regarding 
certain key principles related to BART, including the two principles 
described in the text.
    \4\ See docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second critical principle is that states generally may rely on 
a BACT determination for a source for purposes of determining BART for 
that source, unless new technologies have become available or best 
control levels for recent retrofits have become more stringent. 70 FR 
39164. As a general rule, the selection of a recent BACT level as BART 
is the equivalent of selecting the most stringent level of control, and 
consideration of the five statutory BART factors becomes unnecessary.
    In deciding our challenge to the information and analyses relied 
upon by North Dakota, the U.S. District Court upheld North Dakota's 
recent BACT determination based on the same technical feasibility 
criteria that apply in the BART context. In light of the court's 
decision and the views we have expressed in our BART guidelines on the 
relationship of BACT to BART, we concluded in our final rule that it 
would be inappropriate to proceed with our proposed disapproval of SNCR 
as BART and our proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) to impose 
SCR at MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2. 77 FR 20898. While LOS Unit 2 
was not the subject of the BACT determination, the same reasoning that 
applies to MRYS Units 1 and 2 also applies to LOS Unit 2. It is the 
same type of boiler burning North Dakota lignite coal, and North 
Dakota's views regarding technical infeasibility that the U.S. District 
Court upheld in the MRYS BACT case apply to it as well.
    While we do not view the U.S. District Court's decision regarding 
technical infeasibility as legally binding concerning our evaluation of 
the State's BART determinations at MRYS Units 1 and 2 and LOS Unit 2, 
we find it appropriate, under the unique circumstances involved here, 
to accord substantial weight to the District Court's decision and the 
State's BACT determination. The District Court evaluated competing 
arguments advanced by the State, Minnkota, and EPA, as well as an 
extensive record,\5\ and concluded that the State had not reached an 
unreasonable conclusion about technical feasibility. The District Court 
affirmed the State's choice of SNCR plus ASOFA as BACT. Our BART 
guidelines indicate that recent BACT determinations generally may be 
considered BART without further analysis. Based on these facts, we are 
not acting arbitrarily or capriciously, or unreasonably, in determining 
that the State's selection of SNCR plus ASOFA as BART at MRYS Units 1 
and 2 and LOS Unit 2 is reasonable and should be approved.\6\ We note 
that evaluations of technical feasibility often change over time and 
that we may reach a different conclusion about the technical 
feasibility of SCR at these plants in the future as part of a 
reasonable progress analysis. The regional haze program requires 
additional reasonable progress reviews over time on the multi-year path 
for states to reach the ultimate visibility goal of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that the State submitted the record from the BACT 
proceeding to us on July 28, 2011 as a SIP revision and again during 
the comment period on our September 21, 2011 notice of proposed 
rulemaking on the State's regional haze SIP.
    \6\ The associated BART limits are 0.36 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 
1, 0.35 lb/MMBtu for MRYS Unit 2, and 0.35 lb/MMBtu for LOS Unit 2, 
on a 30-day rolling average basis. The SIP contains separate limits 
for MRYS Units 1 and 2 during startup of 2070.1 and 3995.6 pounds 
per hour, respectively, on a 24-hour rolling average basis. See SIP 
section 7.4.2, p. 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action would merely approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. In this reconsideration, EPA is proposing to 
affirm its prior approval of North Dakota SIP requirements for two 
sources in North Dakota. This type of action is exempt from review 
under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the action applies to 
just two facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's action on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this 
reconsideration, EPA is proposing to affirm its prior approval of North 
Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota. The proposed 
action, if finalized, merely would approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. We continue to be interested in the potential 
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on 
issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless prohibited by law, 
to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and 
tribal governments and the private sector. The action imposes no 
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the 
private sector. In this reconsideration, EPA is proposing to affirm its 
prior approval of North Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in 
North Dakota. The proposed

[[Page 16456]]

action, if finalized, merely would approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Again, in this 
reconsideration, EPA is proposing to affirm its prior approval of North 
Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota. The proposed 
action, if finalized, merely would approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action would not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because, if finalized, it merely would approve state law as meeting 
federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent 
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and 
local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this action 
from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 because it does not impose substantial direct 
compliance costs and does not preempt tribal law. In this 
reconsideration, EPA is proposing to affirm its prior approval of North 
Dakota SIP requirements for two sources in North Dakota. The proposed 
action, if finalized, merely would approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this action 
from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) because it implements specific standards established by Congress 
in statutes. In addition, it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action because it applies to only two facilities and merely 
proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements; it would 
impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
This action would not present a disproportionate health or safety risk 
to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    VCS are inapplicable to this action because application of those 
requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this action, if finalized, will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The action, if finalized, merely would approve state 
law as meeting federal requirements and would impose no additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxides, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 8, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-06072 Filed 3-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```