Rule2022-06904
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; North Dakota; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 5, 2022
Effective
May 5, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of North Dakota on August 3, 2020, addressing regional haze. Specifically, EPA is approving Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota SIP for Regional Haze to satisfy certain requirements for the first implementation period of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) regional haze program. Amendment No. 2 adopts the same regional haze requirements for nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 promulgated by EPA in our 2012 Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). In conjunction with the approval of Amendment No. 2, we are also withdrawing the 2012 FIP as it applies to the Antelope Valley Station as well as certain provisions related to Coal Creek Station that were vacated by a judicial determination. EPA will work with North Dakota to ensure that the State corrects the SIP deficiencies related to Coal Creek Station. EPA is finalizing this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19635-19643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06904]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406; FRL-9206-02-R8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
North Dakota; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of North Dakota on August 3, 2020, addressing regional haze.
Specifically, EPA is approving Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota SIP
for Regional Haze to satisfy certain requirements for the first
implementation period of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) regional haze
program. Amendment No. 2 adopts the same regional haze requirements for
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) for Antelope Valley Station Units 1
and 2 promulgated by EPA in our 2012 Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
In conjunction with the approval of Amendment No. 2, we are also
withdrawing the 2012 FIP as it applies to the Antelope Valley Station
as well as certain provisions related to Coal Creek Station that were
vacated by a judicial determination. EPA will work with North Dakota to
ensure that the State corrects the SIP deficiencies related to Coal
Creek Station. EPA is finalizing this action pursuant to sections 110
and 169A of the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 5, 2022.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. 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, is not placed on the
website and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please call or email the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Worstell, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6073, email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#493e263b3a3d2c25256728283b2627092c3928672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51263e232225343d3d7f3030233e3f113421307f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
B. Federal Implementation Plan Withdrawal
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. The EPA's Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Determination Under Clean Air Act Section 307(d)
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
M. Judicial Review
I. Background
The background for this action is described in detail in our March
12, 2021 proposed rule.\1\ In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to
approve Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota Regional Haze SIP as
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 86 FR 14055 (March 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19636]]
A. Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
We proposed to approve the following elements of Amendment No. 2 to
the North Dakota Regional Haze SIP: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The regulatory provisions of SIP Amendment No. 2 (which are
the only parts of Amendment No. 2 being incorporated by reference)
are contained in Appendix D.6, Permit to Construct for Antelope
Valley, number PTC20031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> A NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit of 0.17 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) each for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2,
applicable at all times including during periods of startup, shutdown,
emergency, and malfunction;
<bullet> The associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2;
<bullet> Provisions requiring compliance with the emission limit
and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the SIP
revision no later than the effective date of this final action; and
<bullet> Related nonregulatory provisions as reflected in additions
and changes to the 2010 Regional Haze SIP in section 9.5.1 (Antelope
Valley Station), Appendix J.1.6 (Federal Land Manager Comments on
Amendment No. 2 and Department's Response), and Appendix J.3.4 (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Comments on Amendment No. 2 and
Department's Response).
We proposed to find that North Dakota fulfilled its requirement to
consult with the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in development of
Amendment No. 2.
We also proposed to restore certain other nonregulatory text
amendments under 40 CFR 52.1820(e). The proposed amendments include
incorporation of provisions previously approved in our 2012 final
rule.\3\ EPA partially approved these provisions as meeting the
requirements of the CAA and applicable regulations in previous actions;
\4\ however, when updating 40 CFR 52.1820(e) in 2015, we inadvertently
deleted all approved provisions relevant to North Dakota regional
haze.\5\ We proposed to remedy that error; however, we did not
otherwise address or reopen for comment any of the previously approved
provisions. We deem any comments on these provisions beyond the scope
of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 77 FR 20894 (April 6, 2012).
\4\ Id.
\5\ 80 FR 76211 (December 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Federal Implementation Plan Withdrawal
Because we proposed to find that Amendment No. 2 satisfies the
reasonable progress requirements for NO<INF>X</INF> at Antelope Valley
Station Units 1 and 2 for the first regional haze planning period, we
also proposed to withdraw the corresponding portions of the North
Dakota Regional Haze FIP at 40 CFR 52.1825.
In addition, EPA stated that we planned to remove from the Code of
Federal Regulations the FIP requirements for Coal Creek Station that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated in North
Dakota v. EPA.\6\ Because this is a purely ministerial action to ensure
that the Code of Federal Regulations reflects current case law, we did
not invite public comment on our removal of the vacated language. North
Dakota's BART obligation for Coal Creek Station remains outstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 730 F.3d 750, 764 (8th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct.
2662 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not propose any other changes related to our 2012 final rule
because no other changes were addressed in Amendment No. 2 or required
by the North Dakota decision. Accordingly, our determinations regarding
North Dakota's reasonable progress goals, long-term strategy, and
interstate transport obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
concerning visibility protection,\7\ remain in place.\8\ We did not
reopen or take comment on these aspects of our 2012 final rule. We deem
any comments on these issues beyond the scope of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
\8\ 77 FR 20896, 20899-900; see also 85 FR 20165, 20177 (April
10, 2020) (regarding the status of North Dakota's obligations under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) concerning visibility protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed rule provided background on the requirements of the
CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule, and EPA's rationale for its proposed
action. That background information and rationale will not be restated
here. For the reasons stated in the proposed rule and this document,
EPA approves Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota SIP for Regional Haze
to satisfy certain requirements for the first implementation period \9\
of the CAA's regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Implementation period'' and ``planning period'' are used
interchangeably in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
We received comments from the public and a group of conservation
organizations through the internet and mail. The full text of comments
received from these commenters is included in the publicly posted
docket associated with this action at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. The
National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and Badlands
Conservation Alliance (Conservation Organizations) submitted detailed
written comments in opposition to our proposed approval of Amendment
No. 2. We also received a short comment from a member of the public in
support of our proposed approval.
Comment summary: The commenters assert that EPA's proposal relies
on outdated data and technical information. They state that North
Dakota's SIP submittal does not contain a four-factor reasonable
progress analysis of its own, nor does it reference EPA's FIP analysis.
Further the commenters state that the emission data and technical
analysis regarding costs and controls in EPA's 2012 FIP are more than
nine years old, and no longer represent current operations. The
commenters state that current operational data is missing from the
record, and that Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 are currently
meeting NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits of 0.11 lb/MMBtu, which is
significantly less than the FIP and SIP revision limit of 0.17 lb/
MMBtu. The commenters assert that EPA's regulations require that SIPs
must provide for ``public availability of emission data reported by
source owners or operators or otherwise obtained by a State or local
agency,'' which is then required to be correlated with the applicable
reasonable progress emission limitations. The commenters assert that
neither North Dakota's SIP submittal nor EPA's proposal contain an
updated reasonable progress analysis and consideration of additional
controls.
Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. First, neither North
Dakota nor EPA is required to conduct a new four factor reasonable
progress analysis for this action because the relevant analysis was
completed during the first regional haze planning period in support of
EPA's 2012 FIP. As explained in the proposed rule, this action involves
a mere transfer of the first planning period NO<INF>X</INF> reasonable
progress requirements for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 from
EPA's 2012 FIP to North Dakota's SIP.
Under the Regional Haze Rule, states were required to submit SIP
revisions including first planning period regional haze requirements on
December 17, 2007.\10\ North Dakota submitted its regional haze SIP
revision in 2010.\11\ As explained in the proposed rule, in 2012, EPA
disapproved North Dakota's NO<INF>X</INF> reasonable progress
determination for
[[Page 19637]]
Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 and instead promulgated a FIP. To
support the FIP, EPA performed a thorough, six-step, reasonable
progress analysis.\12\ EPA presented control efficiencies, emissions
data, emissions reductions for six different control options (including
no controls), analyzed costs for five control options, and noted
visibility benefits of 0.754 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt National
Park from the installation of new low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners and
separated overfire air (LNB and SOFA, or ``combustion controls'') on
Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2. As a result of EPA's six-step
analysis, EPA determined that an emission limit consistent with the
installation of LNB and SOFA (0.17 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling
average) was appropriate to require as reasonable progress for the
first planning period.\13\ North Dakota's SIP revision at issue in this
action adopts the exact same emission limit and associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that EPA included in its 2012
FIP, thereby adopting the exact same first planning period
NO<INF>X</INF> reasonable progress requirements for Antelope Valley
Station Units 1 and 2 that EPA set in 2012. Thus, neither North Dakota
nor EPA was required to perform a new analysis duplicative of EPA's
earlier analysis for purposes of this federal-to-state transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 40 CFR 51.308(b).
\11\ 86 FR 14057.
\12\ 76 FR 58570, 58630-32 (September 21, 2011).
\13\ 77 FR 20899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, neither North Dakota nor EPA was required to update the
prior analysis with current emissions data or tighten the
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit based on current operations.\14\ Again,
the determination being transferred from EPA's 2012 FIP to North
Dakota's SIP in this action is a first planning period determination.
The analysis that supported EPA's 2012 determination and the emission
limit that EPA set (0.17 lbs/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average) was
consistent with the EPA's understanding at the time of the emission
limit achievable with combustion controls at similar units.\15\ That
Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 currently could meet a lower
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit with the installed combustion controls
may be relevant to North Dakota's forthcoming second planning period
regional haze SIP revision, but that information does not demand a
revised analysis to support the mere transfer of first planning period
requirements from EPA's FIP to North Dakota's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Note that the commenters are incorrect that current
operational data is missing from the record for this action. See AVS
Monthly AMPD Data, EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0440.
\15\ 76 FR 58632. See also, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.E.5
(stating that 0.17 lb/MMBtu is the presumptive limit that can be met
by tangential-fired boilers using combustion control technology and
burning lignite coal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment summary: The commenters assert that EPA must not approve
North Dakota's proposed SIP amendments because they are inconsistent
with EPA's FIP. Specifically, the commenters assert that the regulatory
text in 40 CFR 52.1820(e) contains two conflicting provisions:
<bullet> EPA proposes to adopt by reference North Dakota's SIP that
was effective under State law on July 8, 2020 (which contains
information and references to the disapproved SIP in Section 9.5.1 of
North Dakota's SIP Amendment No. 2); and
<bullet> While in the same portion of the regulatory text, EPA's
``Comments'' for the Regional Haze line entry indicates that it is
incorporating by reference the entire State Plan ``[e]xcluding
provisions disapproved on April 6, 2012. 77 FR 20894.''
The commenters state that Section 9.5.1 of North Dakota's SIP
references assumptions and analysis from the disapproved sections of
its Regional Haze SIP, including control efficiencies and emission
reductions. The commenters state that EPA's disapproval explained that
North Dakota's control efficiencies and emission reductions for Units 1
and 2 differed from EPA analysis, and EPA ultimately relied on its own
analysis promulgating the FIP. The commenters also argue that EPA's
current proposal erred in stating that North Dakota's SIP Amendment No.
2 merely adopts the FIP. The commenters conclude that EPA is proposing
to approve portions of North Dakota's SIP that it earlier disapproved.
The commenters also assert that North Dakota has attempted to use this
SIP amendment to restore assumptions and analysis EPA disapproved and
replaced with its FIP analysis and final reasonable progress
determination.
The commenters contend that it is unreasonable and inappropriate
for EPA to approve the sentences in North Dakota's narrative in Section
9.5.1 because they are inconsistent with EPA's FIP analysis.
Additionally, the commenters contend that neither North Dakota's SIP
amendment nor EPA's proposal contain the substantive technical analysis
to support North Dakota's brief discussion in Section 9.5.1. The
commenters state that there is no information for the public to review
and comment on. The commenters believe that North Dakota may have
included the discussion and reference to its disapproved SIP provisions
in an attempt to then reference this information as ``EPA approved'' in
its upcoming proposed regional haze SIP due to EPA by July 31, 2021.
The commenters conclude that EPA must not approve the State's
disapproved first round reasonable progress analysis for Antelope
Valley Station.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, the commenters
are incorrect that EPA's 2012 disapproval ``explained that [North
Dakota's] control efficiencies and emission reductions for Units 1 and
2 differed from [the] EPA analysis, and EPA ultimately relied on its
own analysis promulgating the FIP.'' In the 2011 proposed rule, we
explicitly stated that ``[o]ur analysis is based on the information
provided by North Dakota, except that, as we explain below, we are
disregarding North Dakota's visibility analysis.'' \16\ In EPA's
analysis supporting the FIP, the control efficiency and emission
reductions for each control were identical to those in North Dakota's
analysis.\17\ For example, both EPA and North Dakota assumed that LNB
with SOFA could achieve a 51% control efficiency and reduce
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions by 3,889 tons per year at Unit 1 and by 3,450
tons per year at Unit 2. Thus, by relying on the 2012 analysis for this
rule, EPA is not relying on assumptions and analysis that EPA
disapproved in 2012, as the commenters contend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 76 FR 58631.
\17\ Compare id., Table 71, Summary of Antelope Valley Station
NO<INF>X</INF> Reasonable Progress Analysis Control Technologies for
Unit 1 and 2 Boilers, with North Dakota Department of Health, North
Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, February 24,
2010, Table 9.8, Control Cost Options, page 204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as acknowledged by the commenters, the proposed
regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.1820(e) for this action specifies that the
provisions of the 2010 SIP that were disapproved in our 2012 final
action, including those in Section 9.5.1, will remain disapproved.\18\
Thus, in this action, we are not approving previously disapproved
portions of North Dakota's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 86 FR 14061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the commenters presented no evidence to support their
contention that North Dakota intends to rely on the technical analysis
from its 2010 SIP for its second planning period regional haze SIP
revision. We are aware that North Dakota has selected Antelope Valley
Station as a source to analyze for additional control measures in the
second planning period. We are also aware that the new four factor
analysis conducted for North Dakota's second
[[Page 19638]]
planning period SIP revision will be based on an updated technical
analysis, including updated representative baseline emissions, control
efficiencies, emission reductions, and costs.\19\ North Dakota's second
planning period SIP revision and the accompanying new four factor
analysis will be subject to EPA review and subsequent public notice and
comment. Any errors or deficiencies in the analysis will be addressed
at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, Air
Pollution Control Program, Division of Air Quality, DRAFT for
Federal Land Manager Review, North Dakota State Implementation Plan
for Regional Haze, available at <a href="https://deq.nd.gov/publications/AQ/Planning/RegionalHaze/Round_2/ND_RH_SIP_v2.0DRAFT.pdf">https://deq.nd.gov/publications/AQ/Planning/RegionalHaze/Round_2/ND_RH_SIP_v2.0DRAFT.pdf</a>. See four-
factor analysis for Antelope Valley Station in Appendix A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment summary: The commenters assert that North Dakota has not
made an ``official plan submission'' to EPA and EPA has not
demonstrated that the SIP submittal is complete. Specifically, the
commenters assert that North Dakota failed to submit a SIP revision
consistent with 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, because the submittal does
not describe the ``[c]ompliance/enforcement strategies'' it intends to
follow in implementing the SIP, ``including how compliance will be
determined in practice.'' They assert that the SIP revision also lacks
a ``description of the enforcement methods'' that North Dakota plans to
use when it implements the reasonable progress control strategy for the
Antelope Valley Station. Additionally, the commenters contend that
North Dakota's SIP revision lacks a technical basis and reasoned
analysis for including EPA's FIP in the SIP. The commenters state that
it is unclear what authority North Dakota relied on to adopt and then
implement the SIP.
The commenters further assert that EPA failed to prepare a
completeness analysis under appendix V for public review and comment.
The commenters contend that without a completeness analysis, EPA has
not demonstrated that the SIP revision contains ``[e]vidence that the
plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and
recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure
[reasonable progress determination] emission levels.''
Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. CAA section 110(k)
provides a two-step process for EPA's review of SIP submittals. First,
within six months of receiving a SIP submission, EPA must make a
threshold ``completeness determination'' to determine whether the SIP
contains certain ``minimum criteria'' designated by EPA as ``the
information necessary to . . . determine whether the plan submission
complies with the provisions of the CAA.'' \20\ These minimum criteria
are listed in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.\21\ There is no requirement
in the CAA or EPA's regulations that EPA document its completeness
review prior to proposing to approve a SIP revision. To the contrary,
if EPA fails to make the completeness determination within six months,
the SIP submission is deemed complete by operation of law.\22\ Here,
EPA received North Dakota's SIP submittal on July 28, 2020. EPA did not
make a formal completeness determination within six months; thus, the
SIP submittal was deemed complete by operation of law and constitutes
an official submission.\23\ North Dakota's authority to adopt the SIP
is addressed in the Opinion issued by the North Dakota Office of
Attorney General and submitted with the SIP revision.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(A), (B).
\21\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
\22\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(C); 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, Sec.
1.2.
\23\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, Sec. 1.2 (``A determination of
completeness under this paragraph means that the submission is an
official submission for purposes of Sec. 51.103.'').
\24\ Letter dated July 28, 2020, from Doug Burgum, Governor,
North Dakota, to Gregory Sopkin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
8, Subject: Revisions to North Dakota Regional Haze SIP for control
of air pollution; North Dakota, Final Revisions to Implementation
Plan for Control of Air Pollution, Amendment No. 2 to North Dakota
State Implementation Plan First Planning Period for Regional Haze
(July 2020) (Amendment No. 2) at 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second step of the two-step process, EPA evaluates SIP
submittals for compliance with substantive CAA requirements.\25\ Here,
the relevant provisions are CAA sections 110 and 169A and 40 CFR
51.308. EPA explained in the proposed rule and elsewhere in this
document how North Dakota's SIP revision complies with these
substantive requirements of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule, and
specifically addresses the commenters' concerns regarding
enforceability in this document below.\26\ Thus, the commenters'
assertions that North Dakota's SIP revision was inadequate because it
lacked appendix V criteria and that EPA's proposal was inadequate
because it lacked an appendix V completeness determination are without
merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See NRDC v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
\26\ 86 FR 14055, 14057-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment summary: The commenters state that, in order to approve
North Dakota's SIP that replaces the FIP, the SIP revision must be
substantively identical to the FIP and enforceable. The commenters
contend that EPA's proposal does not include all the permit provisions
necessary to make the SIP equivalent to the FIP, but instead includes
only selective provisions from North Dakota's air pollution control
permit to construct: ``emission limit[s] for Units 1 and 2 and
corresponding monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
The commenters assert that EPA's proposal is not substantively
identical to its FIP because it does not propose approving parallel
permit conditions that are necessary for enforceability, such as permit
conditions related to definitions, compliance dates, continuous
emissions monitoring, and others. The commenters also state that there
are permit conditions for which there are not parallel provisions in
the FIP that, if approved into the SIP, would at least in part address
their concerns regarding enforceability. Finally, the commenters state
that there are permit conditions for which there are not parallel
conditions in the FIP and that we do not have authority to approve,
such as those related to continuous emission monitoring procedures,
audits, and reporting, and to emission inventory reporting. In
particular, the commenters contend that EPA must not approve the permit
conditions that involve reporting on State-supplied forms because (1)
the forms may contain information inconsistent with that required by
the FIP, (2) the permit conditions do not specify what is on these
forms, and the public did not have an opportunity to review and comment
on the forms, and (3) the information in the forms is left to the
State's discretion. The commenter makes similar arguments regarding
monitoring procedures and audits.
Response: We agree with this comment, in part, and are making
changes in this final rule accordingly. In our proposed rule, the
comment column in the regulatory text for Antelope Valley Station
indicated that we proposed to incorporate into the SIP those permit
conditions found in the permit-to-construct (PTC20031) related only to
the ``NO<INF>X</INF> BART emission limit for Units 1 and 2 and
corresponding monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
\27\ While this language could be understood to mean that any permit
condition necessary for enforceability would be included in the SIP,
the commenters interpreted it to mean that only the permit conditions
in the three sections of the permit with corresponding titles would be
incorporated into the SIP: Section
[[Page 19639]]
II.A.2--Emission Limits; Section II.A.5--Monitoring Requirements and
Conditions; and Section II.A.6--Reporting. To provide clarity, we are
removing the comment from the source-specific requirements for Antelope
Valley Station Units 1 and 2. This should address the commenters'
concerns regarding the permit conditions necessary for enforceability,
as well as whether the SIP is substantively the same as the FIP. In
addition, we note that this approach (not specifying which permit
conditions are being incorporated into the SIP) is consistent with the
approach we took for other sources in our 2012 final rule (i.e., for
Heskett Station Units 1 and 2, Leland Olds Units 1 and 2, Milton R.
Young Units 1 and 2, and Staton Station Unit 1).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 86 FR 14061.
\28\ 77 FR 20943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree that we do not have authority to, and must not, approve
additional permit conditions for which there are not parallel
conditions in the FIP. With the clarifying change we are making to the
source-specific requirements of 40 CFR 52.1820(d) today, we are
incorporating into the SIP all provisions that are necessary for
enforceability (e.g., monitoring, record keeping, and reporting). Thus,
any permit conditions that are in addition to parallel conditions in
the FIP only serve to enhance enforceability. In any event, these
additional permit conditions are included in the Title V permit for
Antelope Valley Station, and are thus already federally
enforceable.\29\ Moreover, the same or similar permit conditions also
appear in the permit-to-construct for each of the sources for which we
approved source-specific requirements in our 2012 final rule.\30\
Finally, the forms that concern the commenters are publicly available
on North Dakota's website.\31\ We have reviewed them and find no reason
to conclude that they would allow violations of the emission limit for
Units 1 and 2 or the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements, or interfere with enforceability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Air Pollution Control Title V Permit to Operate, Permit
Number T5-F8600, renewal no. 4, June 26, 2019. North Dakota has a
fully approved operating permit program. 40 CFR part 70, appendix A.
\30\ 77 FR 20943.
\31\ See Title V Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, <a href="https://www.deq.nd.gov/forms/aq/title-v/SFN52737.pdf">https://www.deq.nd.gov/forms/aq/title-v/SFN52737.pdf</a>; Title V Annual
Compliance Certification Report, <a href="https://www.deq.nd.gov/forms/aq/title-v/SFN52738.pdf">https://www.deq.nd.gov/forms/aq/title-v/SFN52738.pdf</a>; see also <a href="https://www.deq.nd.gov/AQ/Forms.aspx">https://www.deq.nd.gov/AQ/Forms.aspx</a>
(list of North Dakota Air Quality Forms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment summary: The commenters assert that North Dakota's SIP
revision did not contain an analysis under CAA section 110(l), and that
EPA's analysis is inaccurate and incomplete. In particular, the
commenters contend that EPA wrongly referenced a CAA section 110(l)
analysis completed for the 2012 FIP. The commenters further assert that
EPA wrongly considered only National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) requirements and not other CAA requirements, including regional
haze requirements, in its CAA section 110(l) analysis. Additionally,
the commenters contend that the public was not provided an opportunity
to comment on the required section 110(l) analysis that considers all
the Act's requirements.
Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. CAA section 110(l)
states in relevant part: ``The Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 7501 of this title), and any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.'' \32\ CAA section 110(l) applies to all
requirements of the CAA and it applies to all areas of the country,
whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable or maintenance for
one or more of the six criteria pollutants. In general, a section
110(l) demonstration should address all pollutants whose emissions and/
or ambient concentrations would change as a result of a plan revision.
The level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l) demonstration will
vary depending on the nature and circumstances of the revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, the commenters fail to identify any change to
emissions or ambient concentrations of NO<INF>X</INF> that will result
from approval of North Dakota's SIP revision. Nor can they. As we
explained in the proposed rule and above in response to comments, the
first planning period reasonable progress requirements for Antelope
Valley Station Units 1 and 2 in North Dakota's SIP revision are the
exact same requirements in EPA's 2012 FIP.\33\ Thus, there is no
difference in emissions between the 2012 FIP and the SIP revision.
Accordingly, EPA's approval of North Dakota's SIP revision cannot
interfere with any applicable CAA requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 86 FR 14057-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, there was no CAA section 110(l) analysis for the 2012
final rule, and thus, EPA did not rely on a prior CAA 110(l) analysis
in the 2021 proposal. Instead, in the 2021 proposal, EPA stated that
`[t]he previous section of [the proposal] and our 2011 proposed rule
and 2012 final rule explain how the proposed SIP revision will comply
with applicable regional haze requirements and general implementation
plan requirements such as enforceability.'' \34\ In other words, under
CAA section 110(l), we proposed to find that EPA's approval of North
Dakota's SIP revision does not interfere with the CAA's regional haze
provisions (or other implementation plan requirements) because the SIP
revision mirrors EPA's 2012 FIP requirements, which EPA determined in
2012 meet the requirements of the CAA's regional haze provisions (and
other implementation plan requirements). Accordingly, EPA's CAA section
110(l) analysis is not inaccurate or incomplete--EPA considered
potential interference with all applicable CAA requirements, including
regional haze requirements. But EPA tailored its analysis to the
circumstances at issue here--a mere transfer of the existing emission
limit for Units 1 and 2 and the associated monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements (and no corresponding change in emissions)
from EPA's 2012 FIP to an approved SIP revision. We find that approval
of Amendment No. 2, and concurrent withdrawal of the corresponding FIP,
are not anticipated to interfere with applicable requirements of the
CAA and therefore CAA section 110(l) does not prohibit approval of this
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 86 FR 14058. EPA also added that there are no NAAQS
nonattainment or maintenance areas in North Dakota. See Current
Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants, <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html">https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html</a> (last visited Jan. 11,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment summary: The commenters further contend that EPA's approval
of North Dakota's SIP revision would violate the CAA's anti-backsliding
provisions. The commenters state that EPA may not approve North
Dakota's SIP revision because it would allow increased NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions and visibility impairment in violation of the CAA section
110(l) and case law. The commenters criticize EPA for failing to
evaluate how emissions will change as a result of North Dakota's SIP
revision when compared to the FIP and for failing to fully evaluate the
differences between the FIP and North Dakota's SIP revision.
The commenters contend that EPA's replacement of its FIP with North
Dakota's SIP revision would violate CAA section 110(l) by allowing
increased air pollution for several reasons. First, the commenters
contend that EPA failed to propose to approve all the provisions in
North Dakota's permit,
[[Page 19640]]
which according to the commenters means that citizens and others will
not have the same opportunities to enforce the emission limits as under
the FIP and will result in less stringent requirements and likely
increased emissions. Second, the commenters contend that EPA failed to
propose approval of provisions in North Dakota's permit that would
address their enforceability concerns. Third, commenters contend that
EPA proposed to include provisions in the approved SIP revision that do
not appear in the FIP, including provisions that allow unbounded
discretion to North Dakota, which the commenters contend could also
result in increasing emissions.
Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. As explained above,
the transfer of first planning period NO<INF>X</INF> regional haze
requirements for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 from EPA's 2012
FIP to North Dakota's SIP will not result in any change in
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. Moreover, as also explained above, the SIP
revision and corresponding permit are not less stringent than the FIP,
nor is the SIP revision less enforceable. The commenters have offered
no support for their contention that, under the SIP revision, the State
obtains ``unbounded discretion'' inconsistent with the FIP and we find
none. Accordingly, there is no support for the commenters' assertion
that the SIP approval results in backsliding under the CAA.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064, 1074 (9th Cir.
2014) (finding that the petitioners identified nothing in Nevada's
SIP that weakened or removed any pollution controls and that when a
``SIP merely maintained the status quo, that would not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS'' and the approval
did not contravene CAA section 110(l)); see also El Comite Para El
Bienestar de Earlimart v. EPA, 786 F.3d 688, 696-97 (9th Cir. 2015)
(finding that EPA did not fail to consider CAA section 110(l) when
it reasonably concluded that California's prior SIP requirement and
the SIP revision requirement were equivalent). Because the SIP
revision at issue here is not less stringent than the FIP, the other
cases cited in footnote 40 of the comment letter are inapposite. In
any event, they do not stand for the proposition that the commenters
assert--neither the plain language of CAA section 110(l) nor case
law supports an interpretation that per se prohibits approval of any
SIP revision that allows an increase in emissions or weakens
requirements relative to the existing implementation plan. Rather,
the statute prohibits approval of such a SIP revision if it would
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress,
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. See Indiana v. EPA,
796 F.3d 803, 811 (7th Cir. 2015); Alabama Environmental Council v.
EPA, 711 F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Train v. NRDC,
Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975)); Kentucky Resource Council v. EPA, 467
F.3d 986, 994-996 (6th Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment summary: The commenters state that, if EPA were to take
final action, it must fix fatal errors in its proposed regulatory text.
In a footnote, the commenters state that EPA did not explain its
authority for correcting the regulatory text to include provisions
approved in 2012 and inadvertently deleted in 2015. Additionally, the
commenters contend that making the correction would resolve the error
going forward but would not restore the regulatory text missing from
the Code of Federal Regulations from 2015 to present. The commenters
contend that EPA's final action and regulatory text must clearly
include language that covers the missing years so that the SIP is
enforceable during that time period.
The commenters also criticize EPA for proposing a single ``State
effective date'' of July 8, 2020, in the proposed regulatory text
language in 40 CFR 52.1820(e). The commenters identify three reasons
why they believe the state effective date must be corrected. First, the
commenters state that the only portions of the State regional haze SIP
that were effective as a matter of State law on July 8, 2020, were the
following: Section 9.5.1; Appendix J.1.6: FLM Comments on SIP Amendment
2; and Appendix J.3.4. Second, the commenters state that North Dakota's
cover letter to Basin Electric Cooperative for construction permit
PTC20031 for its Antelope Valley Station explains that the State's
intent was to make the permit effective if/when EPA approved the SIP
Amendment No. 2, not at the time the SIP was adopted by the State. The
commenters state that EPA's proposed regulatory text for the ``State
effective date'' needs to be clarified on this point. Third, the
commenters state that the remaining sections of North Dakota's regional
haze SIP incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 52.1820(e), which EPA
inadvertently deleted in 2015, were effective in 2012, not on July 8,
2020. The commenters conclude that the EPA must correct these errors
for SIP enforceability purposes and revise the regulatory text to
reflect the three different State effective dates for the regional haze
SIP.
In addition, the commenters argue that EPA's FIP contains separate
emission limits for Units 1 and 2, while EPA's proposed regulatory text
proposes one emission limit for both units. The commenters assert that
one plantwide emission limit would mean that when one unit is down for
maintenance or other reasons, Antelope Valley Station could operate the
controls on the second operating unit less stringently in order to save
money. The commenters conclude that, if EPA elects to finalize this
proposal, it must amend this regulatory text so that it is consistent
with the FIP and regional haze program requirements.
Response: As stated in our proposed rule, we did not take comment
on the restoration of the nonregulatory text amendments under 40 CFR
52.1820(e) that we inadvertently deleted in 2015. Thus, we deem the
comment beyond the scope of this action. Contrary to the commenters'
suggestion, EPA had authority to correct this error without additional
notice and comment under the ``good cause'' exception in the
Administrative Procedure Act.\36\ Today's action simply restores
nonregulatory provisions which were previously approved after public
notice and comment for the 2012 final rule. Thus, another notice and
opportunity for comment to correct the error is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, we disagree that it is necessary for the regulatory
text to include language that covers previous regional haze actions to
ensure that the regional haze SIP, as a whole, is enforceable. The
nonregulatory provisions found in 40 CFR 52.1820(e), including the SIP
narrative, are not enforceable. Instead, the enforceable portions of
the SIP are incorporated by reference in paragraph in 40 CFR
52.1820(c), EPA-approved regulations, and 40 CFR 52.1820(d), EPA-
approved source specific requirements. Thus, the nonregulatory
amendments are not necessary to ensure enforceability regardless of
whether citations to previous actions are listed. Moreover, the
regional haze amendments have been treated in the same manner as other
sections of the State's SIP. That is, only the effective date of the
most recent revision to a relevant chapter or section of the SIP (in
this case, July 8, 2020) is given. Finally, we are clarifying that the
``State effective date'' is the effective date of the State's SIP or
rule, and differs from the compliance date (through the permit to
construct) to meet emission limits and related requirements.
The commenters are incorrect that EPA proposed to approve a plant-
wide emission limit for Units 1 and 2. The permit, PTC20031, which we
are now incorporating into the SIP in whole, includes condition II.A.2
stating that ``Basin Electric Power Coop. shall not emit or cause to be
emitted from each unit NO<INF>X</INF> in excess of 0.17 pounds per
million British Thermal Units (0.17 lb/10\6\ Btu) averaged over a 30-
day period (30-day rolling average)'' (emphasis added). Permit
condition II.A.2 is consistent with the separate emission limits in the
FIP that we are withdrawing. Regardless, as discussed above, the
proposed comment language
[[Page 19641]]
in 40 CFR 52.1820(d) to which the commenters refer is not included in
this final action.
Comment summary: The commenters contend that EPA's proposal fails
to abide by the environmental justice requirements in 2021 Executive
Orders. The commenters state that EPA is required to ensure that its
action on SIP regional haze plans address any disproportionate
environmental impacts of the pollution that contributes to haze. The
commenters further assert that EPA missed the mark in considering only
Executive Order 12898, because in January 2021, the current
Administration signed additional Executive Orders that require agencies
to advance and prioritize environmental justice (citing Executive
Orders 13998 and 14008). The commenters criticize EPA for failing to
consider impacts on nearby environmental justice communities located on
and near the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation under these additional
Executive Orders and instead relying on its 2012 analysis under
Executive Order 12898. The commenters assert that EPA must provide a
new environmental justice analysis and tighter NO<INF>X</INF> limits to
improve visibility and air quality in the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation.
Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. As established in the
responses above, the requirements of the State's SIP are substantively
the same as in EPA's FIP. Our 2012 FIP for Antelope Valley Station
resulted in substantial NO<INF>X</INF> reductions from Units 1 and 2.
In particular, in our 2012 FIP, we calculated that the emission limit
of 0.17 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) would lead to NO<INF>X</INF>
reductions of 3,889 tons per year for Unit 1 and 3,450 tons per year
for Unit 2.\37\ We expect this level of NO<INF>X</INF> reductions will
continue under North Dakota's SIP revision. Thus, the impacts of this
action, like the 2012 FIP, are expected to be beneficial, rather than
adverse, and its benefits are expected to accrue to communities in and
near Indian country lands within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.
Our review of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008, cited by the
commenters, do not lead us to a different conclusion regarding the need
for additional analysis under the circumstances at issue in this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 76 FR 58631, Table 71. Calculated reductions were based on
baseline (no controls) emissions of 7,625 tons per year and 6,765
tons per year for Units 1 and 2, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment summary: The commenters state that EPA should not finalize
approval of this action. The commenters also state that, if EPA were to
finalize approval, we should make corrections (per comments above) to
ensure that the EPA's approval of the SIP is substantively equivalent
to the FIP. The commenters contend that otherwise EPA's approval of the
SIP revision would be less stringent and inconsistent with the FIP and
current emissions, and also undermine the Eighth Circuit's decision
affirming the FIP for the Antelope Valley Station. The commenters state
that the reductions and provisions required in the 2012 FIP should
remain in place for Antelope Valley Station to maintain emission
reduction requirements to better air quality in national parks and
wilderness areas and the public health co-benefits for the
environmental justice communities in the Fort Berthold Reservation and
nearby communities. Finally, the commenters state that EPA should make
various corrections, obtain missing SIP information from North Dakota
after it amends its SIP, and add missing analysis as described in our
summary of comments earlier in this notice. In doing so, the commenters
believe that EPA should re-notice its proposal so that the public has
an opportunity to comment on the missing information and analysis.
Response: We disagree that we should re-notice our proposal. The
commenters concern regarding the enforceability of Amendment No. 2, as
well as its equivalence to the FIP, have been addressed in response to
other comments above. The level of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions allowed
under Amendment No. 2 will be the same as those allowed under the FIP.
Comment summary: A member of the public commented that they think
it is a good idea that EPA is proposing to approve the North Dakota SIP
revision addressing regional haze. The commenter believes the approval
will help improve air quality which will have a positive effect on air
pollution. The commenter states that the proposal will also satisfy
some aspects of the CAA.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's support for our proposed
action.
III. The EPA's Final Action
For the reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed rule and in
this document, and with the clarifications to the regulatory text
discussed herein, we are fully approving Amendment No. 2 to the North
Dakota SIP for Regional Haze to satisfy certain requirements for the
first implementation period of the regional haze program. Because we
find that Amendment No. 2 satisfies the reasonable progress
requirements for NO<INF>X</INF> at Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and
2 for the first regional haze planning period, we are also withdrawing
the corresponding portions of the North Dakota Regional Haze FIP at 40
CFR 52.1825. We are also restoring certain other nonregulatory text
amendments under 40 CFR 52.1820(e), as described in the preamble to the
proposed rule and in this document. Finally, we are removing from the
Code of Federal Regulations the FIP requirements for Coal Creek Station
that the Eighth Circuit vacated in North Dakota v. EPA.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by
reference of the SIP amendments described in section I.A of this
preamble and set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> (refer to docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406) and at the
EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA
into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and
113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director
of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because it will apply to a single facility in the State of
North Dakota. It is therefore not a rule of general applicability.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the
[[Page 19642]]
PRA. Because this rule revises regional haze reporting requirements for
a single facility, the PRA does not apply.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities as
no small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Subsector 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045. The EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA
has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
K. Determination Under Clean Air Act Section 307(d)
Pursuant to CAA sections 307(d)(1)(B) and 307(d)(1)(V), the
Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions
of section 307(d). CAA section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that section
307(d) applies to, among other things, ``the promulgation or revision
of an implementation plan by the Administrator under [CAA section
110(c)].'' \40\ Under section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of section
307(d) also apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.'' \41\ To the extent the approval of North Dakota's SIP
revision is not expressly identified under section 307(d), the
Administrator hereby determines that section 307(d) applies to this
aspect of this action. The agency has complied with the procedural
requirements of CAA section 307(d) during the course of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(B).
\41\ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability that only applies to a single named facility.
M. Judicial Review
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 June 6, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for 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 CAA 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, Sulfur oxides.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart JJ--North Dakota
0
2. In Sec. 52.1820:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding the center heading
``Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2.'' and the entry ``PTC20031''
at the end of the table.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the center heading
``North Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze.'' and the
entry ``North Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze'' at
the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1820 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 19643]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA
Rule No. Rule title effective effective Final rule Comments
date date citation/date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTC20031....................... Air pollution 4/5/2022 5/5/2022 [insert Federal .................
control permit Register
to construct for citation], 4/5/
Federal 2022.
Implementation
Plan Replacement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA
Rule No. Rule title effective effective Final rule Comments
date date citation/date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota State North Dakota 7/8/20 5/5/2022 [insert Federal Excluding
Implementation Plan for State Register provisions
Regional Haze. Implementation citation], 5/5/ disapproved on
Plan for 2022. April 6, 2012,
Regional Haze. 77 FR 20894.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.1825 [Removed and Reserved]
0
3. Remove and reserve Sec. 52.1825.
[FR Doc. 2022-06904 Filed 4-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 5, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.