[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20433-20436]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0436; Project Identifier AD-2022-00395-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300, 777-
300ER, and 777F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
report of a ``FLAPS DRIVE'' caution message in flight due to the torque
trip indicator of the No. 2 trailing edge (TE) flap transmission
assembly being in the set position, which resulted in an air turn-back.
This proposed AD would require an inspection or records review to
determine the serial numbers of the TE flap transmission and gearbox
assemblies, and applicable on-condition corrective actions. This
proposed AD would also limit the installation of affected parts. The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 22,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0436; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-0436.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Tsuji, Senior Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-0436; Project Identifier
AD-2022-00395-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Douglas Tsuji, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment
Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]. Any
commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as
CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has received a report of a ``FLAPS DRIVE'' caution message
in flight, which resulted in an air turn-back. Subsequent investigation
found that the torque trip indicator of the No. 2 trailing edge (TE)
flap transmission assembly was in the set position, which had caused
the ``FLAPS DRIVE'' caution message. The TE flap transmission assembly
was removed from the airplane and sent for a teardown inspection to
find the cause of the problem. The teardown inspection revealed a
broken no-back brake ratchet pawl; the broken piece had lodged itself
between the housing and a drive gear, which had resulted in a TE flap
transmission assembly lock-up condition. A subsequent Boeing analysis
of the broken pawl found that the spring guide pin bore did not meet
design requirements. The depth of the pawl bore was more than the
specified requirement, and its inner diameter was insufficient.
Further, the drawing requirement for the pawl bore inner diameter
resulted in an undersized spring guide pin bore, which caused an
excessive interference fit between the bore and spring guide, which in
turn caused the ratchet pawl assembly to break.
    From in-service reports, there have been three known incidents of
Model 777 TE flap transmission no-back brake ratchet pawls cracking in
service from the same supplier since 2018. The same ratchet pawl part
number is used on all eight TE flap transmissions. Historically, these
pawls have been fabricated by three different sub-tier suppliers. The
three broken pawls were manufactured by the same sub-tier supplier,
which is no longer in business. The root cause of the unsafe condition
has been determined to be the undersized bores in the suspect pawls
causing an interference fit with the mating spring guide pin resulting
in increased hoop stresses in the pawl. A review of two inspection
reports revealed that the sub-tier supplier had misread the bore
requirements.
    A broken ratchet pawl assembly, in combination with an upstream
torque tube disconnect, can cause failure of the no-back brake to hold
flap surfaces in a commanded position--a condition referred to as flap
``blowback.'' In addition, a broken ratchet pawl assembly can allow
debris in the transmission assembly, which can prevent the pawl from
engaging the ratchet plate or cause other damage to the transmission
assembly. Both conditions can cause failure of the no-back brake, in
combination with an upstream torque tube disconnect, which could lead
to uncommanded retraction of the TE flap resulting in asymmetric loss
of lift that can affect continued safe flight and landing.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-27A0123 RB,
Revision 1, dated January 16, 2023. This service information specifies
procedures for an inspection or records review for affected serial
numbers of the TE flap transmission and gearbox assemblies at positions
1 through 8. For affected serial numbers, the service information
specifies procedures for either (1) removing the TE flap transmission
assembly and installing a new or serviceable assembly, or (2) removing
the TE flap transmission and ratchet pawl assemblies, inspecting the
ratchet pawl assembly for damage and missing material, and, depending
on the findings, either installing a new ratchet pawl assembly and a
changed TE flap transmission assembly or replacing the ratchet pawl
assembly and TE flap transmission assembly with new or serviceable
parts. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described. For information on the
procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-0436.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 267 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection or records review........  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85          $22,695
                                       hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement(s) that would be required based on the results of the
inspection or records review. The FAA has no way of determining the
number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

                                    Estimated Costs for On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                 Action                          Labor cost                  Parts cost              product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement............................  6 work-hours x $85 per      $5,090 per part...........          $5,600
                                          hour = $510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2023-0436; Project Identifier AD-
2022-00395-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by May 22, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-
200LR, 777-300, 777-300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a ``FLAPS DRIVE'' caution
message in flight due to the torque trip indicator of the No. 2
trailing edge (TE) flap transmission assembly being in the set
position, which resulted in an air turn-back. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address a broken ratchet pawl assembly in combination
with an upstream torque tube disconnect, which can cause failure of
the no-back brake to hold flap surfaces in a commanded position, and
possible debris in the transmission assembly, which can prevent the
pawl from engaging the ratchet plate or cause other damage to the
transmission assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in asymmetric loss of the lift that can prevent continued
safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-27A0123 RB, Revision 1, dated
January 16, 2023, do all applicable actions identified in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 777-27A0123 RB, Revision 1, dated January 16,
2023.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-27A0123, Revision 1, dated January 16, 2023, which is referred
to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-27A0123 RB, Revision 1,
dated January 16, 2023.

(h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-
27A0123 RB, Revision 1, dated January 16, 2023, use the phrase ``the
original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 777-27A0123 RB,'' this
AD requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
777-27A0123 RB, dated October 11, 2021.

(j) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, an affected TE flap transmission or gearbox assembly,
as identified in Appendix J of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
777-27A0123 RB, Revision 1, dated January 16, 2023, unless the
assembly has been inspected and all applicable corrective actions
have been performed in accordance with Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 777-27A0123 RB, Revision 1, dated January 16, 2023.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed
to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Douglas Tsuji,
Senior Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA,
Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-27A0123 RB, Revision
1, dated January 16, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 9, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07011 Filed 4-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76324-76325]
[DOCID:fr16de08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-B-7795]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On July 23, 2008, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at FR Doc. E8-16811. The table provided here represents the
flooding source, location of referenced elevation, effective and
modified elevation, and communities affected for Surry County, North
Carolina. Specifically, it addresses Ararat River.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-3151 or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established
by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed
elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made
final, and for the contents in these buildings.

Correction

    In the proposed rule published at FR Doc. E8-16811 in the July 23,
2008, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Surry County, North
Carolina, and Incorporated Areas'' addressed Ararat River. That table
contained inaccurate information as to the location of referenced
elevation, effective and modified elevation in feet, or communities
affected for these flooding sources. In this notice, FEMA is publishing
a table containing the accurate information, to address these prior
errors. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that
previously published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet (NAVD)
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced     Depth in feet above      Communities affected
                                             elevation                  ground
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Surry County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ararat River........................  At the confluence with          None         +803  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Yadkin River.                                      Surry County, City of
                                                                                Mount Airy.
                                      Approximately 1,500             None       +1,094
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Riverside Drive (State
                                       Road 104).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 5, 2008.
Michael K. Buckley,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-29769 Filed 12-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34801-34808]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14101]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037; FRL-9683-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze for the first
implementation period, extending through July 31, 2018. Minnesota
submitted its regional haze plan on December 30, 2009. A draft
supplemental submission was made on January 5, 2012, and in final on
May 8, 2012. EPA proposed to approve this plan on January 25, 2012. In
response to comments, EPA is deferring action on emission limitations
that Minnesota intended to represent best available retrofit technology
(BART) for taconite facilities. As proposed, EPA is also deferring
action on the requirements for Xcel Energy's Sherburne County (Sherco)
facility resulting from its certification as a source of reasonably
attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). After reviewing the
comments, EPA continues to believe approval is warranted for the
remaining regional haze plan elements. This approval is being taken in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
rules for states to prevent and remedy future and existing
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
through a regional haze program.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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 through 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 Matt Rau,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 action did EPA propose?
II. What are EPA's responses to public comments it received?
III. What is EPA's plan to address RAVI BART for Sherco?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action did EPA propose?

    Minnesota submitted its regional haze plan on December 30, 2009, a
draft supplement on January 5, 2012, and a final supplement on May 8,
2012. This plan is intended to address regional haze requirements for
the first implementation period, which extends through July 31, 2018.
These requirements are given in CAA section 169A, and are implemented
in the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) as codified at 40 CFR 51.308. This rule
was promulgated on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), and subsequently amended
on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), and on October 16, 2006 (70 FR 60631).
The July 6, 2005, rule provides guidance on provisions related to BART.
    EPA proposed approval of the Minnesota regional haze plan on
January 25, 2012 (77 FR 3681). The proposed rule described the nature
of the regional haze problem and the statutory and regulatory
background for EPA's review of Minnesota's regional haze plan. The
proposed rule described the regional haze plan requirements including
requirements for mandating BART, consultation with other states in
establishing goals representing reasonable further progress in
mitigating anthropogenic visibility impairment, and adoption of
limitations as necessary to implement a long term strategy for reducing
visibility impairment.
    EPA received comments on several elements of the Minnesota regional
plan, including comments on the BART determinations for both the
electric generating units (EGUs) and the taconite facilities.

II. What are EPA's responses to public comments it received?

    In response to its proposed rulemaking, EPA received comments from
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, Incorporated (ArcelorMittal), Cliffs
Natural Resources (Cliffs), Earthjustice, Fresh Energy, the Fond du Lac
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Fond du Lac), National Park Service
(NPS), Xcel Energy, and many citizens. Earthjustice commented on behalf
of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), the Minnesota
Center for Environmental Advocacy, the Friends of the Boundary Waters
Wilderness, Voyageurs National Park Association, and the Sierra Club.
Fresh Energy is a Saint Paul, Minnesota based nonprofit organization
that focuses on the development of clean energy policy. ArcelorMittal
and Cliffs operate taconite facilities, while Xcel Energy operates EGUs
in Minnesota. The Fond du Lac Band is a tribe based in Cloquet,
Minnesota. The comments are included in the docket, EPA-R05-OAR-2010-
0037. The following discussion provides a summary of the comments and
provides EPA's responses.
    Comment: Several commenters, including Earthjustice, Fond du Lac,
and Fresh Energy, urged that EPA not allow participation in the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to serve as a substitute for meeting
the requirements for source-by-source BART for EGUs. These commenters
believe that reliance on CSAPR fails to meet the CAA requirements for
BART, and have asserted that EPA's determination that CSAPR is better
than BART is flawed both as a national rule and as applied to
Minnesota.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters. The requirements for a
BART alternative program, specific to trading programs in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2), state that ``such an emissions trading program or other
alternative measure must achieve greater reasonable progress than would
be achieved through the installation and operation of BART.'' EPA has
also completed an analysis and proposed CSAPR as an alternative to BART
for EGUs located in the CSAPR states, which include Minnesota (76 FR
82219, December 30, 2011). In finalizing that rule on May 30, 2012, EPA
responded to similar comments in the context of that rulemaking.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the emissions controls for
the EGUs are inadequate and that EPA should require stricter emission
limits.
    Response: In a final rule signed on May 30, 2012, EPA finalized its

determination that CSAPR is an alternative program to source-specific
BART for EGUs. This finding allows states to substitute participation
in the CSAPR program for source-specific BART. Minnesota has elected to
use CSAPR as an alternative to BART for sulfur dioxide (SO2)
and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from its subject
EGUs, as it is allowed to do. EPA is approving the CSAPR as an
alternative means of satisfying the BART requirement for pertinent
pollutants for Minnesota's EGUs.
    Comment: Several commenters considered the emissions controls
required for the taconite facilities to be inadequate and urged EPA to
require stricter emission limits.
    Response: Since proposing approval of Minnesota's regional haze
plan, including the BART limits for taconite facilities, EPA has
learned of control technology with the potential for further emission
reductions from taconite facilities. EPA is now in the process of
determining new BART emission limits for the BART-subject units at the
taconite facilities. Therefore, EPA is deferring action on the proposed
BART emission limits for the taconite facilities while proceeding with
final approval of the other plan elements.
    Comment: EPA received comments from a substantial number of
citizens urging that EPA protect the air quality at Boundary Waters
Canoe Wilderness, Isle Royale National Park, and Voyageurs National
Park.
    Response: EPA is committed to the goal of the regional haze
program, that is, to achieve natural visibility conditions at mandatory
Federal Class I areas by 2064. EPA is acting on the Minnesota regional
haze plan for the first implementation period, which extends through
July 31, 2018. Subsequent implementation periods are each for
approximately 10 years. Future emission reductions will be evaluated by
Minnesota and EPA during the midcourse review of Minnesota's regional
haze plan and in future implementation periods. These further emission
reductions in the future will result in better air quality. Minnesota
has already developed its Northeast Minnesota Plan, which sets a target
for the combined NOX and SO2 emissions in a six
county area not to exceed 66,894 tons per year through 2018.
    Comment: Earthjustice commented that the Sherco plant has been
certified to impair visibility by the Department of Interior. Sherco is
among the biggest contributors to visibility impairment in the state.
The commenter believes that EPA needs to establish BART limits for
Sherco that comply with Federal requirements.
    Response: RAVI involves separate requirements from the requirements
for regional haze, to be met on a different timetable. In a separate
action, which will be subject to public notice and comment, EPA will
respond to the RAVI certification for Sherco. See the discussion on
planned EPA actions in Section III.
    Comment: A citizen commenter stated that EPA should not approve a
plan that is not acceptable to the Federal land managers (FLMs). EPA
should give due weight to the views of the FLMs.
    Response: EPA has provided multiple opportunities for consultation
on the Minnesota regional haze plan with the FLMs, and has evaluated
and responded to, FLM comments on the draft plan, the final plan, and
our proposed approval. EPA has given careful consideration to the
comments from the FLMs on the Minnesota regional haze plan. EPA has
agreed with many of the comments made by the FLMs and, correspondingly,
has worked with the state to make appropriate revisions to the SIP.
Nevertheless, final responsibility for approving or disapproving the
plan solely belongs to EPA.
    Comment: Earthjustice, Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and several citizens
commented that EPA could not have adequately considered public comments
made to Minnesota during the comment period for its regional haze plan
supplement as EPA issued its proposed rule prior to the state
finalizing the supplement. Plainly, according to Earthjustice, the
public comment period was not considered meaningful by Minnesota given
that it had already decided to submit the supplement to EPA and EPA had
already proposed approval, thereby frustrating the very goal of public
process.
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule, EPA proposed to approve
Minnesota's SIP addressing regional haze for the first implementation
period provided it adopted and submitted administrative orders
consistent with its proposed orders. Minnesota submitted its regional
haze plan supplement on May 8, 2012, with the final administrative
orders. The state had a public comment period prior to finalizing its
supplement. EPA also held a public comment period on the proposed rule.
EPA uses the process, known as parallel processing, when a final action
is warranted on a more expedited schedule than would be achieved if EPA
waits for the state to finalize its submission. The criteria for
parallel processing are given in section 2.3 of appendix V to 40 CFR
part 51. Further discussion of this procedure is provided in the
rulemaking promulgating appendix V, published in final on February 16,
1990, at 55 FR 5824. In this approach, EPA applies a premise that the
final state submission will be sufficiently similar to the draft
submission such that no significant issues are expected to arise in the
final submission that were not included in EPA's proposed action on the
draft submission. In cases where this premise holds true, the public
has adequate opportunity to comment on the pertinent issues, and a more
efficient and more expeditious rulemaking is achieved. In cases where
this premise does not hold true, EPA will issue a subsequent proposed
rule to solicit comment on issues that it did not anticipate in its
initial proposed action. By this means, everyone has an opportunity to
comment on pertinent issues, as mandated under Federal law. In the
specific case of the Minnesota regional haze plan, based on comments
received on the proposed rule, EPA has changed what it is approving in
the final rule. Thus, this process did not preclude EPA from receiving
new information that affected its final action. Further, Minnesota
supplemented the regional plan it submitted on December 30, 2009. The
supplement updated the BART determinations for the EGUs and taconite
facilities as well as the Northeast Minnesota Plan. All other elements
of the regional haze plan have not been changed since being finalized
in December 2009.
    Comment: The Fond du Lac tribe and several citizens commented on
plans to expand certain existing taconite facilities in northeastern
Minnesota. New taconite facilities are also being planned in
northeastern Minnesota. The commenters noted that the proximity of the
state's six taconite facilities to Class I areas, along with the
magnitude of their emissions of haze-causing pollutants and the
potential new sources, makes northeastern Minnesota an area of concern
with regard to visibility.
    Response: EPA is approving the Northeast Minnesota Plan as part of
the Minnesota regional haze plan. The Northeast Minnesota Plan is
written to restrict the total combined SO2 and
NOX emissions from a six county area. Minnesota will
consider the Northeast Minnesota Plan emission targets before it issues
permits for new and expanding sources. There are also best available
control technology requirements for new or expanding sources (that
exceed certain emissions criteria) to ensure sources use the
appropriate emission

control technology. Minnesota will submit an updated regional haze plan
for each approximately 10-year implementation period. These plans will
include state updates to its long term strategy to plan and implement
visibility protection. Further tracking of changes in visibility over
time at its Class I areas will be provided in midcourse reviews
required during each 10-year progress review. EPA is confident that the
state's Northeast Minnesota Plan, the requirements on new sources, and
the mandated updates to the regional haze plan will adequately address
potential visibility impairment from new or expanded sources.
    Comment: Earthjustice commented that EPA should issue a Minnesota
regional haze plan that ensures clean air in the Boundary Water Canoe
Wilderness Area and Isle Royale and Voyageurs National Parks.
Earthjustice believes that EPA should not approve the state's plan and
should promulgate a replacement plan that more fully improves
visibility.
    Response: EPA's evaluation of the Minnesota regional haze plan led
to the conclusion that many plan elements can be approved in accordance
with the requirements of the RHR, and thus EPA has finalized its
approval of those elements in this rule. As noted, EPA is not acting on
the BART emission limits for taconite facilities. EPA is evaluating the
appropriate emission controls for the taconite facilities. Once that is
determined, EPA will go through a public notice and comment rulemaking
on the BART emission limits for taconite facilities. When those BART
emission limits are finalized, that will complete approval of the
regional haze plan for the first implementation period.
    Comment: Earthjustice commented that Minnesota has failed to
demonstrate that it is unreasonable to achieve the Uniform Rate of
Progress (URP). Minnesota will not attain natural visibility by 2064.
Minnesota has proposed a reasonable progress goal (RPG) that will
attain natural visibility conditions in Boundary Waters in 2093 and in
Voyageurs in 2177. The state will consider the reductions that would be
necessary to achieve the URP and demonstrate why such reductions are
unreasonable.
    Response: EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance states that the URP is
not a presumptive target for the RPG. The state followed the proper
approach in setting its RPGs through 2018. Minnesota considered the
four factors established in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). The factors are considered when selecting
the RPGs for the best and worst days for each Class I area. Minnesota
considered the costs of compliance, the time needed for compliance, the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and the remaining
useful life of the facility. Minnesota also investigated additional
control options. It investigated additional SO2 and
NOX control on EGUs, SO2 and NOX
control on industrial boilers, NOX control from turbines,
and mobile source NOX reductions. The visibility improvement
at issue here is the visibility improvement for the first
implementation period, which extends until July 31, 2018. New control
programs in the future that reduce emissions may be implemented, which
would hasten visibility improvement and possibly yield an earlier year
to achieve natural conditions. Minnesota will include any additional
control measures it finds reasonable along with any additional measures
implemented by contributing states in the next implementation period.
For the first implementation period, EPA finds adequate Minnesota's
assessment of reasonable measures for its long term strategy.
    Comment: Earthjustice commented that Minnesota's 2009 source-
specific BART determinations are wholly inadequate, because Minnesota
failed to engage in a proper five-factor analysis as required by the
BART guidance. The BART guidance provides a methodology that assures a
careful and detailed analysis of the criteria as well as consistency
within the regional haze program. Further, Earthjustice made specific
comments on the BART determinations for the North Shore Mining--Silver
Bay, Sherco, Minnesota Power--Taconite Harbor, Minnesota Power--
Boswell, and Rochester--Silver Lake.
    Response: Minnesota has elected in its supplement to use CSAPR
participation in place of the source-specific BART determinations
submitted in 2009, supplemented by the submission of limits for Sherco.
EPA has determined in a final rule signed on May 30, 2012, that CSAPR
is an alternative program to source-specific BART. Therefore, it is
acceptable for Minnesota to substitute participation in the CSAPR
trading programs for source-specific BART determinations it had
originally submitted for the EGUs. Thus, aside from the limits for
Sherco, the original BART determinations for the EGUs are thus replaced
and no longer at issue. As for Sherco, EPA in this rulemaking is not
evaluating whether the submitted limits would represent BART on a
source-specific basis. Instead, EPA views the limits for Sherco as an
enhancement that make the Minnesota's submission more stringent than it
would be if it simply relied on CSAPR to address EGU BART requirements.
EPA notes that while this finding applies to BART requirements with
respect to regional haze, EPA is separately evaluating the RAVI BART
requirement as it applies to Sherco. EPA will consider the comments on
the BART determination for Sherco during this process.
    Comment: Earthjustice commented that the taconite facilities in
Northern Minnesota, due to their discrete location and the size of this
industry, have not been subject to many of the control requirements
that have been imposed on other industrial sectors, such as power
plants, cement kilns, or refineries. The taconite industry is
responsible for a significant share of visibility impairment in
Boundary Waters and Voyageurs, due to their proximity to the Class I
areas and high NOX and SO2 emissions.
Earthjustice commented that these facilities should be subject to
adequate BART determinations and controls, and that neither Minnesota's
2009 regional haze plan submission nor the plan supplement provide for
valid BART determinations that will result in any real reductions in
pollution coming from taconite facilities.
    Earthjustice further commented that ``Minnesota has not done proper
BART analyses for the taconite facilities and therefore the emission
limits require no real pollution reductions and do not satisfy BART
requirements.'' Earthjustice further asserted that Minnesota failed to
conduct an adequate BART determination and rejected potential control
technologies without an adequate explanation. Earthjustice commented
that selective catalytic reduction (SCR) must be considered for
controlling NOX at taconite facilities and that low
NOX burners must be considered the absolute minimum
NOX control at taconite facilities.
    Response: In response to this and other similar comments, EPA is
reevaluating the emission controls that are warranted to satisfy the
BART requirements at the taconite facilities in Michigan and Minnesota.
    Comment: Earthjustice commented that because Minnesota calculated
emission limits at a 99% confidence limit, on a 30-day rolling average,
it is unlikely that pollution reduction will be achieved.
    Response: EPA's reevaluation of the taconite facility emission
limits will include a reassessment of appropriate

statistics to use in determining the appropriate limits.
    Comment: Earthjustice echoed comments made by the NPS to EPA that
the taconite facilities are major causes of visibility impairment in
several Class I areas. Earthjustice (as well as NPS) further commented
that US Steel recently installed modern emission monitoring systems and
has proposed to install, or has already installed, emission controls
for SO2, NOX, and mercury. Data from US Steel's
Minntac facility demonstrate that low NOX burners are
economically achieving 70% reductions of NOX at the
facility. In its comments, Earthjustice encouraged Minnesota and EPA to
apply this data to require taconite facilities to meet lower emission
limits that reflect the capabilities of available technology.
    Response: In light of this comment and related new information, EPA
is reviewing the control technology proposed for the taconite
facilities. EPA is also studying potential controls for each facility.
Once this review is complete, EPA will propose a rule with the
appropriate controls for those units of taconite facilities that are
subject to BART. Thus, EPA is not taking final action on the taconite
BART limits of the Minnesota regional haze plan.
    Comment: Earthjustice commented that it does not agree that CSAPR
is better than source-specific BART in Minnesota. Earthjustice
commented that the U.S. Forest Service analysis (January 13, 2012
letter) shows that the predicted effect of CSAPR in 2014 is an increase
in emissions over 2012 actual emissions and above what Minnesota
proposed as source-specific BART and what FLMs proposed as source-
specific BART. Earthjustice asserts that source-specific BART to be far
superior to CSAPR.
    Response: This comment pertains to a separate rulemaking where EPA
proposed CSAPR as an alternative program to source-specific BART for
EGUS in the CSAPR region. The rulemaking was made on May 30, 2012. A
complete response to this and similar comments is provided in that rule
and the associated response to comments document.
    Comment: In its comments, Xcel Energy agrees with EPA's conclusion
that, if implemented, CSAPR will achieve greater environmental
improvement than BART. Based on the emission reductions already
achieved on Xcel's units, including emission controls installed on
Sherco Units 1 and 2, and the broad reductions that will be achieved if
CSAPR is implemented in Minnesota, Xcel Energy concludes that
compliance with CSAPR is superior to unit specific requirements under
section 169A. Nonetheless, because of the uncertain status of EPA's
rulemakings and challenges to the CSAPR, Xcel Energy believes it is
premature to rely solely on CSAPR for meeting BART requirement in
Minnesota. In its comments, Xcel Energy urged Minnesota and EPA to
eliminate the risks associated with one or more of these rules not
proceeding by approving both the source-specific BART determinations
and the BART alternative compliance option. If the alternative option
could not go forward for any reason, the Minnesota regional haze plan
would still contain the source-specific BART limits that source could
use to satisfy their BART obligations without requiring Minnesota and
EPA to undertake further SIP revisions. Xcel Energy asserts that
Minnesota's BART determination is fully approvable, because Minnesota's
December 2009 determination for Sherco Units 1 and 2 fully satisfies
all applicable BART requirements. Xcel Energy believes that the BART
determination for these units should be retained.
    Response: EPA proposed approving CSAPR participation as a BART
alternative for SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs.
Minnesota requested in its supplement to the regional haze plan to use
the CSAPR participation as an alternative to the previously submitted
source specific BART determination for EGUs. Thus, EPA did not propose
approving source-specific BART determinations for the EGUs. EPA
nevertheless believes that it can take final action to approve the new
limits for Sherco units 1 and 2, as set in the May 2, 2012,
administrative order, as a SIP strengthening measure. First, EPA
received numerous comments urging substantial tightening of the limits
for this plant, and even the source requested EPA approval of the
tightened emission limits. In that respect, this final action may be
considered to be in response to public comments. Second, EPA's action
reflects a limited evaluation of the administrative order, evaluating
only whether approving the order would result in a more stringent SIP.
Although the order includes a statement that the state and the company
find the limits to represent BART, EPA has not evaluated whether these
limits would represent BART on a source-specific basis. EPA is
expressly not rulemaking on this question. While the administrative
order that EPA is approving states the opinion of Xcel Energy and
Minnesota that the limits represent BART, EPA's approval of the
administrative order should not be construed as rendering any EPA
opinion as to whether the limits would satisfy BART on a source-
specific basis. Third, EPA intends to act in the future concerning the
BART requirements that apply to Sherco as it has been certified as a
source of RAVI. Rulemaking on that matter will provide an opportunity
for public comment on the appropriate limits for Sherco.
    Comment: Xcel Energy commented on its Metropolitan Emission
Reduction Program projects, toward which Xcel Energy has invested one
billion dollars to modernize and reduce emissions from three coal-fired
generating stations, reducing NOX and SO2
emissions from those plants by approximately 90%. Xcel Energy's
customers are paying for these reductions and the reductions are key to
environmental progress in Minnesota. Xcel Energy further commented that
it has installed the pollution controls for NOX indicated by
Minnesota's BART determination for Sherco. Furthermore, Xcel Energy is
moving forward with the upgrades to its scrubbers to reduce
SO2 emissions from Sherco. Xcel Energy asserts that these
projects achieve substantial improvements in visibility.
    Response: Reductions in NOX and SO2 emissions
from Minnesota EGUs will aid the state in improving visibility. The
emission reductions will also provide health benefits resulting from
the improved air quality. EPA acknowledges the emission reductions
resulting from these investments and EPA is approving the limits
submitted by Minnesota as strengthening the SIP. Nevertheless, EPA
plans further rulemaking to address whether this plant has addressed
its RAVI obligations.
    Comment: In its comments, Xcel Energy asserts that it relied on
EPA's statements in the proposed rule that requirements of the RAVI
regulations, potentially applicable to Sherco, are not being addressed
in the proposed rule. Xcel Energy has reviewed the RAVI regulations and
seeks to reserve the right to comment to EPA on the interpretation of
the RAVI requirements. Xcel Energy also noted that RAVI involves
different analyses and applies different BART guidelines. Further, Xcel
Energy commented that given that almost ten years have passed since the
modeling baseline was developed for the Minnesota regional haze plan
and emissions have declined significantly in the interim, EPA will need
to commence a new RAVI analysis and implementation planning process for
Minnesota.

    Response: EPA has decided to address the RAVI BART emission
requirements for Sherco separately from the regional haze program
elements. EPA will offer a comment period during the Sherco RAVI BART
rulemaking. Xcel Energy and other interested parties will be able to
comment on the RAVI BART determination for Sherco at that time. During
subsequent rulemaking on RAVI, EPA will take steps to solicit any
further information that Xcel Energy wishes to provide for purposes of
determining BART under RAVI.
    Comment: In its comments, ArcelorMittal expresses its concern that
EPA published its January 25, 2010, proposed rule before Minnesota had
completed its public comment period and Citizens' Board meeting on the
regional haze plan supplement.
    Response: EPA's rulemaking is premised on Minnesota submitting a
final supplement that is sufficiently similar to its proposed
supplement such that the proposed rule provides adequate notice for
comments. In fact, the final supplement does not propose any new
issues, and therefore, EPA believes that its rulemaking on Minnesota's
plan provided sufficient opportunity for public comment on the relevant
issues to merit EPA granting final approval with respect to most SIP
elements without requiring an amended proposed rule. Note, however,
that on the issues most likely of concern to ArcelorMittal, that is
BART for taconite plants, EPA plans further rulemaking with further
opportunity for ArcelorMittal and other interested parties to comment.
    Comment: ArcelorMittal commented that it worked extensively with
Minnesota to gather the data necessary to propose appropriate BART
limits for the taconite industry. ArcelorMittal commented that there is
still significant work to be done to generate appropriate numeric BART
limits for the taconite industry. It urged EPA to postpone action on
Minnesota's SIP to give the state more time to fully evaluate the
appropriate emission limits for the taconite industry and to extend the
Federal comment period to allow a reasonable period of time for the
public to comment.
    Response: EPA agrees that more effort is needed to set apposite
BART limits for the taconite facilities. EPA is studying potential
controls for each taconite facility. Once this review is complete, EPA
will propose a rule requiring the appropriate controls for the units
subject to BART at the taconite facilities. There will be an
opportunity for public comment during the rulemaking process.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that it has worked extensively with
Minnesota for the purpose of developing BART limits for the taconite
industry. Cliffs commented that although Minnesota has identified BART
determinations, developed and implemented administrative orders to
gather emission information, and has proposed numeric emission limits,
there is still significant work to be done to generate appropriate
numeric limits for the taconite industry. Cliffs requested that
Minnesota receive an opportunity to complete its SIP process before EPA
proposed a Federal implementation plan (FIP) for applicable facilities
in the taconite industry in Minnesota.
    Response: EPA is evaluating the BART determinations for the
taconite facilities in light of new information. EPA agrees that
considerable work remains in determining the correct BART limits. EPA
will continue to work with Minnesota in determining the correct limits.
Once that is resolved, EPA and Minnesota will select the appropriate
course of action for setting the final BART limits for taconite
facilities.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that it is inappropriate to approve
Minnesota's SIP before all public comments have been submitted and
considered, and asserts that EPA offered no indication as to how this
parallel processing can comply with the procedural requirements of the
CAA, the Administrative Procedures Act, and Minnesota law.
    Response: Appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 provides relevant guidance
on the completeness of SIP submittals. Section 2.3 of this appendix
outlines the criteria for parallel processing. Further discussion of
this procedure is provided in the rulemaking promulgating appendix V,
published in final on February 16, 1990, at 55 FR 5824. That rulemaking
addresses in more detail how parallel processing is consistent with the
CAA and the Administrative Procedures Act. In the parallel process, EPA
presumes that the final state submission will be sufficiently similar
to the draft submission such that no significant issues would be
expected to arise in the final submission that had not already been
raised in the proposed rule. Where the premise is correct, the public
has adequate opportunity to comment on the pertinent issues, and a more
efficient and more expeditious rulemaking is achieved. Where the
premise is not correct, EPA will issue a subsequent proposed rule to
solicit comment on those issues that were not included in the initial
proposed action. By this process, commenters are provided an
opportunity to comment on all pertinent issues, as mandated under
Federal law.
    In this particular case, EPA believed that the circumstances
warranted parallel processing. EPA anticipated a final state regional
haze plan supplement similar to the proposed supplement, such that a
parallel processing approach would provide the public with an
opportunity for comment on the pertinent issues. EPA followed this
process in order to expedite action on Minnesota's plan. However,
several of the comments that EPA received have led EPA to believe that
more effective emission control at taconite plants is warranted. EPA
intends to issue another proposed rule on emission limits for taconite
plants to provide the public the opportunity to comment on EPA's
revised views regarding taconite facility emission controls. Therefore,
the commenter's concern about having an adequate opportunity to comment
on EPA's proposed action on a final state submission is fully
addressed.
    Comment: In its comments, Cliffs asserts that the numeric limits
that were included in the proposed Administrative Orders for the
Cliffs' facilities in Minnesota's supplement were erroneously derived
and do not reflect the application of BART. Cliffs asserts that
alternate product lines, fuel flexibility, and other considerations
must be included in developing numeric limits that Cliffs will be
required to meet on a continuous basis.
    Response: EPA is considering new information on the BART emission
limits for taconite facilities. EPA will issue a subsequent proposed
rule before taking final action on the emission limits for taconite
facilities. EPA will consider information from Cliffs regarding its
taconite facilities before taking final action.
    Comment: In its comment letter, Cliffs states as follows,

    ``Minnesota is clearly under pressure from EPA to rush the SIP
submission to the detriment of Cliffs and the rest of Minnesota's
taconite industry. Rather than wait for Minnesota's SIP to be
complete, EPA is proposing the highly unusual step of conditionally
approving Minnesota's SIP before Minnesota has had a chance to
gather all necessary data, let alone finalize its SIP. EPA should
take all necessary steps to relax its own negotiated deadlines to
relieve the pressure on Minnesota, so that the collaborative process
that has brought us this far is not scuttled by an unfortunate and
arbitrary rush to codify numeric limits before they have completed
the critical public review process with adequate time and resources
for reasoned consideration of those comments.''

    Response: The July 1, 1999 RHR (64 FR 35714) required states to
submit a regional haze plan by December 17, 2007. However, many states
still submitted regional haze plans late, including Minnesota, which
submitted its plan on December 30, 2009. Therefore, the taconite
industry clearly had sufficient time to work with Minnesota in setting
appropriate BART limits. Nevertheless, comments on the proposed rule
have yielded information indicating that greater control of taconite
facilities is feasible and warranted. Consistent with the commenter's
recommendation, EPA has negotiated additional time to perform a review
of pollution control options for taconite facilities. EPA will issue
another proposed rule before taking final action on emission limits for
the taconite industry. This process will provide an adequate
opportunity to review any information that the commenter provides EPA.

III. What is EPA's plan to address RAVI BART for Sherco?

    On October 21, 2009, the Department of Interior certified that a
portion of the visibility impairment in Isle Royale National Park and
Voyageurs National Park is caused by emissions from Sherco, and thus
certified that Sherco causes RAVI at these Class I areas. The RAVI
requirements that were due prior to this certification were addressed
by a Federally promulgated plan because Minnesota did not submit a plan
addressing these requirements. See 40 CFR 52.1236. In its notice of
proposed rulemaking, EPA stated its intention to act on RAVI
requirements in separate rulemaking action. EPA is continuing to defer
action in response to this certification of RAVI for Sherco.
    EPA's final rule, signed on May 30, 2012, finding that CSAPR
addresses pertinent EGU BART requirements predominantly addresses BART
as a requirement for regional haze plans but also includes limited
discussion of BART as a requirement for RAVI sources. In light of the
fact that the pertinent notice of proposed rulemaking did not request
comment on the interplay of the RAVI requirements in 40 CFR 51.302-306
with the requirements of the RHR and because EPA had not proposed any
revisions to the applicable regulatory text, EPA did not adopt any
clarifying interpretations of the applicable rules in that rulemaking.
As a result, neither that final rule nor this final action on the
regional haze SIP for Minnesota alters the authority of a FLM to
certify RAVI nor the obligation of states (or EPA) to respond to a RAVI
certification under 40 CFR part 51 subpart P (Protection of
Visibility). EPA expects at a later date to clarify the scope of the
RAVI requirements through a rule amendment, general guidance, or action
on a SIP or FIP in the context of a specific RAVI case, such as that of
Sherco. Whatever the form, we intend to provide an opportunity for
public comment before applying a new interpretation.
    EPA, in fact, intends to conduct further rulemaking regarding RAVI
BART for Sherco within the next few months. EPA expects that this
rulemaking will address the particular circumstances for Sherco. This
rulemaking may also discuss the general criteria and considerations
that apply in determining RAVI BART as compared to BART for regional
haze purposes. Of note here is a letter sent on June 6, 2011, from
Douglas Aburano, Chief of the Control Strategies Section of EPA Region
5. This letter states that to the extent that source-specific BART is
required, the available evidence suggests that source-specific BART for
this facility would include installation and operation of SCR of
NOX emissions. The contemplated rulemaking regarding RAVI
BART for Sherco will provide full opportunity for public review of both
the general issues regarding the relationship between BART for RAVI
purposes and BART for regional haze purposes, as well as the
particular, current facts regarding the circumstances at Sherco.
    Xcel Energy commented on EPA's proposal for this final rule that if
EPA concluded that source-specific BART was necessary and that if
stricter limits than those submitted by the state (reflecting
combustion controls) were required, Xcel Energy requested the
opportunity to evaluate alternative strategies to achieve the emission
reductions needed to satisfy such a BART requirement. Under this
scenario, EPA would honor this request and would conduct discussions
with the state and with Xcel Energy to assure both that the
environmental objectives of the applicable visibility regulations are
achieved and that alternate approaches allowed by these regulations are
fully considered.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Minnesota's regional haze plan as satisfying the
applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.308, except for BART emission
limits for the taconite facilities. These requirements include
identifying affected Class I areas, calculating the baseline and
natural visibility, establishing RPGs, mandating BART emission
reductions for the five subject to BART EGUs (in this case through
participation in CSAPR), adopting a long term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward visibility goals, providing a monitoring
strategy, and consulting with other states and the FLMs before adopting
its regional haze plan.
    EPA is deferring action on the BART emission limits for the
taconite facilities. In the proposed rule, we stated that the taconite
processing facilities are a small, unique industry with little known
about potential emission controls. EPA received significant information
about NOX controls at one of the Minnesota taconite
facilities in comments on EPA's proposed rulemaking. EPA has elected to
defer acting on the BART determinations for the taconite facilities
with the other regional haze plan elements. This allows EPA time to
evaluate properly additional potential emission controls for the
taconite facilities. Under a schedule mandated by NPCA consent decree,
EPA plans additional review of the taconite BART determinations leading
to a subsequent proposed rule by July 13, 2012, and a final rule by
November 15, 2012. Once suitable limits satisfying BART requirements
for taconite plants are established, all requirements for the first
implementation period for regional haze for Minnesota will be
satisfied.
    As proposed, EPA intends to act on RAVI BART in a separate action.
A BART determination under the RAVI is similar to, but independent from
the BART determination made under the RHR. EPA views Minnesota's plan
as addressing regional haze as regulated under 40 CFR 51.308 and not
RAVI as regulated under 40 CFR 51.302 to 51.306. This rulemaking only
addresses the regional haze requirements and does not address whether
the plan addresses requirements that apply as a result of the
certification of Xcel Energy's Sherco power plant as a RAVI source.
Thus, EPA is not acting on RAVI BART for Sherco in this rule. EPA will
address the requirements that apply based on Sherco's RAVI
certification in a separate action. Further, while Minnesota provided
emission limits for Sherco units 1 and 2, we are approving these limits
solely as a SIP strengthening measure. EPA is not acting on any source-
specific BART determinations in this rule.

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. For that reason, this 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 rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 13, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 30, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding an entry in alphabetical order
in the table in paragraph (d) for ``Xcel Energy--Northern States Power
Company, Sherburne County Generating Station'' and by adding an entry
in alphabetical order in the table in paragraph (e) for ``Regional Haze
Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          Name of source                Permit No.      effective date   EPA approval date         Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Xcel Energy--Northern States       Administrative             05/02/12  6/12/2012, [Insert   See Final Rule for
 Power Company, Sherburne County    Order.                               page number where    details.
 Generating Station.                                                     the document
                                                                         begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable        State submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      date/effective     EPA approved date       Comments
            provision             nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan..............  statewide.........  12/30/2009 and 5/8/ 6/12/2012, [Insert  Includes all
                                                       2012.               page number where   regional haze
                                                                           the document        plan elements
                                                                           begins].            except BART
                                                                                emission
                                                                                limitations for
                                                                                the taconite
                                                                                facilities.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-14101 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 894]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00078]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0494; FRL-1002-22-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Tips and Complaints Regarding Environmental
Violations (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Tips and Complaints Regarding
Environmental Violations (EPA ICR Number 2219.03, OMB Control Number
2020-0032) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
January 21, 2020. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on August 22, 2019 during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 7,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0494 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Le Desma; Legal Counsel
Division; Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training;
Environmental Protection Agency, Building 25, Box 25227, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, CO 80025; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(303) 462-9075; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: EPA tips and complaints web form is intended to provide
an easy and convenient means by which members of the public can supply
information to EPA regarding suspected violations of environmental law.
The decision to provide a tip or complaint is entirely voluntary and
use of the webform when supplying a tip or complaint is also entirely
voluntary. Tippers need not supply contact information or other
personal identifiers. Those who do supply such information, however,
should know that this information may be shared by EPA with appropriate
administrative, law enforcement, and judicial entities engaged in
investigating or adjudicating the tip or complaint.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Anyone wishing to file a tip or
complaint.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 17,172 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 8,586 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $400,347 (per year), which includes no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 3,443 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in
the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects the fact that
tips and complaints are being filed at a higher rate than originally
anticipated, a strong indication of the success of this program. There
has been no change in the information being reported or the estimated
burden per respondent.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-00078 Filed 1-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P