discussed in the long-term strategy under Section 10.6.1 of the SIP and
the limits and compliance schedules are included in permits contained
in Appendix A of the SIP. See section V.G.3 of this action for further
discussion of these limits and schedules.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    The State does not anticipate major source retirements or
replacements. Replacement of existing facilities will be managed
according to the existing Prevention of Signification Deterioration
program. The 2018 modeling that WRAP conducted included three new power
plants in North Dakota. Two are now unlikely to be built. Construction
of new power plants or replacement of existing plants prior to 2018 is
unlikely.
e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    North Dakota has an area of approximately 44.16 million acres. Of
this total, 26.5 million acres is cropland, 11 million acres is
pasture/rangeland, and 236,000 acres is woodland/forest, with five
State forests comprising 13,300 acres. Prescribed burning is governed
by State rules in NDAC 33-15-04-02 and must be approved in advance.
Although agricultural crop burning does not require advance approval,
most agricultural cropland burning takes place in the eastern two-
thirds of the State away from the State's Class I areas. In general,
prevailing winds carry smoke from cropland burning away from North
Dakota Class I areas. Table 81, below, shows WRAP's estimate of
emissions from fire in North Dakota for the 2000-2004 baseline period.

                                                Table 81--Annual Average Emissions From Fire (2000-2004)
                                                                       [Tons/Year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source                           PM2.5             PM10               NOX               SO2               OC                EC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural.....................................               225               441               773               250             2,214               424
Anthropogenic...............................               596                62              1001               290             1,443                86
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................               821               503              1774               540             3,657               510
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 308(d)(3)(v)(E) of the Regional Haze Rule requires the long-
term strategy to address smoke management techniques for agricultural
and forestry burning. These two sources generally have a very small
contribution to visibility impairment in North Dakota Class I areas
except during the worst days in late July and August when organic
carbon, an indicator of fire emissions, replaces sulfate and nitrate as
the dominant contributor to

extinction. Much of these fire emissions are from wildfires, which
fluctuate significantly from year to year. According to the source
apportionment analyses conducted by the WRAP, anthropogenic fire
emissions in North Dakota contribute less than 1% of the total sulfate
and nitrate concentrations at Theodore Roosevelt and Lostwood. North
Dakota found that the current smoke management rules are sufficient to
achieve reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal but
will reevaluate these rules in future planning periods.
f. Enforceability of North Dakota's Measures
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) of the Regional Haze Rule requires States
to ensure that emission limitations and control measures used to meet
reasonable progress goals are enforceable. In addition to what is
required by the Regional Haze Rule, general SIP requirements mandate
that the SIP must also include adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for the regional haze emission limits and
requirements. See CAA section 110(a). As noted, the SIP specifies BART
and other emission limits and compliance schedules, and North Dakota
has included such limits and compliance schedules in State-enforceable
air quality permits that North Dakota has included in the SIP.\87\ (See
Appendix A and Appendix D of the SIP.) In addition to specifying the
limits and compliance schedules, these permits specify monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. North Dakota worked closely
with EPA in developing these requirements. For SO2 and
NOX limits, North Dakota has required the use of CEMS that
must be operated and maintained in accordance with relevant EPA
regulations, in particular, 40 CFR part 75. For PM limits, the SIP
requires testing in accordance with EPA-approved test methods and
compliance with a CAM plan approved as part of a Title V permit. The
SIP requires that relevant records be kept for five years, and that
sources report excess emissions on a quarterly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Because they are included in the SIP, these permits will
remain unchanged for federal purposes unless and until North Dakota
submits a change to permit terms as a SIP revision, and EPA approves
such SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these permits, various requirements that are
relevant to regional haze are codified in North Dakota's regulations,
including North Dakota's Regional Haze Rule (NDAC 33-15-25, contained
in Appendix H of the SIP) and its Prevention of Signification
Deterioration and other provisions mentioned above.
g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes
    The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes
in point, area, and mobile source emissions during this planning period
is addressed in sections V.J.3 above.
h. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports
    Consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(g), North Dakota committed to submit
to EPA a progress report, in the form of a SIP revision, every five
years following the initial submittal of the SIP. The report will
evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each
mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be
affected by emissions from within the State. These requirements and
commitment are discussed in detail in section 11.2 of the North Dakota
SIP.
6. Our Conclusion on North Dakota's Long Term Strategy
    We propose to partially approve and partially disapprove North
Dakota's long-term strategy. Because we are proposing to disapprove the
NOX BART determinations for Milton R. Young Station Units 1
and 2, Leland Olds Station Unit 2, and Coal Creek Station Units 1 and
2, we are also proposing to disapprove the corresponding permit limits
and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions that North
Dakota relied on as part of its long-term strategy. Because we are
proposing to disapprove the reasonable progress determination for
Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2, we are also proposing to
disapprove the long-term strategy because it does not include
appropriate NOX reasonable progress emission limits,
compliance schedule, and corresponding monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2.
Except for these elements, the long-term strategy satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), and we are proposing to approve
it.
7. Partial FIP for Long Term Strategy
    We are proposing regulatory language as part of our FIP that
specifies emission limits, compliance schedules, and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for the following sources,
requirements, and pollutants:
    a. Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2, BART, NOX.
    b. Leland Olds Station Unit 2, BART, NOX.
    c. Coal Creek Units 1 and 2, BART, NOX.
    d. Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2, reasonable progress,
NOX.
    We are proposing this regulatory language to fill the gap in the
long-term strategy that would be left by our proposed partial
disapproval of the long-term strategy. Our monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements generally mirror those imposed by North
Dakota, except that all cross-references are to federal regulations
only, we have modified some of the requirements from 40 CFR part 75,
and we are not providing a separate limit for startup for Milton R.
Young Station Units 1 and 2. We note that no other source or unit has
requested or received a separate limit for startup, and we conclude
that such a limit is not warranted. The 30-day averaging period for the
limit already accounts for potential fluctuations due to properly-
conducted startups, and nothing in North Dakota's record convinces us
that Milton R. Young Station will be unable to comply with the BART
limits we have selected.

K. Coordination of Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment and
Regional Haze Requirements

    Our visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their
reasonably attributable visibility impairment long-term strategy and
monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as explained in
section IV.F, above. Under our reasonably attributable visibility
impairment regulations, the reasonably attributable visibility
impairment portion of a state SIP must address any integral vistas
identified by the Federal Land Managers pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See
40 CFR 51.302. An integral vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a
``view perceived from within the mandatory Class I Federal area of a
specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary of the
mandatory Class I Federal area.'' Visibility in any mandatory Class I
Federal area includes any integral vista associated with that area. The
Federal Land Managers did not identify any integral vistas in North
Dakota. In addition, neither Class I area in North Dakota is
experiencing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, nor are any
North Dakota sources affected by the reasonably attributable visibility
impairment provisions. The North Dakota Regional Haze SIP, in Sections
10.6.1 and 4.1, does address the two requirements regarding
coordination of the regional haze long-term strategy and monitoring

provisions with the reasonably attributable visibility impairment long-
term strategy and monitoring provisions. As noted in the Regional Haze
SIP, North Dakota has previously made a commitment to address
reasonably attributable visibility impairment should a Federal Land
Manager certify visibility impairment from an individual source. See
North Dakota visibility SIP revisions to address reasonably
attributable visibility impairment, (NDAC 13-15-19, EPA approved
September 28, 1988, 53 FR 37757), and Prevention of Signification
Deterioration visibility provisions (NDAC 13-15-15, EPA approved July
19, 2007, 72 FR 39564). We propose to find that the Regional Haze SIP
appropriately supplements and augments North Dakota's reasonably
attributable visibility impairment visibility provisions by updating
the monitoring and long-term strategy provisions to address regional
haze. We discuss the relevant monitoring provisions further below.

L. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the SIP contain a monitoring
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for
reasonably attributable visibility impairment. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)
notes, compliance with this requirement may be met through
participation in the IMPROVE network. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) further
requires the establishment of any additional monitoring sites or
equipment needed to assess whether reasonable progress goals to address
regional haze for all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state
are being achieved. Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for
reasonably attributable visibility impairment and regional haze, North
Dakota indicates in Section 4.2 of the Regional Haze SIP that it will
rely on the IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any
reasonably attributable visibility impairment monitoring that may be
needed in the future. The IMPROVE monitors at the North Dakota Class I
Areas also described in Section 4.2 of the SIP. We propose to find that
North Dakota has satisfied the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)
enumerated in this paragraph.
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that North Dakota establish
procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in
determining the contribution of emissions from within North Dakota to
regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas
both within and outside the state. The IMPROVE monitoring program is
national in scope, and other states have similar monitoring and data
reporting procedures, ensuring a consistent and robust monitoring data
collection system. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) indicates, participation in
the IMPROVE program constitutes compliance with this requirement. We
therefore propose that North Dakota has satisfied this requirement.
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that the SIP provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the state. To
the extent possible, North Dakota should report visibility monitoring
data electronically. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that the SIP
provide for other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility. We
propose that North Dakota's participation in the IMPROVE network
ensures that the monitoring data is reported at least annually and is
easily accessible; therefore, such participation complies with this
requirement.
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that North Dakota maintain a
statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
mandatory Class I Federal area. The inventory must include emissions
for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data
are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. The state
must also include a commitment to update the inventory periodically.
Please refer to section V.J.1, above, where we discuss North Dakota's
emission inventory. North Dakota states in Section 4 of the SIP that it
intends to update the North Dakota statewide emissions inventories
periodically and review periodic emissions information from other
states and future emissions projections. We propose that this satisfies
the requirement.

M. Federal Land Manager Coordination

    Lostwood is managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Theodore
Roosevelt is managed by the National Park Service; these are the
respective Federal Land Managers for these North Dakota Class I areas.
Although the Federal Land Managers are very active in participating in
the regional planning organizations, the Regional Haze Rule grants the
Federal Land Managers a special role in the review of the regional haze
SIPs, summarized in section IV.H, above. The Federal Land Managers and
the state environmental agencies are our partners in the regional haze
process.
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), North Dakota was obligated to provide
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding a public hearing on the Regional Haze SIP. North Dakota sent a
draft of its Regional Haze SIP to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Park Service on August 9, 2009 and at the same time notified
the Federal Land Managers of the State's January 7, 2010 public
hearing.
    40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that North Dakota provide in its
Regional Haze SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the Federal Land Managers. The Federal Land Managers
communicated to the State (and EPA) their dissatisfaction with the BART
determinations for Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland
Olds Station Unit 2 among other issues. They expressed their view that
SCR, instead of SNCR, is NOX BART for these sources. The
Federal Land Managers also disagreed with North Dakota's rejection of
reasonable progress controls. North Dakota responded to the Federal
Land Managers' comments and concerns in Appendix J of the Regional Haze
SIP.
    Lastly, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies the regional haze SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and
Federal Land Managers on the implementation of the visibility
protection program required by 40 CFR 51.308, including development and
review of implementation plan revisions and 5-year progress reports,
and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas. North Dakota commits in Section 11 of its Regional Haze SIP to
continue to coordinate and consult with the Federal Land Managers as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4). North Dakota states that it intends to
consult the Federal Land Managers in the development and review of
implementation plan revisions; review of progress reports; and
development and implementation of other programs that may contribute to
impairment of visibility at North Dakota and other Class I areas.
    While we disagree with the substance of North Dakota's decisions
regarding NOX BART for Milton R. Young Station

Units 1 and 2, Leland Olds Station Unit 2, and Coal Creek Station Units
1 and 2, and reasonable progress controls for NOX for AVS
Units 1 and 2, we are proposing that the State complied with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).

N. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-year Progress Reports

    North Dakota commits in Section 11 of the SIP to complete items
required in the future by the Regional Haze Rule. North Dakota
acknowledged its obligation under 40 CFR 51.308(f) to submit periodic
progress reports and Regional Haze SIP revisions, with the first report
due by July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter.
    North Dakota acknowledged its obligation under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to
submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision to us every five
years following the initial submittal of the Regional Haze SIP. The
report will evaluate the progress made towards the reasonable progress
goals for each mandatory Class I area located within North Dakota and
in each mandatory Class I area located outside North Dakota that may be
affected by emissions from within North Dakota.

VI. Our Analysis of North Dakota's Interstate Visibility Transport SIP
Provisions

    In July 1997, EPA promulgated the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA
require states to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three
years following the promulgation of the new or revised standard. Thus,
states were required to submit SIPs that satisfy the applicable
requirements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2), including the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), by July 2000. Among other
things, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires states to make a submission
that establishes that the state's SIP contains adequate provisions to
prevent interference with measures required to be included in the SIPs
of other states to protect visibility. A state could establish the
adequacy of its SIP for this purpose by demonstrating that existing
provisions prevent such interference, by adding new provisions to
prevent such interference, or by a combination of existing and new
provisions.
    States, including North Dakota, did not meet the statutory July
2000 deadline for submission of these SIPs. Accordingly, on April 25,
2005, EPA made findings of failure to submit, notifying all states,
including North Dakota, of their failure to make the required SIP
submission to address interstate transport under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). 70 FR 21147. This finding started a 24-month FIP clock
under section 110(c). Pursuant to section 110(c), EPA is required to
promulgate a FIP to address the applicable interstate transport
requirements, unless a state makes the required submission and EPA
fully approves such submission, within the 24-month period. As noted
earlier, EPA was sued by WildEarth Guardians for failing to meet its
statutory FIP obligation for North Dakota by the applicable deadline in
April of 2007, and is thus under a consent decree deadline to take the
necessary SIP approval or FIP action.
    EPA issued the 2006 Guidance to make recommendations to states
about how to make SIP submissions for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), including the visibility prong. Acknowledging that the
regional haze SIPs were still under development and were not due until
December 17, 2007, we recommended that states could make a SIP
submission confirming that it was not possible at that point in time to
assess whether there was any interference with measures in the
applicable SIP for another state designed to ``protect visibility'' for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We
note that our 2006 Guidance was based on the premise that as of the
time of its issuance in August 2006, it was reasonable for EPA to
recommend that states could merely indicate that the imminent regional
haze SIP would be the appropriate means to establish that its SIP
contained adequate provisions to prevent interference with the
visibility programs required in other states. Subsequent events have
demonstrated that we were mistaken in our assumptions that all states
would submit regional haze SIPs by December of 2007, and mistaken in
our assumption that all such submissions would meet applicable regional
haze program requirements and therefore be approved shortly thereafter.
Our 2006 Guidance was intended to make recommendations that were
relevant at that point in time, and subsequent events have rendered it
inappropriate in this specific action. EPA's 2006 Guidance was not
intended to delay indefinitely the consideration of impacts on other
states' Class I areas, or to allow the states' failure to submit
regional haze SIPs on time, or to submit approvable regional haze SIPs,
to provide an excuse for failing to analyze those impacts in a
reasonable way. At this point in time, EPA must review the submission
from the State in light of the actual facts and in light of the
statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    North Dakota submitted a SIP on April 6, 2009, intended to address
all four prongs of the interstate transport requirements of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. With respect to the visibility prong section in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), North Dakota merely stated that it was at that
time working with the WRAP, including associated states and
stakeholders, to prepare a regional haze SIP. However, North Dakota did
not explicitly state in its April 6, 2009, submittal that it intended
that its Regional Haze SIP be used to satisfy the visibility prong, nor
did it include such a statement in its Regional Haze SIP ultimately
submitted or in the Governor's letter that accompanied it. The state
also did not make any other SIP submission indicating that intended to
meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by any other
means. However, the state did not make the Regional Haze SIP by the
deadline for such submissions, and the Regional Haze SIP itself does
not fully meet the requirements of the regional haze program. Hence, we
are not able to consider the Regional Haze SIP in determining the
adequacy of North Dakota's SIP vis-[agrave]-vis the visibility prong of
110(a)(2)(D)(i). Instead, we are considering only the adequacy of North
Dakota's April 6, 2009 submittal to address the visibility prong.
    The visibility prong, contained in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
requires that states submit a SIP revision containing provisions
``prohibiting any source or other type of emission activity within the
state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will * * *
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other State under part C [of the CAA] to
protect visibility.'' Because of the impacts on visibility from the
interstate transport of pollutants, we interpret the ``good neighbor''
provisions of section 110 of the Act described above as requiring
states to include in their SIPs either measures to prohibit emissions
that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals required to be
set to protect Class I areas in other states, or a demonstration that
emissions from North Dakota sources and activities will not have the
prohibited impacts.
    The State's April 6, 2009 SIP submission did contain some
statements concerning the requirements of the

visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 7.8 of North
Dakota's submission generally describes the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). With respect to the visibility prong, Section 7.8
states the following:

    ``In the review process for new or modified stationary sources,
or other types of emissions activities, the Department will assess
the impact on neighboring states. * * * With respect to visibility,
an assessment on Prevention of Signification Deterioration Class I
area's visibility will be made when a significant impact is
suspected.''

    It is evident that the State intended this provision to address
interstate visibility impacts of emissions from new or modified
sources. This provision was not intended, and is not sufficient, to
satisfy the requirements of the visibility prong regarding the
interstate impacts on visibility of emissions from existing North
Dakota sources.
    Section 7.8.1.D of the SIP specifically addresses interstate
visibility impacts from existing sources. First, it cites language from
EPA's 2006 Guidance regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) \88\ that
reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan Submissions to
Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.''

    ``At this point in time, EPA has made no determination that
emissions from any State interfere with measures required to be
included in a plan to address reasonably attributable visibility
impairment. Further, EPA is not aware of any certification of
existing reasonably attributable impairments of visibility by a
Federal Land Manager that has not already been resolved. The EPA
accordingly believes that States should be able to make a relatively
simple SIP submission verifying that no source within the State
emits pollutants that interfere with measures included in the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
visibility SIPs under the 1980 regulations.''

    The State responded to EPA's 2006 Guidance by concluding in Section
7.8.1.D, that ``there are no North Dakota sources of emissions that
interfere with implementation of visibility SIP [sic] under the 1980
regulations.'' We find North Dakota's conclusion to be reasonable in so
far as it addressed the issue of potential adverse visibility impacts
as contemplated in the 1980 regulations. However, EPA's 2006 Guidance
also recommended that states address regional haze SIPs under EPA's
regional haze regulations, and the statute requires a determination
with respect to measures required in the SIPs of other states.
    Noting that the regional haze SIPs were not due until December 17,
2007 (over a year after the 2006 Guidance was issued), EPA stated that
``[t]he States and Regional Planning Organizations are currently
engaged in the task of identifying those Class I areas impacted by each
State's emissions and developing strategies for addressing regional
haze to be included in the States' regional haze SIPs.'' Thus, EPA
indicated that ``it is currently premature'' to determine whether a
state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that
interfere with measures in other states' regional haze SIPs. EPA
concluded by saying, ``Accordingly, EPA believes that States may make a
simple SIP submission confirming that it is not possible at this time
to assess whether there is any interference with measures in the
applicable SIP for another State designed to `protect visibility' for
the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until regional haze SIPs
are submitted and approved.'' Thus, EPA's recommendation to states as
of that particular point in time was that they refer to the imminent
regional haze SIP submission as the means by which they could address
the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    Apparently keying off this recommendation, North Dakota included
the following statement regarding visibility transport and regional
haze in Section 7.8.1.D:

    ``The State of North Dakota is working with the Western Regional
Air Partnership, including associated States and stakeholders, to
prepare a SIP to address the EPA Regional Haze regulation (40 CFR
51.308). Until regional haze SIPs are submitted and approved, North
Dakota believes it is not possible at this time to assess whether
there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for
another state for regional haze.''

    The State's April 6, 2009 SIP submission contains no other
statements or analysis regarding the impact of emissions from North
Dakota sources on visibility programs in other states, and in
particular no other statements concerning impacts on the regional haze
program in other states.
    North Dakota's April 6, 2009 SIP submission thus suggested that the
State intended to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by a timely submission of its regional haze SIP by
December of 2007, but due to intervening circumstances the State did
not in fact make that submission until March 3, 2010. Moreover, while
North Dakota ultimately did submit the Regional Haze SIP to address the
requirements of the regional haze program directly, North Dakota did
not explicitly specify that it was submitting the Regional Haze SIP
revision to satisfy the visibility prong of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Most
importantly, however, EPA must review the April 6, 2009 submission in
light of the current facts and circumstances, and the Regional Haze SIP
revision that the State ultimately submitted does not fully meet the
substantive requirements of the regional haze program. The State made
no other SIP submission in which it indicated that it intended to meet
the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in any other way.
    Accordingly, we are proposing to disapprove North Dakota's April 6,
2009 SIP submittal for the visibility prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because that submittal neither contains adequate
measures to eliminate emissions that would interfere with the required
visibility programs in other states, nor a demonstration that the
existing North Dakota SIP already includes measures sufficient to
eliminate such prohibited impacts. To the extent that the State
intended to meet the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with
the Regional Haze SIP, the Regional Haze SIP submission itself is not
fully approvable.

VII. FIP for Interstate Visibility Transport

    Because we are proposing to disapprove North Dakota's April 6, 2009
SIP submission with respect to the visibility prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), we are proposing a FIP to fill the gap that would
be left by our proposed disapproval. As an initial matter, we note that
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not explicitly specify how we should
ascertain whether a state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
emissions from sources in that state from interfering with measures
required in another state to protect visibility. Thus, the statute is
ambiguous on its face, and we must interpret that provision.
    Our 2006 Guidance recommended that a state could meet the
visibility prong of the transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA by submission of the regional haze SIP,
due in December 2007. Our reasoning was that the development of the
regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative environment
among the states. In fact, in developing their respective reasonable
progress goals, WRAP states consulted with each other through WRAP's
work groups. As a result of this process, the common understanding was
that each state would take action to achieve the emissions reductions
relied upon by other states in their reasonable progress

demonstrations under the Regional Haze Rule. WRAP states consulted in
the development of reasonable progress goals, using the products of
this technical consultation process to co-develop their reasonable
progress goals. In developing their visibility projections using
photochemical grid modeling, WRAP states assumed a certain level of
emissions from sources within North Dakota that coincided with North
Dakota's BART determinations and North Dakota's existing controls for
other sources. Although we have not yet received all regional haze
SIPs, we understand that the WRAP states used the visibility projection
modeling to establish their own respective reasonable progress goals.
Thus, we believe that an implementation plan that provides for
emissions reductions consistent with the assumptions used in those
states' modeling is one means to ensure that emissions from North
Dakota sources do not interfere with the measures designed to protect
visibility in other states.
    North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP submission includes BART
determinations and reasonable progress conclusions that are consistent
with the information and assumptions North Dakota provided to the WRAP
and that other states will have relied upon in the development of their
own regional haze SIPs. Therefore, North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP, as
submitted to us, would have been sufficient to obtain North Dakota's
needed share of emission reductions for interstate transport purposes
for visibility, if it had been submitted to us for that purpose and if
it were fully approvable. However, as already noted, North Dakota did
not specify that it intended to submit its Regional Haze SIP to meet
the visibility prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In addition,
we are proposing to disapprove North Dakota's NOX BART
determinations for Milton R. Young Station 1 and 2, Leland Olds Station
2, and Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2 and North Dakota's
NOX reasonable progress determination for Antelope Valley
Station Units 1 and 2, and instead proposing a FIP for purposes of the
regional haze program. Thus, we are proposing a FIP to meet the
visibility prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that relies on the
combination of the North Dakota Regional Haze SIP provisions that we
are proposing to approve and the additions to the regional haze program
for North Dakota that we are proposing in our FIP for NOX
BART for Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2, Leland Olds Station
Unit 2, and Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2 and NOX
reasonable progress for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2. Because
this combination exceeds the stringency of BART and reasonable progress
limits that were already factored into the WRAP modeling for reasonable
progress goals, we propose that this combination meets the visibility
prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). We propose to find that this
combination of regional haze controls will ensure that emissions from
sources in North Dakota do not interfere with other states' visibility
programs as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA.

VIII. Proposed Actions

A. Regional Haze

    We are proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP revision that was submitted on March
3, 2010, SIP Supplement No. 1 that was submitted on July 27, 2010, and
part of SIP Amendment No. 1 that was submitted on July 28, 2011.
Specifically, we are proposing to disapprove the following:
    [cir] North Dakota's NOX BART determinations and
emissions limits for Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2, Leland Olds
Station Unit 2, and Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2.
    [cir] North Dakota's determination under the reasonable progress
requirements found at section 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) that no additional
NOX emissions controls are warranted at Units 1 and 2 of
Basin Electric Power Cooperative's Antelope Valley Station.
    [cir] North Dakota's reasonable progress goals.
    [cir] Portions of North Dakota's long-term strategy that rely on or
reflect other aspects of the Regional Haze SIP we are proposing to
disapprove.
    We are proposing to approve the remaining aspects of North Dakota's
Regional Haze SIP revision that was submitted on March 3, 2010 and SIP
Supplement No. 1 that was submitted on July 27, 2010. We are proposing
to approve the following parts of SIP Amendment No. 1 that the State
submitted on July 28, 2011: (1) Amendments to Section <IP_ADDRESS>
pertaining to Coyote Station, and (2) amendments to Appendix A.4, the
Permit to Construct of Coyote Station. We are not proposing action on
the remainder of the July 28, 2011 submittal at this time.
    We are proposing the promulgation of a FIP to address the
deficiencies in the North Dakota Regional Haze SIP that we have
identified in this proposal.
    The proposed FIP includes the following elements:
     NOX BART determinations and emission limits for
Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds Station Unit 2 of
0.07 lb/MMBtu that apply singly to each of these units on a 30-day
rolling average, and a requirement that the owners/operators comply
with these NOX BART limits within five (5) years of the
effective date of our final rule.
     NOx BART determination and emission limit for
Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2 of 0.12 lb/MMBtu that applies singly
to each of these units on a 30-day rolling average, but inviting
comment on whether 0.14 lb/MMBtu should be the limit instead, and a
requirement that the owners/operators comply with these NOX
BART limits within five (5) years of the effective date of our final
rule.
     A reasonable progress determination and NOX
emission limit for Antelope Valley Station 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 by
July 31, 2018.
     Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
the above seven units to ensure compliance with these emission
limitations.
     Reasonable progress goals consistent with the SIP limits
proposed for approval and proposed FIP limits.
     Long-term strategy elements that reflect the other aspects
of the proposed FIP.
    In lieu of this proposed FIP, or portion thereof, we are proposing
approval of a SIP revision if the State submits such a revision in a
timely way, and the revision matches the terms of our proposed FIP, or
relevant portion thereof.

B. Interstate Transport of Visibility

    We are also proposing to disapprove a portion of a SIP revision
submitted by the State of North Dakota for the purpose of addressing
the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Specifically, we propose to disapprove the portion of the April 6,
2009, SIP in which North Dakota intended to address the requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from North Dakota sources do
not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state
under part C of the CAA to protect visibility. Because of this proposed
disapproval, we also need to propose a FIP to meet this requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). To meet this FIP duty, we are proposing to
find that North Dakota sources will be

sufficiently controlled to eliminate interference with the visibility
programs of other states by a combination of the measures that we are
simultaneously proposing to approve as meeting the regional haze SIP
requirements combined with the additional measures that we are
proposing to impose in a FIP to meet the remaining regional haze SIP
requirements.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in detail in section
C below, the proposed FIP applies to only four facilities. It is
therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons. * * * '' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP
applies to just four facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) consists of the combination of the proposed
approval of the state's Regional Haze SIP submission and the proposed
Regional Haze FIP by EPA that adds additional controls to certain
sources. The Regional Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of
the regional haze program consists of imposing federal controls to meet
the BART requirement for NOX emissions on specific units at
three sources in North Dakota, and imposing controls to meet the
reasonable progress requirement for NOX emissions at one
additional source in North Dakota. The net result of these two
simultaneous FIP actions is that EPA is proposing direct emission
controls on selected units at only four sources. The sources in
question are each large electric generating plants that are not owned
by small entities, and therefore are not small entities. The proposed
partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative,
Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows
EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1 year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit
emissions from interfering with other states measures to protect
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

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

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets EO 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it implements specific standards
established by Congress in statutes. However, to the extent this
proposed rule will limit emissions of NOX, the rule will
have a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air
pollution.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 1, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart JJ--North Dakota

    2. Section 52.1820 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (c) by adding entries to the end of the table.
    b. In paragraph (d) by adding entries to the end of the table.
    c. Adding paragraphs (e)(23) through (e)(25).

Sec.  52.1820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        State of North Dakota Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
        State citation              Title/subject       effective     EPA  approval date        Explanations
                                                           date         and  citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                       33-15-25 Regional Haze Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
        State citation              Title/subject       effective     EPA  approval date        Explanations
                                                           date       and  citation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33-15-25-01...................  Definitions..........       1/1/07  .....................  .....................
33-15-25-02...................  Best Available              1/1/07  .....................  .....................
                                 Retrofit Technology.
33-15-25-03...................  Guidelines for Best         1/1/07  .....................  .....................
                                 Available Retrofit
                                 Technology
                                 Determinations Under
                                 the Regional Haze
                                 Rule.
33-15-25-04...................  Monitoring,                 1/1/07  .....................  .....................
                                 Recordkeeping, and
                                 Reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

    (d) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
        Name of source          Nature of requirement   effective     EPA  approval date        Explanations
                                                           date       and  citation \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Leland Olds Station Units 1     Air Pollution Control      2/23/10  .....................  Excluding the NOX
 and 2.                          Permit to Construct                                        BART limits for Unit
                                 for Best Available                                         2 and corresponding
                                 Retrofit Technology                                        monitoring,
                                 (BART).                                                    recordkeeping, and
                                                                                reporting
                                                                                requirements, which
                                                                                EPA is proposing to
                                                                                disapprove.
Milton R. Young Station Units   Air Pollution Control      2/23/10  .....................  Excluding the NOX
 1 and 2.                        Permit to Construct                                        BART limits for
                                 for Best Available                                         Units 1 and 2 and
                                 Retrofit Technology                                        corresponding
                                 (BART).                                                    monitoring,
                                                                                recordkeeping, and
                                                                                reporting
                                                                                requirements, which
                                                                                EPA is proposing to
                                                                                disapprove.
Coal Creek Station Units 1 and  Air Pollution Control      2/23/10  .....................  Excluding the NOX
 2.                              Permit to Construct                                        BART limits for
                                 for Best Available                                         Units 1 and 2 and
                                 Retrofit Technology                                        corresponding
                                 (BART).                                                    monitoring,
                                                                                recordkeeping, and
                                                                                reporting
                                                                                requirements, which
                                                                                EPA is proposing to
                                                                                disapprove.
Stanton Station Unit 1........  Air Pollution Control      2/23/10  .....................  .....................
                                 Permit to Construct
                                 for Best Available
                                 Retrofit Technology
                                 (BART).
Heskett Station Unit 2........  Air Pollution Control      7/22/10  .....................  .....................
                                 Permit to Construct,
                                 PTC10028.
Coyote Station Unit 1.........  Air Pollution Control      3/14/11  .....................  .....................
                                 Permit to Construct,
                                 PTC10008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP     geographic or non-    State submittal    EPA approval date     Explanations
            provision               attainment area    date/adopted date    and citation 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(23) North Dakota State           Statewide.........  Submitted: 3/3/10.  ..................  Excluding
 Implementation Plan for                                                                       [provisions we
 Regional Haze.                                                                                are disapproving
                                                                                and anything
                                                                                superseded].
 (24) North Dakota State          Statewide.........  Submitted: 7/27/10  ..................  Excluding
 Implementation Plan for                                                                       [provisions we
 Regional Haze Supplement No. 1.                                                               are disapproving
                                                                                and anything
                                                                                superseded].
 (25) North Dakota State          Statewide.........  Submitted: 7/28/11  ..................  Excluding
 Implementation Plan for                                                                       [provisions we
 Regional Haze Amendment No. 1.                                                                are not acting
                                                                                on].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

    3. New Sec.  52.1825 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1825  Federal implementation plan for regional haze.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator
of the following coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) in the
State of North Dakota: Milton R. Young Station, Units 1 and 2; Leland
Olds Station, Unit 2; Coal Creek Station, Units 1 and 2; Antelope
Valley Station, Units 1 and 2.
    (b) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
    Boiler operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time
in the EGU. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted for the entire
24-hour period.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by
means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an
automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a permanent
record of NOX emissions, other pollutant emissions, diluent,
or stack gas volumetric flow rate.
    NOX means nitrogen oxides.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates, controls,
or supervises an EGU identified in paragraph (a) of this section.
    Unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
    (c) Emissions limitations--(1) The owners/operators subject to this
section shall not emit or cause to be emitted NOX in excess
of the following limitations, in pounds per million British thermal
units (lb/MMBtu), averaged over a rolling 30-day period:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX Emission
                       Source name                          limit (lb/
                                                              MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milton R. Young Station, Unit 1.........................            0.07
Milton R. Young Station, Unit 2.........................            0.07
Leland Olds Station Unit 2..............................            0.07
Coal Creek Station, Unit 1..............................            0.12
Coal Creek Station, Unit 2..............................            0.12
Antelope Valley Station, Unit 1.........................            0.17
Antelope Valley Station, Unit 2.........................            0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) These emission limitations shall apply at all times, including
startups, shutdowns, emergencies, and malfunctions.
    (d) Compliance date. The owners and operators subject to this
section shall comply with the emissions limitations and other
requirements of this section by March 11, 2017 unless otherwise
indicated in specific paragraphs.
    (e) Compliance determination--(1) CEMS. At all times after the
compliance date specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner/
operator of each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in
full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to
accurately measure NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric
flow rate from each unit. The CEMS shall be used to determine
compliance with the emission limitations in paragraph (c) of this
section for each unit.
    (2) Method. (i) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit,
the owner/operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average
NOX concentration in lb/MMBtu at the CEMS in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At the end of each boiler operating
day, the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling
average emission rate in lb/MMBtu from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current boiler
operating day and the previous 29 successive boiler operating days.
    (ii) An hourly average NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu is
valid only if the minimum number of data points, as specified in 40 CFR
part 75, is acquired by both the NOX pollutant concentration
monitor and the diluent monitor (O2 or CO2).
    (iii) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall
not include data substituted using the missing data substitution
procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been
bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
    (f) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator shall maintain the following
records for at least five years:
    (1) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (2) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records
required by 40 CFR part 75.
    (3) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
    (4) Any other records required by 40 CFR part 75.
    (g) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to
the Director, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental
Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code
8ENF-AT, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
    (1) Owner/operator shall submit quarterly excess emissions reports
no later than the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter.
Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limits
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. The reports shall include
the magnitude, date(s),

and duration of each period of excess emissions, specific
identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause
of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective action taken or
preventative measures adopted.
    (2) Owner/operator shall submit quarterly CEMS performance reports,
to include dates and duration of each period during which the CEMS was
inoperative (except for zero and span adjustments and calibration
checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to
prevent recurrence, any CEMS repairs or adjustments, and results of any
CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 75 (Relative Accuracy
Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas Audits).
    (3) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such
information shall be stated in the report.
    (h) Notifications. (1) Owner/operator shall submit notification of
commencement of construction of any equipment which is being
constructed to comply with the NOX emission limits in
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Owner/operator shall submit semi-annual progress reports on
construction of any such equipment.
    (3) Owner/operator shall submit notification of initial startup of
any such equipment.
    (i) Equipment operation. At all times, owner/operator shall
maintain each unit, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.
    (j) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
with requirements of this section if the appropriate performance or
compliance test procedures or method had been performed.

[FR Doc. 2011-23372 Filed 9-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66895-66896]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-278-000.
    Applicants: Chandeleur Pipe Line, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Chandeleur Annual Fuel and Gas Loss
Retention Adjustment Filing.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-279-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TCO December Negotiated Rate
Agreements to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-280-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Questar Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: FGRP for 2020 to be effective
1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-281-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Capital Cost Surcharge to be
effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-282-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 112719 Negotiated Rates--
Mercuria Energy America, Inc. R-7540-02 to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-283-000.
    Applicants: Mojave Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Fuel and L&U Filing
2020 to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.

    Accession Number: 20191127-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-284-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2019-11-27 Ultra to
be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-285-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Fuel and L&U Filing
2020 to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-286-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update Filing (Conoco Dec 19) to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-287-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Vol. 2--Negotiated Rate
Agreement--Conexus Energy to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-288-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Col Gas
K860005 Releases eff 12-1-2019 to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-289-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements--
DTE and NJR eff 12-1-19 to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-290-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20191127 Negotiated Rates to
be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20191127-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-291-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Lambertville
East Project to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20191129-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-292-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--DCRC to be
effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20191129-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-293-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee
AGL--Replacement Shippers--Dec 2019 to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/29/19.
    Accession Number: 20191129-5022.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 2, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26341 Filed 12-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 67359]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26963]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-209-000]

PowerOne Corporation; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of PowerOne Corporation's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is November 19, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 29, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-26963 Filed 11-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 33821]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0024]

Recovery Policy RP9524.10; Direct Disaster-Related Damage to
Eligible Facilities

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is accepting
comments on Recovery Policy RP9524.10, Direct Disaster-Related Damage
to Eligible Facilities. The purpose of this policy is to clarify the
definition of damage that is eligible for repair pursuant to FEMA's
Public Assistance regulations regarding the restoration of damaged
facilities.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by docket ID FEMA-2010-0024 and
may be submitted by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Please note that this proposed
policy is not a rulemaking and the Federal Rulemaking Portal is being
utilized only as a mechanism for receiving comments.
    Mail: Regulation & Policy Team, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20472-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Preston Wilson, Public Assistance
Division, via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by facsimile at (202)
646-3304. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Wilson at (202)
646-1648, or at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20472.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or
material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will
include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting
this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the ``Privacy Notice'' link
in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified
in the ADDRESSES section above. Please submit your comments and any
supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and review
of duplicate submissions.
    Docket: The proposed policy is available in docket ID FEMA-2010-
0024. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments
received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov and search for the docket ID. Submitted comments
may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, Room 835, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

II. Background

    This policy clarifies the definition of damage that is eligible for
repair under FEMA's Public Assistance regulation at 44 CFR 206.226,
``Restoration of damaged facilities''. FEMA seeks comment on the
proposed policy, which is available online at http://
www.regulations.gov in docket ID FEMA-2010-0024. Based on the comments
received, FEMA may make appropriate revisions to the proposed policy.
Although FEMA will consider any comments received in the drafting of
the final policy, FEMA will not provide a response to comments
document. When or if FEMA issues a final policy, FEMA will publish a
notice of availability in the Federal Register and make the final
policy available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207; 44 CFR part 206.

David J. Kaufman,
Director, Office of Policy and Program Analysis, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-14291 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P