Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-17471

Proposed Rule2024-17471

Air Plan Approval; North Dakota; Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Regional Haze Five Year Progress Report and Nitrogen Oxides Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination for Coal Creek Station for the First Implementation Period

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

August 14, 2024

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve certain portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of North Dakota (North Dakota) on January 12, 2015, and August 11, 2022, to address regional haze. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for Coal Creek Station power plant (Coal Creek) for the first implementation period of the regional haze program and North Dakota's five-year regional haze progress report. This action addresses the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's September 23, 2012 vacatur and remand of the portion of the EPA's 2012 Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that promulgated a BART emission limit of 0.13 lb/MMBtu NO<INF>X</INF> (30-day rolling average) for Coal Creek. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66015-66029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17471]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2024 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 66015]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2023-0641; FRL-12157-01-R8]

Air Plan Approval; North Dakota; Approval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Regional
Haze Five Year Progress Report and Nitrogen Oxides Best Available
Retrofit Technology Determination for Coal Creek Station for the First
Implementation Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve certain portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of North Dakota (North Dakota) on January 12,
2015, and August 11, 2022, to address regional haze. Specifically, the
EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's nitrogen oxides
(NO<INF>X</INF>) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
determination for Coal Creek Station power plant (Coal Creek) for the
first implementation period of the regional haze program and North
Dakota's five-year regional haze progress report. This action addresses
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's September
23, 2012 vacatur and remand of the portion of the EPA's 2012 Regional
Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that promulgated a BART emission
limit of 0.13 lb/MMBtu NO<INF>X</INF> (30-day rolling average) for Coal
Creek. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 13,
2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2023-0641, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Please email or call the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you need to make
alternative arrangements for access to the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly DeJong, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6241, email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94f0f1fefbfaf3bafcfbf8f8edd4f1e4f5baf3fbe2">[email&#160;protected]</a>; or Joe Stein, Air and Radiation Division, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-7078, email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e1d1a0b07004004011d0b1e062e0b1e0f40090118">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Legal Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze
Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements
D. Progress Report Requirements
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
III. North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP Submittals
A. Background
B. August 11, 2022 SIP Submittal
C. North Dakota's NO<INF>X</INF> BART Determination
1. Costs of Compliance
2. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of
Compliance
3. Pollution Control Equipment at the Source
4. Remaining Useful Life
5. Visibility Improvement
6. BART Demonstration
D. January 12, 2015 Progress Report SIP Submittal
E. North Dakota's Five-Year Progress Report Determination
IV. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Approval of North Dakota's
NO<INF>X</INF> BART Determination for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and
2
A. Basis of the EPA's Proposed Approval
1. Costs of Compliance
i. North Dakota's Selection of Baseline Emission Rates
ii. North Dakota's Characterization of Costs Using the Control
Cost Manual
iii. Costs Associated With the Installation of New Controls
2. Energy and Non-Air Quality Impacts of Compliance
3. Pollution Control Equipment at the Source
4. Remaining Useful Life of Any Potentially Affected Sources
5. Visibility Improvement Anticipated to Result From Controls
6. Summary of the EPA's Evaluation of North Dakota's
NO<INF>X</INF> BART Determination for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and
2
B. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
C. Coordination With FLMs
V. The EPA's Evaluation of North Dakota's Five-Year Progress Report
VI. Summary of the EPA's Proposed Action
VII. Environmental Justice
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

On January 12, 2015, North Dakota submitted a SIP revision to
address the regional haze program requirements to submit periodic
progress reports under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 40 CFR 51.308(h)

[[Page 66016]]

(2015 progress report). On August 11, 2022, as part of a SIP revision
North Dakota submitted to address regional haze for the second
implementation period, the State also included a revised first
implementation period NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination for Coal Creek,
pursuant to CAA section 169A, CAA section 169B, 40 CFR 51.308(f), and
40 CFR part 51, appendix Y (2022 SIP submittal). The EPA is proposing
to approve North Dakota's 2015 progress report, and the portion of
North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal relating to the first implementation
period NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination for Coal Creek. The EPA will
act on the portion of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal relating to the
second implementation period requirements in a separate action.

II. Legal Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule

In section 169A of the CAA, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. This
section of the CAA establishes ``as a national goal the prevention of
any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from
manmade air pollution.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres,
and all international parks that were in existence on August 7,
1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA,
the EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior,
promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an
important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries,
such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although States and
tribes may designate as Class I additional areas whose visibility
they consider to be an important value, the requirements of the
visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only
to ``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42
U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this
action, we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999.\2\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility
regulations \3\ to integrate provisions addressing regional haze and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
Federal areas (Class I areas). The requirements for regional haze,
found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309, are included in the EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR
51.309.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
\3\ The EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084,
80084 (December 2, 1980).
\4\ The EPA revised the Regional Haze Rule on January 10, 2017.
82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Under the revised Regional Haze Rule,
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e) apply to first
implementation period SIP submissions and 51.308(f) applies to
submissions for the second and subsequent implementation periods. 82
FR 3087; see also 81 FR 26942, 26952 (May 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CAA requires each State to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\5\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
preventing future and remedying existing manmade visibility impairment
in Class I areas. A State must submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the
EPA for approval.\6\ Once approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and
citizens under the CAA; that is, the SIP is federally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492; CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
\6\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); 7410.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology

Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting
the national visibility goal. Section 169(b)(2)(A) specifies that one
such requirement is for certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977 to procure, install, and operate
BART as determined by the States through their SIPs. Under the Regional
Haze Rule, States (or the EPA, in the case of a FIP) are directed to
make BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources--typically
larger, often uncontrolled, and older stationary sources--that may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility
impairment in a Class I area.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 40 CFR 51.308(e). The EPA designed the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule (Guidelines) ``to help
States and others (1) identify those sources that must comply with
the BART requirement, and (2) determine the level of control
technology that represents BART for each source.'' 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, I.A. Section II. of the Guidelines describes the four
steps to identify BART sources, and section III. explains how to
identify BART sources (i.e., sources that are ``subject to BART'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule (the ``BART Guidelines'')
to assist States in determining which sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and the appropriate emission limits for each covered
source.\8\ The process of establishing BART emission limitations
follows three steps: first, identify the sources that meet the
definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; \9\
second, determine which of these sources ``emits any air pollutant
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a source that fits this
description is ``subject to BART''); and third, for each source subject
to BART, identify the best available type and level of control for
reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ ``Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations'' (BART
Guidelines) at 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) codified in 40 CFR part
51, appendix Y.
\9\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to CAA section 169A(g)(2), CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) and
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), in determining the measures necessary for
BART, a State must take into account the following five factors and
demonstrate how they were taken into consideration in making a BART
determination:
<bullet> costs of compliance;
<bullet> energy and non-air quality impacts of compliance;
<bullet> pollution control equipment at the source;
<bullet> remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources;
<bullet> visibility improvement anticipated to result from
controls.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>),
NO<INF>X,</INF> and particulate matter (PM).

C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements

In addition to the BART requirements, the CAA's visibility
protection provisions also require that States' regional haze SIPs
contain a ``long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.'' \10\ The long-
term strategy must address regional haze visibility impairment for each
mandatory Class I area within the State and each mandatory Class I area
located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from the
State. It must include the enforceable emission limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals.\11\ The reasonable progress goals, in turn, are
calculated for each Class I area based on

[[Page 66017]]

the control measures States have selected for sources by applying the
four statutory ``reasonable progress'' factors, which are ``the costs
of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining
useful life of any existing source subject to such requirement.'' \12\
That is, States consider the four reasonable progress factors, and
certain other factors listed in Sec. 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze
Rule, to determine what controls must be included in the long-term
strategy. Those controls are represented in the long-term strategy,
i.e., the SIP, as emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other
measures. The reasonable progress goals are the predicted visibility
outcome of implementing the long-term strategy in addition to ongoing
pollution control programs stemming from other CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B).
\11\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
\12\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike the BART determinations, which were only required for the
first implementation period regional haze planning period SIPs,\13\
States are required to submit revisions to their regional haze SIP for
each planning period, including new reasonable progress analyses and
reasonable progress goals. The most recent regulatory deadline for
States to submit their SIP revisions with long-term strategy updates to
the EPA was on July 31, 2021.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Under the Regional Haze Rule, SIPs are due for each
regional haze planning period, or implementation period. The terms
``planning period'' and ``implementation period'' are used
interchangeably in this document.
\14\ 40 CFR 51.308(f). The 2021 deadline was originally in 2018;
the EPA revised this deadline in 2017. 82 FR 3078 (January 10,
2017); see also 40 CFR 51.308(f). Following the 2021 SIP submittal
deadline, the next SIP submittal is due in 2028. 40 CFR 51.308(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Progress Report Requirements

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g) States are required to periodically submit
progress reports that evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress
goals for each mandatory Class I area within the State and in each
Class I area outside the State which may be affected by emissions from
within the State. The first progress report is required to be in the
form of a SIP revision and was due five years from submittal of the
initial implementation plan for the first planning period. The progress
reports must contain specific elements as listed in 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1)-(8). Additionally, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h)
require States to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g)
progress report, a determination of adequacy of the State's existing
regional haze SIP.

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

The Regional Haze Rule requires that a State consult with Federal
Land Managers (FLMs) before adopting and submitting a required SIP
revision. Further, a State must include a summary of the FLMs'
conclusions and recommendations in its notice to the public,\15\ as
well as include in its submission to the EPA a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(d).
\16\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP Submittals

A. Background

Coal Creek, the largest power plant in North Dakota, is a two-unit,
approximately 1,200 gross megawatt (MW) mine-mouth power plant
consisting primarily of two steam generators and associated coal and
ash handling systems.\17\ Coal Creek is located near the Missouri
River, five miles south of Underwood, North Dakota.\18\ On May 2, 2022,
Great River Energy sold Coal Creek and the high voltage direct current
(HVDC) transmission system to Rainbow Energy Center, LLC.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, section 8.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Coal Creek Sale to Rainbow Energy Center Final. Minot Daily
News (2022, May 3). Available at <a href="https://www.minotdailynews.com/news/local-news/2022/05/coal-creek-station-sale-to-rainbow-energy-center-final">https://www.minotdailynews.com/news/local-news/2022/05/coal-creek-station-sale-to-rainbow-energy-center-final</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Governor of North Dakota submitted North Dakota's Regional Haze
SIP for the first implementation period to the EPA on March 3, 2010,
followed by supplements to the SIP titled ``SIP Supplement No. 1'' on
July 27, 2010, and ``SIP Amendment No. 1'' on July 28, 2011
(collectively, ``2010 SIP submittal''). North Dakota submitted the 2010
SIP submittal to meet the requirements of the regional haze program for
the first planning period of 2008 through 2018. Among other things, the
2010 SIP submittal included a BART emission limit for NO<INF>X</INF>
for Units 1 and 2 at Coal Creek of 0.17 lb/MMBtu averaged across the
two units (on a 30-day rolling average),\20\ represented by modified
and additional separated overfire air, close-coupled overfire air, and
low NO<INF>X</INF> burners (LNC3+). The next most stringent control
option North Dakota considered was selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) in addition to Coal Creek's existing additional separated
overfire air, close-coupled overfire air, and low NO<INF>X</INF>
burners (LNC3). For this control option, North Dakota took into account
the potential for ammonia from the SNCR to contaminate the fly ash.\21\
Ultimately, the State concluded that ``[b]ecause of the potential for
lost sales of fly ash, the negative environmental effects of having to
dispose of the fly ash instead of recycling it into concrete, and the
very small amount of visibility improvement from the use of SNCR, this
option is rejected as BART.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Throughout, 30-day rolling average emission limits are
based on boiler operating days.
\21\ Fly ash is a marketable product sold by Great River Energy.
\22\ 2010 Regional Haze SIP, appendix D.2, BART Determination
for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2, 12/1/2009, p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On April 6, 2012, the EPA promulgated a final rule that approved in
part and disapproved in part North Dakota's 2010 SIP submittal (2012
Final Rule).\23\ During the EPA's review of North Dakota's
NO<INF>X</INF> BART analysis for Coal Creek, the EPA identified an
error in the costs associated with lost fly ash sales.\24\ At the EPA's
request, after North Dakota submitted the 2010 Regional Haze SIP and
prior to publication of the 2012 Final Rule, North Dakota obtained
additional supporting information from Great River Energy for lost fly
ash revenue and for the potential cost of fly ash ammonia mitigation.
The supporting information included an updated cost analysis from Great
River Energy noting that the correct sales price for fly ash was $5/ton
instead of $36/ton. The updated analysis included corrected fly ash
revenue data and ammonia mitigation costs. That analysis, dated June
16, 2011, indicated that the cost effectiveness for SNCR at Coal Creek
Units 1 and 2 would be $2,318/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
reductions rather than the original estimate of $8,551/ton. Because the
State's cost of compliance analysis was based upon flawed and inflated
lost fly ash revenue cost estimates, the EPA concluded that the 2010
Regional Haze SIP failed to properly consider the cost of compliance as
required by CAA 169A, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), and 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y. Therefore, the EPA disapproved North Dakota's
NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination for Coal Creek.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ 77 FR 20894 (April 6, 2012).
\24\ 76 FR 58603 (September 21, 2011); 77 FR 20921 (April 6,
2012).
\25\ 77 FR 20894 (Apr. 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the same action, the EPA promulgated a FIP that included a
NO<INF>X</INF> BART emission limit for Units 1 and 2 at the Coal Creek
of 0.13 lb/MMBtu averaged across the two units (30-day

[[Page 66018]]

rolling average), which Great River Energy could meet by installing
SNCR plus LNC3+.\26\ This emission limit was based on the EPA's
independent BART analysis, including the updated costs of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The FIP also included: a reasonable progress determination
and NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit for Antelope Valley Station
(Antelope Valley) Units 1 and 2 of 0.17 lb/MMBtu that applies singly
to each of these units on a 30-day rolling average, and a
requirement that the owner/operator meet the limit as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than July 31, 2018; monitoring, record-
keeping, and reporting requirements for the Coal Creek and Antelope
Valley units to ensure compliance with the emission limitations;
reasonable progress goals consistent with the approved SIP emission
limits approved and the final FIP limits; and long-term strategy
elements that reflect the other aspects of the finalized FIP. Please
refer to the EPA's final FIP rule for further information on the FIP
requirements. 77 FR 20894 (Apr. 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequently, several petitioners challenged various aspects of the
EPA's final rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Pertinent to this proposal, North Dakota and Great River Energy
challenged the EPA's disapproval of North Dakota's determination that
LNC3+ with an emission limit of 0.17lb/MMBtu averaged across the two
units (30-day rolling average) is NO<INF>X</INF> BART for Coal Creek.
The petitioners also challenged the EPA's determination that SNCR plus
LNC3+ with an emission limit of 0.13lb/MMBtu averaged across the two
units (30-day rolling average) is NO<INF>X</INF> BART for Coal Creek.
On January 2, 2013, North Dakota submitted a SIP revision \27\ with
a revised five-factor NO<INF>X</INF> BART evaluation for Coal Creek
(2013 SIP submittal). North Dakota's 2013 SIP submittal affirmed North
Dakota's earlier BART determination of 0.17 lb/MMBtu averaged across
the two units (30-day rolling average) to be met with LNC3+.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ North Dakota referred to the January 2, 2013 SIP submittal
as ``Supplement No. 2''. The EPA herein refers to North Dakota's
January 2, 2013 submission as a SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On September 23, 2013, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the EPA
properly disapproved portions of the 2010 Regional Haze SIP, including
the EPA's disapproval of North Dakota's NO<INF>X</INF> BART
determination for Coal Creek.\28\ However, the court vacated the
portion of the EPA's FIP promulgating a NO<INF>X</INF> BART emission
limit of 0.13 lb/MMbtu (30-day rolling average) for Coal Creek, holding
that the EPA had failed to consider existing pollution control
technology \29\ already in use at Coal Creek. Specifically, the court
found that the EPA's refusal to consider DryFiningTM as an
existing pollution control because it had been voluntarily installed
after the regional haze baseline date was arbitrary and capricious.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2013), cert.
denied, 134 S. Ct. 2662 (2014).
\29\ Pursuant to section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA, ``any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source'' is one of the
five factors that must be considered when making a BART
determination.
\30\ DryFiningTM is a technology developed by Great
River Energy that reduces moisture and refines lignite coal,
increasing the efficiency and performance of the fuel while reducing
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several SIP submissions and EPA actions for the first
implementation period followed the Eighth Circuit's decision. On
January 12, 2015, North Dakota submitted a SIP revision for a regional
haze five-year progress report, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g). On April
26, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve the Coal Creek NO<INF>X</INF>
BART determination in North Dakota's January 2013 SIP submittal.\31\
The EPA did not finalize that action and North Dakota subsequently
withdrew its 2013 SIP submittal of the NO<INF>X</INF> BART
determination for Coal Creek.\32\ \33\ On April 5, 2022, the EPA
approved North Dakota`s August 3, 2020 SIP submittal incorporating the
2012 FIP requirements for another source.\34\ In the same action, the
EPA withdrew from the Code of Federal Regulations the vacated Coal
Creek FIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ 83 FR 18248 (April 26, 2018).
\32\ North Dakota 2022 SIP submittal, Letter from North Dakota
Governor Doug Burgum to EPA Administrator Michael Regan.
\33\ As explained in this document in Section III.B., August 11,
2022 SIP Submittal, North Dakota subsequently withdrew the Coal
Creek Station NO<INF>X</INF> BART portion of this 2013 SIP submittal
in a 2022 SIP submittal to the EPA that included a revised
NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination for Coal Creek. The EPA is acting
on the Coal Creek Station NO<INF>X</INF> BART portion of the 2013
SIP submittal in a separate action.
\34\ Antelope Valley Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. August 11, 2022 SIP Submittal

As part of its 2022 SIP submittal to address Regional Haze for the
second planning period, North Dakota submitted a revised NO<INF>X</INF>
BART analysis and determination for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2.
Specifically, the submittal provides a source-specific NO<INF>X</INF>
BART five-factor analysis for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 to demonstrate
that the existing LNC3+ NO<INF>X</INF> controls with emission limits of
0.15 lb/MMBtu NO<INF>X</INF> on a 30-day rolling average satisfy the
NO<INF>X</INF> BART requirements for those units for the first planning
period. North Dakota submitted Coal Creek Permit to Construct #
PTC21001 as part of its 2022 SIP submittal.\35\ The final permit was
issued on July 27, 2022.\36\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal also
included an analysis to address the State's second planning period
long-term strategy requirements; that portion of North Dakota's 2022
SIP submittal will be addressed in separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix F.2.
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. North Dakota's NOX BART Determination

For its NO<INF>X</INF> BART assessment for Coal Creek Units 1 and
2, North Dakota considered the following control technologies: LNC3+,
LNC3+ w/selective catalytic reduction (SCR), LNC3+ w/SNCR, Ultracat,
catalytic filter bags, and ``mid-temperature'' SCR catalyst.
Ultimately, North Dakota deemed Ultracat, catalytic filter bags, and
``mid-temperature'' SCR catalyst to be technologically infeasible at
Coal Creek Units 1 and 2. For LNC3+, LNC3+ w/SCR and LNC3+ w/SNCR,
North Dakota relied on information provided by Great River Energy to
conduct a source-specific NO<INF>X</INF> BART assessment though
application of the five BART factors.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, section 8 and appendix
B.4.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Costs of Compliance
For the source-specific BART analysis associated with this action,
North Dakota provided costs of compliance associated with the controls
it deemed technologically feasible at Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 (LNC3+,
LNC3+ w/SCR, and LNC3+ w/SNCR). North Dakota did not analyze Ultracat,
catalytic filter bags, and ``mid-temperature'' SCR catalyst at Coal
Creek Units 1 and 2 because they were deemed technologically
infeasible. North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal includes an updated
analysis and evaluation for NO<INF>X</INF> BART at Coal Creek Units 1
and 2 that was provided by Great River Energy.\38\ \39\ North Dakota
relied on cost information from Great River Energy's analysis,\40\ but
conducted its own cost analysis in appendix F. North Dakota's initial
BART evaluation in its 2010 SIP submittal used actual emission rates
from a 3-year period of emission inventory data from 2000 to 2002, the
same time period that was used to determine the visibility
baseline.\41\ North Dakota's updated BART analysis in the 2022 SIP
submittal updates these emissions rates to reflect the operation of
LNC3 with DryFiningTM. It also provides updates to the
operating conditions and emissions performance

[[Page 66019]]

at Coal Creek Units 1 and 2.\42\ In the 2022 SIP submittal for
NO<INF>X</INF> BART, North Dakota used Great River Energy's
calculations of the 30-day average NO<INF>X</INF> emissions levels at
Unit 2 from January 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019. The actual NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions during this time frame averaged 0.127 lb/MMBtu (rounded to
0.13 lb/MMBtu) with daily variability in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
between 0.10 and 0.19 lb/MMBtu. Great River Energy used this 0.13 lb/
MMBtu NO<INF>X</INF> rate as its performance emissions rate for the
first option of BART controls (LNC3+), in the average cost-
effectiveness analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Id.
\39\ Great River Energy retained Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) to
complete an updated analysis and evaluation for NO<INF>X</INF> BART
at Coal Creek Units 1 and 2.
\40\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix B.4.b.
\41\ 76 FR 58582 (September 21, 2011).
\42\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix B.4.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cost of an emissions control measure is derived using capital
and annual operation and maintenance costs. Cost effectiveness is
analyzed in terms of control cost per ton of pollutant removed by the
control. Cost/ton for a particular control technology is the difference
in anticipated annual emissions using baseline emissions and expected
annual emissions performance through installation of the additional
retrofit control measure. In addition to the average cost effectiveness
threshold for the BART evaluations, North Dakota also calculated an
incremental cost effectiveness (cost effectiveness between two control
measures) threshold.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix B.4.b., section
3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota analyzed LNC3+, SNCR, and SCR for average cost-
effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness in its updated BART
analysis.\44\ The 2016-2018 three-year annual average data from LNC3
(with DryFiningTM) on Unit 1 was used as the baseline
performance rate in pounds of NO<INF>X</INF> per MMBtu for both units.
In its incremental cost analysis, North Dakota considered the existing
LNC3+ (installed on Unit 2 in 2010 and Unit 1 in 2020) \45\ by
performing an incremental cost analysis looking at the standalone cost
of implementing SNCR, the next most stringent control, relative to the
existing LNC3+. North Dakota also performed an incremental cost
analysis looking at the standalone cost of SCR relative to LNC3+. Per
the EPA's BART guidelines, which advise that incremental costs should
be calculated relative to the next most stringent control option,\46\
North Dakota also performed incremental cost analyses looking at the
standalone cost of SCR relative to SNCR. The results of the average and
incremental cost analyses can be seen in table 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix F.
\45\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, section 8.3.
\46\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.4.e.1.: ``The
incremental cost effectiveness calculation compares the costs and
performance level of a control option to those of the next most
stringent option, as shown in the following formula (with respect to
cost per emissions reduction): Incremental Cost Effectiveness
(dollars per incremental ton removed) = (Total annualized costs of
control option)-(Total annualized costs of next control option) /
(Control option annual emissions)-(Next control option annual
emissions).''

Table 1--2022 SIP Submittal Cost of Compliance and Incremental Cost of Compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Incremental Incremental
Performance emission Annualized Cost of cost of cost of SCR
Control technology level (lb/ reduction total cost ($) compliance ($/ compliance ($/ over SNCR ($/
MMBtu) (tpy) ton) ton) ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline, LNC3 with DryFining TM........................ 0.18 .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LNC3+................................................... 0.13 1,162 793,418 683 .............. ..............
LNC3+ w/SNCR............................................ 0.10 1,850 6,194,244 3,348 7,850 ..............
LNC3+ w/SCR............................................. 0.08 2,309 16,122,491 6,983 13,368 21,645
LNC3+ w/SCR............................................. 0.06 2,767 17,391,169 6,284 10,339 12,206
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance
North Dakota identified the production of sulfuric acid as a side
reaction with the SCR process chemistry. Sulfuric acid, which is not
captured within the boiler or associated downstream emission control,
is released to the atmosphere as sulfuric acid mist (SAM). North Dakota
noted that SAM is emitted as aerosol particles that contribute to
visibility impairment.\47\ Because these emissions contribute to
impairment, North Dakota considered the visibility impacts of SAM
emissions in the analysis of visibility improvements from SCR and the
costs of controlling SAM emissions in the SCR control cost analysis.
Using the calculation procedures in a 2018 publication from Electric
Power Research Institute, North Dakota estimated SAM emissions of
approximately 415 tons per year per unit as a result of the SCR
catalyst with a 5% oxidation rate at Coal Creek Station.\48\ North
Dakota also noted that a low-dust SCR system would require a fuel-fired
reheat burner system, which could result in additional energy usage and
additional emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and other pollutants.\49\ North
Dakota estimated water demands for SNCR to be 70-80 million gallons per
year.\50\ North Dakota noted the potential for ammonia slip as a result
of these technologies, which could result in increased nitrogen in the
scrubber, which would eventually be routed to evaporation ponds.\51\
Additionally, the Great River Energy BART analysis included an
evaluation of potential adverse impacts of ammoniated fly ash.\52\ The
report estimated that an additional 92,000 tons of fly ash would need
to be disposed of in a landfill annually, which represents an
additional 81 percent increase in fly ash disposal.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix B.4.b., section
3.3.
\48\ Id.
\49\ Id.
\50\ Id.
\51\ Id.
\52\ Great River Energy commissioned Golder Associates and Boral
Resources to evaluate the potential for adverse impacts of
ammoniated fly ash. North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix
B.4.b.
\53\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix B.4.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Pollution Control Equipment at the Source
North Dakota's Updated BART analysis takes into account existing
controls, including DryFiningTM and other combustion
controls. At the time of the initial BART modeling, LNC3 was
operational on both Units 1 and 2. DryFiningTM became
operational at Units 1 and 2 in 2010. LNC3+ became operational at Unit
2 in 2010, and was installed on Unit 1 in the second quarter of
2020.\54\ Though North Dakota did not incorporate LNC3+ into the
baseline, the State did consider the existing LNC3+ by performing an
incremental cost analysis looking at the standalone cost of
implementing SNCR, the next most stringent control, relative to the
existing

[[Page 66020]]

LNC3+. North Dakota also performed incremental analyses looking at the
standalone cost of SCR relative to LNC3+. Per the EPA's BART
guidelines, which advise that incremental costs should be calculated
relative to the next most stringent control option,\55\ North Dakota
also performed incremental cost analyses looking at the standalone cost
of SCR relative to SNCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix F.1-2.
\55\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.4.e.1.: ``The
incremental cost effectiveness calculation compares the costs and
performance level of a control option to those of the next most
stringent option, as shown in the following formula (with respect to
cost per emissions reduction): Incremental Cost Effectiveness
(dollars per incremental ton removed) = (Total annualized costs of
control option) - (Total annualized costs of next control option) /
(Control option annual emissions) - (Next control option annual
emissions).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Remaining Useful Life
Remaining useful life was not considered by North Dakota because
Coal Creek is expected to operate beyond the life of the control
equipment. Therefore, North Dakota evaluated the controls according to
the remaining useful life timeframes listed in the EPA's Control Cost
Manual: 30 years for SCR and 20 years for SNCR.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, section 4--
NO<INF>X</INF> Controls, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution</a> (last visited December 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Visibility Improvement
North Dakota considered California Puff (CALPUFF) dispersion
modeling conducted by Coal Creek to assess the potential visibility
improvement from the use of additional NO<INF>X</INF> BART controls at
the Lostwood and Theodore Roosevelt National Park Class I areas.\57\
Table 2 shows the baseline visibility impairment values associated with
Modeling Scenario 1 (North Dakota's baseline scenario). Modeling
Scenario 1 reflects emissions rates associated with the post-
SO<INF>2</INF> BART approved controls (including
DryFiningTM) and LNC3 controls for NO<INF>X</INF>. Table 3
shows the projected incremental visibility impact of potential
NO<INF>X</INF> BART controls on Units 1 and 2 in addition to the
assumed baseline (Modeling Scenario 1). Modeling Scenario 2 considers
the addition of LNC3+ to the baseline, Scenario 3 considers LNC3+ with
the addition of SNCR, and Scenarios 4-6 consider LNC3+ with the
addition of SCR at three different oxidation rates (5%, 2.5%, and 0%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ Theodore Roosevelt National Park Class I area is comprised
of three units: South Unit, North Unit, and Elkhorn Ranch Unit.

Table 2--Model Scenario 1 Baseline Visibility Impairment in Deciviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt
Year South Unit \58\ north unit Elkhorn Ranch unit Lostwood
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................. 0.66 0.65 0.60 0.92
2001............................. 0.47 0.57 0.53 0.87
2002............................. 1.28 1.15 0.99 0.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3--Coal Creek Station Incremental Visibility Impact of Modeling Scenarios 2-6 in Deciviews \59\
[Negative numbers indicate decreases in visibility impairment, positive numbers indicate increases in visibility
impairment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling NOX control technology Lostwood Theodore Roosevelt
scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.................... Addition of LNC3+ -0.15 South Unit....... -0.13
North Unit....... -0.12
Elkhorn Ranch -0.12
Unit.
3.................... LNC3+ with addition of SNCR -0.06 South Unit....... -0.07
North Unit....... -0.09
Elkhorn Ranch -0.07
Unit.
----------------------------------------
4.................... LNC3+ with 5% Oxidation Rate. 0.17 South Unit....... 0.04
addition of North Unit....... -0.02
SCR.\60\ Elkhorn Ranch 0.00
Unit.
5.................... LNC3+ with 2.5% Oxidation 0.01 South Unit....... -0.07
addition of SCR. Rate. North Unit....... -0.11
Elkhorn Ranch -0.08
Unit.
6.................... LNC3+ with 0% Oxidation Rate. -0.14 South Unit....... -0.17
addition of SCR. North Unit....... -0.21
Elkhorn Ranch -0.16
Unit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The modeling results in table 3 show the visibility benefits of
adding LNC3+ to the baseline (Scenario 2), and then the incremental,
not total, visibility benefit of adding SNCR to the LNC3+ control
scenario (Scenario 3) and SCR to the LNC3+ control scenario (Scenarios
4-6). The ``total'' visibility benefit of LNC3+ plus SNCR can be
derived by adding the deciview improvement values for Scenarios 2 plus
3. And the ``total'' visibility benefit of LNC3+ plus SCR can be
derived by adding the deciview improvement values for Scenarios 2 plus
4, 2 plus 5, or 2 plus 6 respectively. Note that due to the assumption
of 5% and 2.5% SO<INF>2</INF> to SO<INF>3</INF> oxidation rates in
Scenarios 4 and 5, there are several instances of net increases in
visibility impairment. Those are represented as positive values. North
Dakota ultimately concluded that none of the NO<INF>X</INF> BART
controls modeled were shown to have a ``significant'' impact on
improving visibility in North Dakota's Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ The Theodore Roosevelt National Park Class I area is
composed of three separate units: South Unit, North Unit, and
Elkhorn Ranch Unit. Projected visibility improvements in deciviews
are shown for each unit.
\59\ The EPA calculated these numbers from North Dakota's SIP
Submission, appendix F.1-13, table 15.
\60\ North Dakota also evaluated the incremental cost of LNC3+
w/SCR compared to LNC3+ w/SNCR (maximum incremental visibility
improvement of 0.12 dv).

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

[[Page 66021]]

6. BART Demonstration
After considering each of the five BART factors, States must
demonstrate how those factors were taken into consideration in making a
BART determination.\61\ After consideration of the five factors, North
Dakota identified LNC3+ as BART for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2.\62\ Due
to the inherent variability with shorter-term operations due to unit
load swings and variable sodium concentrations in North Dakota lignite
coal, North Dakota proposed a limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu NO<INF>X</INF> 30-
day rolling average in lieu of the 0.13 lb/MMBtu NO<INF>X</INF> annual
rate to account for this variability. North Dakota found that the other
potential controls evaluated, SNCR and SCR, were not reasonable to
select for BART due to high cost and the potentially significant non-
air quality impacts described in sections III.C.1. and III.C.2.
above.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
\62\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, section 8 and appendix
F.1-15.
\63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, North Dakota concluded that the BART analysis
demonstrates that the currently installed NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
controls (LNC3+) on Units 1 and 2 constitute NO<INF>X</INF> BART for
Coal Creek Units 1 and 2. North Dakota rejected additional controls
that were considered, citing cost, feasibility concerns, potential non-
air quality impacts, and low visibility improvements as the most
influential factors in its rejection of additional controls.\64\
Therefore, North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal requires emissions limits
of 0.15 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) associated with the operation
of LNC3+ on Units 1 and 2 as the State's BART determination for Coal
Creek.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix F.1-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. January 12, 2015 Progress Report SIP Submittal

On January 12, 2015, North Dakota submitted its 2015 progress
report to the EPA as a SIP revision. Two Class I areas are located in
North Dakota: Lostwood Wilderness Area and Theodore Roosevelt National
Park. The Theodore Roosevelt National Park Class I area is composed of
three separate units: North Unit, Elkhorn Ranch Unit, and South Unit.
In the first planning period, emissions from North Dakota sources were
also found to be contributing to visibility impairment at nearby
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Area and Voyageurs National Park
in Minnesota, Isle Royale National Park and Seney National Wildlife
Refuge Wilderness Area in Michigan, Medicine Lake National Wildlife
Refuge Wilderness Area and U.L. Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Wilderness Area in Montana, and Badlands National Park and Wind Cave
National Park in South Dakota.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ 76 FR 58570, 58579 (September 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota consulted with other States through regular
participation in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP).\66\ In
developing the 2015 progress report, North Dakota relied on the
technical tools, policy documents, and other products that other WRAP
States used to develop their regional haze plans. The WRAP
Implementation Work Group was one of the primary collaboration
mechanisms. Additionally, North Dakota consulted directly with the
State of Minnesota through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Discussions with neighboring States included the review of major
contributing sources of air pollution.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is a
collaborative effort of State governments, local air agencies,
tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues in the
Western United States. Members include the States of Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
Wyoming, and 28 tribal governments. The federal partner members of
WRAP are the EPA, U.S. National Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
\67\ 76 FR 58629 (September 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the first planning period, the EPA required the following for
BART: SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limits for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 and
Heskett Station Units 1 and 2 \68\ as well as NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
limits for Coyote Station Unit 1,\69\ Milton R. Young Units 1 and
2,\70\ Leland Olds Station Unit 2,\71\ Stanton Station,\72\ and
Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2,\73\ while the NO<INF>X</INF>
BART requirements at Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 remained outstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ 77 FR 20894 (April 26, 2018).
\69\ Id.
\70\ Id.
\71\ Id.
\72\ Id.
\73\ 87 FR 19635 (April 5, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota's 2015 progress report details the progress made in
the first planning period toward implementation of the long-term
strategy outlined in its 2010 SIP submittal, the visibility improvement
measured at the Class I areas affected by emissions from North Dakota,
and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional
haze SIP.

E. North Dakota's Five-Year Progress Report Determination

In its 2015 Progress Report, North Dakota included a description of
the status of implementation of the measures included in the first
planning period implementation plan, including current emissions rates,
BART and reasonable progress limits, and implementation dates.\74\
North Dakota also included a breakdown of its species contribution to
impairment in both in-state and out-of-state Class I areas.\75\
Further, North Dakota included a list of emissions reductions that have
occurred as a result of Regional Haze Round 1 SIP control
requirements.\76\ North Dakota's first planning period implementation
plan includes the following key measures: implementation of BART and
reasonable progress for sources subject to this analysis and federal
programs to cut on-road emissions and emissions from industrial
boilers, combustion turbines, and internal combustion engines.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, table 2.3.
\75\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, table 2.1 and table
2.2.
\76\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.2.
\77\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.1 and table
2.4 (MACT Standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, North Dakota included an assessment of visibility
conditions and changes on least-impaired days and most-impaired days
for both Class I areas within the State (Lostwood Wilderness Area and
Theodore Roosevelt National Park), including 5-year averages
representing the most recent 5-year period preceding the required date
of the progress report.\78\ North Dakota also showed the difference
between current (at the time of progress report development) visibility
conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline
visibility conditions, as well as the change in visibility impairment
for the most impaired and least impaired days over the period since the
period addressed in the most recent plan.\79\ North Dakota compared the
baseline average of visibility impairment to both an average from 2005-
2009 and an average from 2008-2012.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, table 2.8.
\79\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.3.
\80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, North Dakota included an analysis tracking the change over
the period since the period addressed in the most recent plan in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the State--these numbers are also broken
down by

[[Page 66022]]

source category.\81\ Here, North Dakota included 2011 data, data from
the most recent triennial reporting requirements as of the time of
progress report development.\82\ Further, North Dakota also included
2018 emissions projections to show additional progress that was
expected to be achieved by the State by 2018.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.4.
\82\ Id.
\83\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota also included an assessment of changes in
anthropogenic emissions within and outside of the State that have
occurred since the period addressed in the most recent plan.\84\ Here,
North Dakota noted that the most obvious source category where
emissions have increased is in oil and natural gas production, due to
increased development of the Bakken formation, an area in western North
Dakota with rich oil and gas reserves.\85\ Within this sector, North
Dakota notes that the pollutant with the largest increase is volatile
organic compounds (VOC).\86\ North Dakota also notes an increase in
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the oil and gas sector, though that
increase (6,000 to 17,000 tpy) is outweighed by an approximate decrease
of 32,000 tons of NO<INF>X</INF> per year on a statewide (all sectors)
basis.\87\ North Dakota States that the increase in VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions does not appear to be impacting ozone
concentrations in Class I areas or any part of North Dakota.\88\ North
Dakota points to a plan to reduce natural gas flaring in oil fields,
which was adopted by the North Dakota Industrial Commission in April
2014, as support for the expected reduction of NO<INF>X</INF> and
VOC.\89\ North Dakota notes that this plan is expected to reduce the
natural flaring rate of 36% of all gas produced to 15% in two years,
10% within six years, and eventually to 5%.\90\ This reduction in
flaring is expected to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions.
Considering these changes in emissions and expected reductions in
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions due to a reduction in flaring, North
Dakota concludes that there is no evidence at this time that the
increase in oil and gas activity (or any other sector) in North Dakota
is impeding progress towards the visibility goal.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.5.
\85\ Id.
\86\ Id.
\87\ Id.
\88\ Id.
\89\ Id.
\90\ Id.
\91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its 2015 Progress Report, North Dakota includes an assessment of
whether the current implementation plan elements are sufficient to
enable North Dakota, and States with Class I areas impacted by North
Dakota, to meet their reasonable progress goals for the first planning
period.\92\ First, North Dakota noted that Theodore Roosevelt National
Park had met its reasonable progress goals for the last five years at
the time of development of the 2015 Progress Report.\93\ North Dakota
also noted that Lostwood Wilderness Area had met its reasonable
progress goals in the last 2 out of 3 years at the time of development
of the 2015 Progress Report.\94\ North Dakota pointed to a decrease in
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the State that
occurred from 2002 to 2011.\95\ Further, North Dakota notes that on the
whole, visibility-impairing emissions were projected to decrease by
2018. While NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are projected to increase by
20,343 tons, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are projected to decrease by
36,296 tons.\96\ This amounts to an overall reduction of 15,953 tpy of
visibility-impairing pollutants by 2018.\97\ In sum, North Dakota
determined that the existing implementation plan elements are
sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals for both Theodore
Roosevelt National Park and Lostwood Wilderness Area.\98\ North Dakota
further noted that the decrease in visibility-impairing NO<INF>X</INF>
and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the State will also help out-of-state
Class I areas meet their reasonable progress goals.\99\ As noted
earlier in this section, the main increase in emissions during the
period covered by the 2015 Progress Report occurred as an increase in
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions in the oil and gas sector.\100\ North
Dakota notes that these pollutants are typically emitted at lower
elevations and produce a more localized impact.\101\ To assess impacts
on its nearest out-of-state Class I area (Medicine Lake Wilderness Area
in Montana), North Dakota compared Medicine Lake to nearby Lostwood
Wilderness Area, noting that both Class I areas are upwind from North
Dakota oil and gas sources and are thus unlikely to be impeded from
meeting reasonable progress goals due to emissions from North
Dakota.\102\ North Dakota ultimately concluded that its emissions will
not impede the achievement of reasonable progress goals in in-state or
out-of-state Class I areas.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\92\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.6.
\93\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.6 and table
2.8.
\94\ Id.
\95\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, table 2.16.
\96\ Id.
\97\ Id.
\98\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.6.
\99\ Id.
\100\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.5.
\101\ Id.
\102\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.6.
\103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota also included an assessment of its visibility
monitoring strategy. North Dakota stated that it relies on the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
program for its monitoring strategy.\104\ North Dakota concluded that
there is no change needed to the monitoring strategy at the time the
2015 progress report was developed.\105\ North Dakota included a
determination of the adequacy of its existing implementation plan,
concluding that based on the information provided in North Dakota's
2015 Progress Report, the existing implementation plan is sufficient to
achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions
reduction.\106\ Lastly, North Dakota noted that it provided an
opportunity for consultation with FLMs with regard to the 2015 Progress
Report on June 25, 2014 by providing FLMs a copy of the 2015 Progress
Report. The 2015 Progress Report was distributed to the National Park
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest
Service. The National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service provided
comments on the progress report.\107\ North Dakota documented this
consultation in its 2015 Progress Report submittal.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.7.
\105\ Id.
\106\ Id.
\107\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 3.
\108\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Approval of North Dakota's NOX
BART Determination for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2

The EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's regional haze SIP
submittal for the NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination for Coal Creek
Units 1 and 2. In our analysis of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, we
evaluated North Dakota's BART determination for Coal Creek Units 1 and
2 under CAA section 169A, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), and 40 CFR part
51, appendix Y. Under these requirements, a State must consider the
following five factors and include a

[[Page 66023]]

demonstration of how they were taken into consideration in making a
BART determination:
<bullet> costs of compliance;
<bullet> energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance;
<bullet> existing pollution control equipment in use at the source;
<bullet> remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources;
and
<bullet> visibility improvement anticipated to result from
controls.
The State must consider these five factors in making BART
determinations for a specific source.\109\ While States have discretion
to consider these five factors, this discretion must be ``reasonably
exercised, and must be supported by adequate documentation of the
analyses.'' \110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), CAA section 169 A(g)(2), and 40
CFR part 51, appendix Y.
\110\ ``Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations'' (BART
Guidelines) at 70 FR 39138 at 39,138 (July 6,2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Basis of the EPA's Proposed Approval

The EPA is proposing to approve the portion of North Dakota's 2022
SIP submittal relating to the updated NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination
for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2, finding that LNC3+ at 0.15 lb/MMBtu (30-
day rolling average) constitutes BART for these units. As an initial
matter, we find that the State reasonably characterized the five
factors required in a BART analysis, including the costs of compliance,
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance,
pollution control equipment at the source, the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources, and visibility improvement
anticipated to result from controls. The EPA also finds that North
Dakota's revised cost calculation is appropriate, including: (1) the
use of LNC3 with DryFiningTM as a baseline control
technology in cost analysis; (2) the use of baseline NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions rates of 0.18 lb/MMBtu for both units based on three-year
annual average data of LNC3 operation on Unit 1; (3) and the use of
amortization periods of 20 and 30 years for SNCR and SCR, respectively.
We find that the State reasonably considered that information, as well
as each of the five BART factors, in reaching its revised
NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination. After consideration of all five of
these factors, we propose to approve the State's determination that
LNC3+ at a rate of 0.15lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) constitutes
NO<INF>X</INF> BART for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2.
1. Costs of Compliance
To evaluate North Dakota's updated BART analysis for Coal Creek
Units 1 and 2 with respect to the cost of compliance, we first evaluate
North Dakota's selection of baseline control technology and associated
emission rates for analysis. Next, we evaluate North Dakota's
characterization of the costs using the updated Control Cost Manual.
Finally, we evaluate the reasonableness of the costs that North Dakota
associated with the installation of LNC3+, LNC3+ w/SNCR, and LNC3+ w/
SCR on Units 1 and 2 with respect to average and incremental cost-
effectiveness, and the State's explanation for why requiring LNC3+ w/
SNCR and LNC3+ w/SCR on Units 1 and 2 is unreasonable.
i. North Dakota's Selection of Baseline Emission Rates
Both Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 utilize ``low NO<INF>X</INF> coal-
and-air nozzles with close-coupled and separated overfire air,'' which
is referred to as LNC3. Coal Creek installed additional NO<INF>X</INF>
controls (LNC3+) \111\ on Unit 2 in 2010 and on Unit 1 in 2020. The
2016-2018 three-year annual average data from LNC3 (with
DryFiningTM) on Unit 1 was used as the baseline performance
rate in pounds of NO<INF>X</INF> per MMBtu for both units. According to
North Dakota, this approach is consistent with the EPA's responses to
comments about anticipated controls at Coal Creek on the EPA's 2012 FIP
for North Dakota, where the EPA stated that potential control options
are evaluated ``based on baseline conditions, not on ongoing revisions
to a facility after the baseline period'', and that ``It is not
reasonable to consider controls installed after the baseline period in
determining BART'' because ``Such an approach would tend to lead to
higher cost effectiveness values for more effective controls and
encourage sources to voluntarily install lesser controls to avoid
installing more effective BART controls later''.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ LNC3+ is defined by modified and additional separated
overfire air (SOFA), close-coupled overfire air (COFA), and low
NO<INF>X</INF> burners (LNB).
\112\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota further noted that because the annual average
NO<INF>X</INF> performance rate from 2002 through 2006 in lb/MMBtu for
Units 1 and 2 was 0.22 and 0.23, respectively, the similarity of this
five-year average supports the notion that Unit 1 and Unit 2 operate
nearly identically with similar controls.\113\ According to North
Dakota, the differences in performance rates between Unit 1 and Unit 2
since that time period can be attributed to the installation of LNC3+
on Unit 2 in 2010. The EPA finds that this information supports the use
of a baseline rate of 0.18 lb/MMBtu for both Units 1 and 2 that is
representative of historical operation at Unit 1. Though North Dakota
did not incorporate all existing controls into the baseline, the State
did consider the existing LNC3+ by performing an incremental cost
analysis looking at the standalone cost of implementing SNCR, the next
most stringent control, relative to the existing LNC3+. North Dakota
also performed incremental analyses looking at the standalone cost of
SCR relative to LNC3+. Per the EPA's BART guidelines, which advise that
incremental costs should be calculated relative to the next most
stringent control option,\114\ North Dakota also performed incremental
cost analyses looking at the standalone cost of SCR relative to SNCR.
Based on this information, the EPA finds that North Dakota selected an
appropriate baseline rate and adequately considered the existing
controls at Coal Creek in its cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\113\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix F.1-3.
\114\ ``40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.4.e.1.: ``The
incremental cost effectiveness calculation compares the costs and
performance level of a control option to those of the next most
stringent option, as shown in the following formula (with respect to
cost per emissions reduction): Incremental Cost Effectiveness
(dollars per incremental ton removed) = (Total annualized costs of
control option)-(Total annualized costs of next control option) /
(Control option annual emissions)-(Next control option annual
emissions).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. North Dakota's Characterization of Costs Using the Control Cost
Manual
The revised NO<INF>X</INF> control cost estimates in the BART
portion of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal are based on the current
version of the EPA's Control Cost Manual, which has been revised since
the first planning period. As updated, the Control Cost Manual includes
a 30-year equipment life for SCR.\115\ The change in equipment life
estimate from 20 to 30 years for SCR affects annual cost estimates, as
well as average cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness
estimates. The Control Cost Manual also includes a 20-year equipment
life for SNCR.\116\ We find North Dakota's use of the

[[Page 66024]]

updated Control Cost Manual appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\115\ The EPA, ``Control Cost Manual,'' section 4, Chapter 2,
June 2019, page 80, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution</a> (last visited December 2023).
\116\ The EPA, ``Control Cost Manual,'' section 4, Chapter 1,
April 2019, page 54, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution</a> (last visited December 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its updated BART submission, North Dakota provided updated
capital costs, annual costs, and average cost-effectiveness figures for
LNC3+, LNC3+ w/SNCR, and LNC3+ w/SCR.\117\ In cost-effectiveness
calculations, North Dakota used a 5.25% interest rate,\118\ which was
the bank prime rate at the time the 2022 SIP submittal was in
development (2018). North Dakota's use of the bank prime rate in
control cost analyses follows the EPA's Control Cost Manual.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\117\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix F.1-7.
\118\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix B.4.b.
\119\ The EPA, ``Control Cost Manual,'' section 1, Chapter 2,
November 2017, page 15, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution</a> (last visited December 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota also included incremental cost-effectiveness figures
for LNC3+ w/SNCR and LNC3+ w/SCR.\120\ The BART Guidelines instruct
that States can evaluate both average and incremental costs according
to the Control Cost Manual to maintain and improve consistency.\121\
These figures take into account capital and annual costs and allow
States and the EPA to compare costs of controls industry-wide. The BART
Guidelines further caution against considering in isolation the capital
costs of a control option, as large or small capital costs alone are
not dispositive of the reasonableness of a potential control.\122\
Thus, we consider the average and incremental cost-effectiveness
figures to be most relevant to our consideration of North Dakota's
revised BART cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\120\ Id.
\121\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.4.
\122\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Costs Associated With the Installation of New Controls
In the revised cost analysis for the BART portion of the 2022 SIP
submittal, North Dakota's cost estimates show an average cost-
effectiveness for LNC3+ for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 of $683/ton of
NO<INF>X</INF> removed.\123\ Based on North Dakota's estimates, the
cost of LNC3+ is cost-effective.\124\ In our evaluation of North
Dakota's 2013 SIP submittal, the EPA found an average value of $629/ton
of NO<INF>X</INF> removed based on LNC3+ installation at Antelope
Valley Station Units 1 and 2 to be cost-effective, and we approved the
State's NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination for those sources in a final
rule issued in 2022.\125\ Thus, the revised average cost-effectiveness
value for LNC3+ on Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 in North Dakota's updated
BART analysis is similar in cost to what North Dakota determined was
cost-effective for a similar lignite coal facility in 2013. The EPA
agrees with North Dakota that LNC3+ is cost effective for Coal Creek
Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\123\ See table 1 in this document. See also North Dakota's 2022
SIP submittal, appendix F.1-7.
\124\ Id. North Dakota did not determine this cost to be
unreasonable. Indeed, this cost-effectiveness value is in line
with--and in some cases well below--the cost-effectiveness values
the EPA and States found reasonable for regional haze control
measures in the first planning period, even without adjusting for
inflation. After evaluating first planning period cost of compliance
values, plus the other BART statutory factors and/or the four
reasonable progress statutory factors, the vast majority of cost/ton
values <$2,500/ton were found to be reasonable and cost-effective.
This includes control determinations for sources both within North
Dakota and in other States. Examples for several sources can be
found at: 76 FR 16168, 16180-81, (Mar. 22, 2011 (proposed);
finalized at 76 FR 81728 (Dec. 28, 2011) (Oklahoma); 76 FR 58570,
58586 (Sept. 21, 2011) (proposed); finalized at 77 FR 20894 (Apr 4,
2012) (North Dakota); 77 FR 24794, 24817 (Apr. 25, 2012) (proposed);
finalized at 77 FR 51915 (Aug. 29, 2012) (New York); and 77 FR
18052, 18070 (Mar. 26, 2012) (proposed); finalized at 77 FR 76871
(Dec. 12, 2012) (Colorado); and 77 FR 73369, 73378 (Dec. 10, 2012)
(proposed); finalized at 78 FR 53250 (Aug. 29, 2013) (Florida). The
cited costs have not been adjusted for inflation.
\125\ See Proposal 86 FR 14,055 (Mar. 12, 2021); Final 87 FR
19635 (April 5, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, North Dakota analyzed the cost-effectiveness of LNC3+ w/SNCR.
North Dakota's cost estimates show an average cost-effectiveness for
LNC3+ w/SNCR for Units 1 and 2 of $3,348/ton of NO<INF>X</INF>
removed.\126\ North Dakota's cost estimates also show an incremental
cost-effectiveness for LNC3+ w/SNCR for Units 1 and 2 of $7,850 per ton
of NO<INF>X</INF> removed relative to the next-most-stringent control
(LNC3+).\127\ North Dakota's decision to reject LNC3+ w/SNCR is based
on its consideration of incremental cost. The EPA believes that both
average and incremental costs provide information useful for making
control determinations. The BART Guidelines explain how average and
incremental costs may be used in an analysis to choose between two
available control devices.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\126\ See table 1 in this document. See also North Dakota's 2022
SIP submittal, appendix F.1-7.
\127\ Id.
\128\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.4.e.5.: ``The
average cost (total annual cost/total annual emission reductions)
for each may be deemed to be reasonable. However, the incremental
cost (total annual cost<INF>A-B</INF>/total annual emission
reductions<INF>A-B</INF>) of the additional emission reductions to
be achieved by control B may be very great. In such an instance, it
may be inappropriate to choose control B, based on its high
incremental costs, even though its average cost may be considered
reasonable.''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though the average cost-effectiveness value that North Dakota
evaluated for LNC3+ w/SNCR of $3,348/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed is
in line with average cost-effectiveness values that States and the EPA
found reasonable in first planning period BART actions,\129\ and the
visibility benefits of LNC3+ w/SNCR are not insignificant, we find that
it was reasonable for North Dakota to determine that the relatively
small incremental visibility benefits from adding SNCR (incremental
visibility improvement ranging from 0.06-0.09 dv) \130\ do not warrant
selection of LCN3+ w/SNCR in light of the incremental cost of that
control over LNC3+ ($7,850 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed). In a
2016 approval of a source-specific revision to the Arizona first
planning period SIP that addressed BART requirements at Cholla
Generating Station (Cholla), the EPA approved Arizona's determination
that LNB+SOFA+SNCR was not required based on an incremental visibility
improvement of 0.07 dv and an incremental cost of $6,989-7,091/ton
compared to LNB+SOFA, the control Arizona selected for BART.\131\ The
average cost associated with the addition of LNB+SOFA+SNCR was around
$3,000-3,200/ton.\132\ The EPA explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\129\ These cost-effectiveness values are in line with those the
EPA and States found reasonable for regional haze control measures
adopted in the first planning period, even without adjusting for
inflation. After evaluating first planning period cost of compliance
values, plus the other BART statutory factors and/or the four
reasonable progress statutory factors, States and the EPA found
numerous instances of cost-effectiveness values up to and sometimes
higher than $4,500/ton to be reasonable and cost effective. This
includes control determinations for sources within North Dakota and
in other States. Examples for several sources can be found at: 76 FR
16168, 16181, (Mar. 22, 2011) (proposed rule); finalized at 76 FR
81728 (Dec. 28, 2011) (Oklahoma); 76 FR 58570, 58587-88, (Sept. 21,
2011) (proposed); finalized at 77 FR 20894 (Apr. 6, 2012) (North
Dakota); 77 FR 11022, 11033, (Feb. 14, 2013) (proposed); finalized
at 78 FR 10546 (Feb. 14, 2013) (Alaska); and 79 FR 5032, 5038 (Jan.
30, 2014) (Wyoming) (final rule). The cited costs have not been
adjusted for inflation.
\130\ Incremental visibility improvement is the visibility
improvement between two control options. In this case, it is the
visibility improvement of adding LNC3+ w/SNCR versus LNC3+ alone.
\131\ 81 FR 46852, 46861-2 (Jul. 19, 2016 (proposed); finalized
at 82 FR 15139 (Mar. 27, 2011).
\132\ Id.

With regard to SNCR, we find that it was reasonable for
[Arizona] to conclude that the costs of SNCR were not warranted by
the visibility benefits. In particular, with regard to costs, we are
not aware of any instance in which the EPA has determined SNCR to be
BART where the average cost-effectiveness of SNCR was greater than
$3,000/ton and the incremental cost-effectiveness was roughly
$7,000/ton, as is the case with Cholla Units 3 and 4. Similarly, we
are not aware of any instance in which the EPA has disapproved a
state's BART determination that rejected

[[Page 66025]]

SNCR as BART based on similar cost-effectiveness values.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\133\ Id.

In its 2022 SIP revision, North Dakota finds the selection of LNC3+
w/SNCR to be unwarranted based on an average cost-effectiveness of
$3,348/ton, an incremental cost-effectiveness of $7,850/ton, and
incremental visibility improvement ranging from 0.06-0.09 dv compared
to LNC3+ alone.\134\ These cost and visibility numbers are very similar
to those evaluated in the EPA's 2016 action approving Arizona's BART
determination that LNB+SOFA+SNCR was unwarranted at Cholla Units 3 and
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\134\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP revision, appendix F.1-13, table
15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, the EPA finds that it was reasonable for North Dakota to
conclude that the incremental visibility benefits of LNC3+ w/SNCR over
LNC3+ alone do not warrant selection of LNC3+ w/SNCR given its
incremental cost over LNC3+.
Lastly, North Dakota analyzed the cost-effectiveness of LNC3+ w/
SCR. North Dakota evaluated cost-effectiveness under two different
control efficiencies: 0.08 lb/MMBtu NO<INF>X</INF> and 0.06 lb/MMBtu
NO<INF>X</INF> removed. North Dakota's cost estimates show an average
cost-effectiveness for Units 1 and 2 of $6,983/ton of NO<INF>X</INF>
removed (0.08 lb/MMBtu rate) and $6,284/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed
(0.06 lb/MMBtu rate).\135\ North Dakota's cost estimates show an
incremental cost-effectiveness for LNC3+ w/SCR compared to LNC3+ for
Units 1 and 2 of $13,368/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed (0.08 lb/MMBtu
rate) and $10,339/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed (0.06 lb/MMBtu
rate).\136\ North Dakota's cost estimates also show an incremental
cost-effectiveness for LNC3+ w/SCR for Units 1 and 2 of $21,645/ton of
NO<INF>X</INF> removed (0.08 lb/MMBtu rate) and $12,206/ton of
NO<INF>X</INF> removed (0.06 lb/MMBtu rate), relative to the next-most-
stringent control (LNC3+ w/SNCR).\137\ Because both the average and
incremental costs in this instance are above the costs previously
approved as cost-effective for BART,\138\ the EPA finds that North
Dakota reasonably concluded, based on its analysis of average and
incremental costs, that LNC3+ w/SCR is not cost-effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\135\ See table 1 in this document. See also North Dakota's 2022
SIP submittal, appendix F.1-7.
\136\ Id.
\137\ Id.
\138\ The EPA is not aware of any instance in which the EPA has
determined SCR to be BART where the average cost-effectiveness of
SCR was greater than $6,000/ton and the incremental cost-
effectiveness was greater than $10,000/ton, as is the case with Coal
Creek Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, the EPA finds that North Dakota's consideration of
costs of compliance is reasonable and consistent with the Control Cost
Manual, the BART Guidelines, EPA guidance, and the EPA's reasoning in
other first planning period BART actions. Specifically, the EPA finds
that: (1) LNC3+ is a reasonable cost control based on the circumstances
of this SIP submittal; (2) the incremental visibility benefits of LNC3+
w/SNCR over LNC3+ alone (incremental visibility improvement ranging
from 0.06-0.09 dv) do not warrant selection of LNC3+ w/SCNR given its
incremental cost compared to LNC3+ ($7,850 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF>
removed); and (3) the average and incremental cost-effectiveness values
for installing LNC3+ w/SCR are not cost-effective. Based on inherent
monthly variabilities in NO<INF>X</INF> rate performance for LNC3+,
including the likelihood of variability in rates due to changes in unit
load to meet electricity needs, the EPA finds that North Dakota's
proposed limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu NO<INF>X</INF> on a 30-day rolling
average \139\ for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 is appropriate and provides
for reasonable monthly variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ The BART Guidelines State that any enforceable limits
associated with BART EGUs should be set as a 30-day rolling average.
40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section V. The BART Guidelines expressly
apply to Coal Creek because it is an EGU with a total generating
capacity greater than 750 MW: 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section
I.F.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Energy and Non-Air Quality Impacts of Compliance
North Dakota considered a variety of energy and non-air quality
impacts. For SCR control technology, North Dakota noted visibility
impacts from SAM emissions and additional energy use and emissions of
pollutants associated with low dust SCR systems. For SNCR, North Dakota
estimated that the control technology would require 70-80 million
gallons of water per year,\140\ would result in an estimated 92,000
tons of fly ash disposal,\141\ and potentially produce pollution from
ammonia slip.\142\ North Dakota supported its assessments with its own
analysis and commissioned a study to evaluate the potential for adverse
impacts of from ammoniated fly ash. North Dakota did not disqualify SCR
or SNCR as reasonable control technologies based on the energy and non-
air quality impacts of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\140\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP revision, appendix B.4.b.
\141\ Id.
\142\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota's consideration of energy and non-air quality impacts
satisfies the BART Guidelines in that it provides some additional
support for North Dakota's decision to reasonably rule out SCR and SNCR
based on cost.
3. Pollution Control Equipment at the Source
As described in section III.C.3. and section IV.A.1.i. of this
document, North Dakota's BART analysis in the 2022 SIP submittal
considered existing controls on Coal Creek Units 1 and 2, including
DryFiningTM and other combustion controls. Though North
Dakota did not incorporate all existing controls into the baseline for
its average cost-effectiveness analysis, the State did consider
existing controls by performing an incremental cost-effectiveness
analysis looking at the standalone cost of implementing SNCR, the next
most stringent control, relative to the existing LNC3+ (which includes
DryFining, a voluntarily installed control technology). North Dakota
also performed incremental cost analyses looking at the standalone cost
of SCR relative to the existing control of LNC3+. Per the EPA's BART
Guidelines, which advise that incremental costs should be calculated
relative to the next most stringent control option,\143\ North Dakota
also performed incremental cost analyses looking at the standalone cost
of SCR relative to SNCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\143\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.4.e.1.: ``The
incremental cost effectiveness calculation compares the costs and
performance level of a control option to those of the next most
stringent option, as shown in the following formula (with respect to
cost per emissions reduction): Incremental Cost Effectiveness
(dollars per incremental ton removed) = (Total annualized costs of
control option)-(Total annualized costs of next control option) /
(Control option annual emissions)-(Next control option annual
emissions).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota's approach of including voluntary existing controls in
its evaluation of the BART factor ``any existing pollution control
technology in use at the source'' is consistent with the Eighth
Circuit's decision in North Dakota.\144\ The Eighth Circuit found that
use of the word ``any'' has an expansive meaning and includes
consideration of voluntarily installed controls as part of the BART
factor ``any existing pollution control technology in use at the
source.'' \145\ Based on this, the EPA finds that North Dakota
adequately considered any existing controls at Coal Creek in its BART
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\144\ See North Dakota, 730 F.3d at 762-63.
\145\ See North Dakota, 730 F.3d at 764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Remaining Useful Life of Any Potentially Affected Sources
North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal notes that Coal Creek is expected
to operate beyond the life of the control equipment evaluated for BART.
North Dakota considered remaining useful life as an element of its cost
analysis and applied the timeframes of 30 years for

[[Page 66026]]

SCR and 20 years for SNCR from the EPA's Control Cost Manual.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\146\ EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, section 4--
NO<INF>X</INF> Controls, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution</a> (last visited December 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BART Guidelines advise that States ``may decide to treat the
requirement to consider the source's `remaining useful life' of the
source for BART determinations as one element of the overall cost
analysis. The `remaining useful life' of a source, if it represents a
relatively short time period, may affect the annualized costs of
retrofit controls.'' \147\ The BART Guidelines further advise that if
the remaining useful life of the source clearly exceeds the time period
for amortization, ``the remaining useful life has essentially no effect
on control costs and on the BART determination process.'' \148\ If the
remaining useful life of the source is less than the time period for
amortizing the costs of the retrofit control, States may use the
shorter time period in cost calculations.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\147\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.4.k.1.
\148\ Id.
\149\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though North Dakota expects Coal Creek to operate beyond the
life of the control equipment, the State chose to apply in its cost
analyses the shorter timeframes of 30 years for SCR and 20 years for
SNCR recommended in the EPA's Control Cost Manual.\150\ For this
reason, the EPA finds that North Dakota satisfactorily considered this
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\150\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, appendix F.1-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Visibility Improvement Anticipated To Result From Controls
North Dakota considered CALPUFF dispersion modeling conducted by
Coal Creek to assess the potential visibility improvement from the use
of additional NO<INF>X</INF> BART controls. The EPA's BART Guidelines
advise that for the purposes of assessing the degree of improvement in
visibility from various BART control levels for a BART determination,
States may use CALPUFF modeling using source-specific and site-specific
data.\151\ The BART Guidelines further advise that if expected
improvement is shown from the various control choices, the State can
weigh the results with the other four BART determination factors when
establishing BART for a particular source.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\151\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.5.
\152\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.E.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 in section III.C.5. of this document displays North
Dakota's modeled average combined 98th percentile deciview improvement
from 2000-2002 for Coal Creek Station Unit 1 and Unit 2. The modeling
indicates that in general, there is an incremental improvement in
deciview reductions for each increasingly stringent control technology
option. For LNC3+ w/SNCR, the largest modeled deciview improvement
(compared to Modeling Scenario 1) for Theodore Roosevelt National Park
was 0.21, and for Lostwood was 0.21, with incremental visibility
improvement from the addition of SNCR ranging from 0.06-0.09 dv
(compared to LNC3+ alone). As noted in section IV.A.1.iii. of this
document, the EPA finds that the incremental visibility benefits of
LNC3+ w/SNCR over LNC3+ alone do not warrant selection of LNC3+ w/SNCR
given its incremental cost compared to LNC3+. For LNC3+ w/SCR 5%
SO<INF>2</INF> to SO<INF>3</INF> oxidation rate, the largest modeled
deciview improvement for Theodore Roosevelt National Park was 0.14
compared to the Modeling Scenario 1. Notably, for LNC3+ w/SCR 5%
SO<INF>2</INF> to SO<INF>3</INF> oxidation rate, the modeling indicated
a decrease in deciview improvement for Lostwood at -0.02 deciviews
compared to the Modeling Scenario 1. North Dakota's assessment of the
modeling data was that none of the NO<INF>X</INF> BART controls were
shown to have a significant impact on improving visibility in North
Dakota's Class I areas. Considering the modeled overall and incremental
visibility improvements (visibility improvement between two contr ol
measures) associated with installation of LNC3+ w/SCR versus LNC3+
alone (maximum incremental improvement of 0.21 dv) \153\ and LNC3+ w/
SCR versus LNC3+ w/SNCR (maximum incremental improvement of 0.12 dv)
\154\ and in light of the incremental costs described in section
IV.A.1. of this document, the EPA agrees that LNC3+ w/SCR is not
warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\153\ North Dakota's 2022 SIP revision, appendix F.1-13, table
15.
\154\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because North Dakota conducted the modeling in accordance with the
BART Guidelines and reasonably concluded that the difference in
visibility improvements between installing LNC3+ versus LNC3+ w/SCR
were relatively small, the EPA finds that North Dakota's consideration
of visibility improvement was satisfactory.
6. Summary of the EPA's Evaluation of North Dakota's NO<INF>X</INF>
BART Determination for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2
In summary, the EPA proposes to approve the portion of North
Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal that addresses North Dakota's
NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2. The EPA
bases this decision on the determination that North Dakota reasonably
considered all five factors in determining BART as required under CAA
section 169A, 40 CFR 51.308(e), and 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y. This
action addresses the last outstanding North Dakota BART requirement for
the first planning period.

B. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)

Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision
``if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of
this chapter.'' All areas in North Dakota are currently meeting the
NAAQS.\155\ This proposed approval would require new NO<INF>X</INF>
BART limits at Coal Creek Units 1 and 2, resulting in a reduction of
1,162 tpy of NO<INF>X</INF> from the baseline. Because this action is
associated with a reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and is not
associated with any increase in emissions, this action is unlikely to
interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress in North
Dakota or nearby States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\155\ EPA Green Book, Current Nonattainment Counties for All
Pollutants, available at <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html">https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html</a> (last visited December 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA finds that approval of the portion of North Dakota's August
2022 SIP submittal that addresses NO<INF>X</INF> BART for Coal Creek is
in compliance with CAA section 110(l).

C. Coordination With FLMs

Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), States are obligated to provide FLMs
with an opportunity for consultation in development of the State's
proposed SIP submittal no less than sixty days prior to the associated
public hearing or public comment opportunity.
For the 2022 SIP submittal, North Dakota engaged with FLMs early in
the planning process by participating in WRAP meetings and by holding
separate calls with FLMs to discuss visibility impairment in Class I
areas and the State's plans for the North Dakota 2022 SIP submittal.
North Dakota also met via video conference with the NPS on November 6,
2020, and December 15, 2020, and with the USFS on November 23, 2020.
Upon completing its draft 2022 SIP submittal, North Dakota provided
the draft to FLMs for a review and consultation period from September
20, 2021, through November 19, 2021, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).

[[Page 66027]]

Additionally, North Dakota held a video conference with the NPS, USFS,
and EPA Region 8 staff on November 10, 2021, to discuss the draft and
receive feedback from the FLMs. North Dakota received comments from
USFS on November 17, 2021, and from the NPS on November 19, 2021.\139\
Specific to the BART determination for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2
contained in North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, the NPS commented on
the control efficiency considered by North Dakota for SCR controls, the
5.25% interest rate used by North Dakota in cost-effectiveness
calculations, and the remaining useful life used by North Dakota in
cost calculations. North Dakota responded to the FLM comments and
included the responses in appendix D of the North Dakota 2022 SIP
submittal, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3).
In consideration of these consultation actions, the EPA finds that
North Dakota has satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i) to
consult with the FLMs for the 2022 SIP submittal as it pertains to Coal
Creek Station Units 1 and 2 BART.

V. The EPA's Evaluation of North Dakota's Five-Year Progress Report

This section includes the EPA's analysis of North Dakota's 2015
Progress Report for the first planning period and an explanation of the
basis of our proposed approval. As listed in section III.D. above,
North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report included the elements required in
40 CFR 51.308(g) and 40 CFR 51.308(h) of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule,
which was the applicable rule at the time of submission,\156\ As a
result, the EPA finds that North Dakota's progress report addresses the
requirements of the CAA and the EPA's rules that require States to
submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress
goals established for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\156\ Because North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report was developed
before the EPA's 2017 Regional Haze Rule Revisions, the applicable
requirements are the requirements from the 1999 Regional Haze Rule.
See 82 FR 3078, 3080 (January 10, 2017): ``These changes do not
affect the development and review of State plans for the first
implementation period or the first progress reports due under the
1999 RHR.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1), North Dakota included a description of
the status of implementation of the measures included in the first
planning period implementation plan, including current emissions rates,
BART/reasonable progress limits, and implementation dates.\157\ North
Dakota also included a breakdown of its species contribution to
impairment in both in-state and out-of-state Class I areas.\158\ To
address 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), North Dakota included a list of emissions
reductions that have occurred as a result of Regional Haze SIP control
requirements.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\157\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, table 2.3.
\158\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, table 2.1 and table
2.2.
\159\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), North Dakota included an assessment
of visibility conditions and changes on least-impaired days and most-
impaired days for both Class I areas within the State (Lostwood
Wilderness Area and Theodore Roosevelt National Park) expressed in
terms of 5-year averages of these annual values.\160\ North Dakota
compared the baseline average of visibility impairment to both an
average from 2005-2009 and an average from 2008-2012.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\160\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, table 2.8.
\161\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), North Dakota included an analysis
tracking the change over the past 5 years addressed within the 2015
progress report in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment from all sources and activities within the State; these
numbers are also broken down by source category.\162\ Here, North
Dakota included 2011 data from the most recent triennial reporting
requirements as of the time of progress report development.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\162\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.4.; table
2.5; table 2.6; table 2.7.
\163\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), North Dakota included an assessment
of changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside of the State
that have occurred over the past 5 years addressed within the 2015
progress report.\164\ Considering changes in emissions over time and
expected reductions in NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions due to a
reduction in flaring, North Dakota concluded that there was no evidence
at the time that the increase in oil and gas activity (or any other
sector) in North Dakota was impeding progress towards the visibility
goal.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\164\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.5.
\165\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6), North Dakota included an assessment of
the implementation plan elements that were current at the time of
submission (including BART controls and reasonable progress controls
resulting from the first planning period)..\166\ North Dakota
ultimately concluded that its emissions would not impede the
achievement of reasonable progress goals in in-state or out-of-state
Class I areas.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\166\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.6.
\167\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota also included an assessment of its visibility
monitoring strategy to address 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). North Dakota stated
that it relies on the IMPROVE \168\ program for its monitoring
strategy.\169\ North Dakota confirmed that there is no change needed to
this monitoring strategy at this time.\170\. North Dakota met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h) by including a determination that the
existing implementation plan is sufficient to achieve established goals
for visibility improvement and emissions reduction.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\168\ 2019 Guidance, section 8.c.: ``With respect to Sec.
51.308(f)(6)(i) through (iv) regarding monitoring of ambient
visibility conditions, we recommend that all States with Class I
areas confirm in their SIPs that they participate in the IMPROVE
monitoring program through the representation of their interests by
a State air agency representative on the IMPROVE Steering Committee
and through the allocation of CAA air management grant funding to
the IMPROVE program.''
\169\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 2.7.
\170\ Id.
\171\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Dakota provided an opportunity for consultation with FLMs for
the 2015 progress report by providing a copy of the draft progress
report on June 25, 2014. The 2015 progress report was distributed to
the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, and EPA Region 8 staff. The National Park Service, the
U.S. Forest Service, and the EPA provided comments.\172\ North Dakota
documented this consultation in its 2015 progress report
submittal.\173\ The EPA finds that North Dakota has satisfied the
requirement to consult with FLMs on the 2015 progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\172\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 3.
\173\ North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report, section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the information provided in North Dakota's 2015 progress
report, the EPA proposes to approve North Dakota's 2015 progress report
for the first planning period.

VI. Summary of the EPA's Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's NO<INF>X</INF> BART
determination for Coal Creek units 1 and 2 from the August 2022 SIP
submittal. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the
NO<INF>X</INF> BART determination for the Coal Creek Station, included
in appendix F of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submittal, of

[[Page 66028]]

0.15 lb/MMBtu NO<INF>X</INF> averaged across unit 1 and unit 2 on a 30-
day rolling average. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to approve
North Dakota's 2015 Progress Report as meeting the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

VII. Environmental Justice

The EPA conducted an environmental justice (EJ) screening analysis
around the location of Coal Creek to identify potential environmental
stressors on the nearby communities. The EPA is providing the
information associated with this analysis for informational purposes
only; it does not form any part of the basis of this proposed action.
The EPA conducted the screening analysis using EJScreen, an EJ
mapping and screening tool that provides the EPA with a nationally
consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and
demographic indicators.\174\ The EPA prepared an EJScreen report
covering buffer areas of approximately six miles around Coal Creek.
From this report, there were no EJ indices greater than the 80th
national percentiles.\175\ The full, detailed EJScreen report is
provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\174\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen">https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen</a>.
\175\ For a place at the 80th percentile nationwide, that means
20 percent of the U.S. population has a higher value. The EPA
identified the 80th percentile filter as an initial starting point
for interpreting EJScreen results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory
text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the SIP amendments described in section VI.
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-2023-0641).

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> 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
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
North Dakota did not evaluate environmental justice considerations
as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
performed an environmental justice screening analysis, as described
above in section VI. The analysis was done for the purpose of providing
additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public,
not as a basis of the action. There is no information in the record
upon which this decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

Dated: August 2, 2024.
KC Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
proposed to be 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, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising
the entry ``PTC10005'' under the center heading ``Coal Creek Station
Units 1 and 2.'' to read as follows:

Sec. 52.1820 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(d) * * *

[[Page 66029]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Rule No. Rule title effective EPA effective date Final rule Comments
date citation/date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTC 21001.......... Air Pollution 7/27/2022 [Date 30 days [Federal Register Only: NOX BART
Control Permit to after date of citation of the emissions limits
Construct for publication of final rule], for Units 1 and
Best Available the final rule in [Date of 2 and
Retrofit the Federal publication of corresponding
Technology (BART). Register]. the final rule in monitoring,
the Federal recordkeeping,
Register]. and reporting
requirements.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-17471 Filed 8-13-24; 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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on August 14, 2024.

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.