[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41450-41460]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17380]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0974, FRL-9930-42-Region-8]

Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010
NO[bdi2] National Ambient Air Quality Standards; North Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the
State of North Dakota to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008,
lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on
January 22, 2010. EPA is also proposing to approve element 4 of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each
state submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0974. All documents in
the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in the hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Office of
Partnership and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. An electronic copy of the State's SIP compilation is
also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

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

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

II. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone, revising
the levels of the primary and secondary 8-

hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73
FR 16436). Subsequently, on October 15, 2008, EPA revised the level of
the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\) to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ (73 FR 66964). On January 22, 2010, EPA
promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of
100 parts per billion (ppb) while retaining the annual standard of 53
ppb. The 2010 NO2 NAAQS is expressed as the three year
average of the 98th percentile of the annual distribution of daily
maximum 1-hour average concentrations. The secondary NO2
NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010).
    EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for PM2.5 on October 17,
2006, tightening the level of the 24-hour standard to 35 [micro]g/m\3\
and retaining the level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15
[micro]g/m\3\. EPA approved element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (discussed
below) of North Dakota's infrastructure SIP for this NAAQS on July 29,
2013 (78 FR 45457). EPA approved all other infrastructure elements
(aside from element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding visibility) of North
Dakota's 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP on July 30, 2013 (78
FR 45866). We are acting on the visibility element in this action.
    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. These
submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the
applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications
that their existing SIPs for ozone, Pb, and NO2 already meet
those requirements. EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an
October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo).
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo), followed by the October 14, 2011,
``Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo). Most recently, EPA issued ``Guidance
on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' on September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo).

III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from North Dakota that
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises
out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA taking
any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA; ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A; and
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of some of these ambiguities and the context in which EPA
interprets the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
are discussed at length in our notice of proposed rulemaking:
Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008
Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South
Dakota (79 FR 71040 Dec. 1, 2014) under ``III. What is the Scope of
this Rulemaking?''
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs
that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR
Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR
32526, June 13, 2007. (``NSR Reform'').

IV. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1)
and (2)?

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated. Section

110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy.
These infrastructure elements include requirements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories, which are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The elements that are the
subject of this action are listed below.
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the
next section.

    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D
of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but
rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements
are due under section 172. The two elements are: (1) Section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as
``nonattainment NSR'') required under part D, and (2) section
110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure
elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, EPA interprets
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being
triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C,
title 1 of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

V. How did North Dakota address the infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?

    The North Dakota Department of Health (Department or NDDH)
submitted certification of North Dakota's infrastructure SIP for the
2008 Pb NAAQS on May 25, 2012, and joint certifications for the 2008
ozone and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on March 7, 2013. North
Dakota's infrastructure certifications demonstrate how the State, where
applicable, has plans in place that meet the requirements of section
110 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. These
plans reference the current North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules
(NDAC) and North Dakota Century Code (NDCC). These submittals are
available within the electronic docket for today's proposed action at
www.regulations.gov. The NDAC and NDCC referenced in the submittals are
publicly available at https://www.ndhealth.gov/aq/AirRules.htm and
http://www.legis.nd.gov/general-information/north-dakota-century-code.
North Dakota's SIP, air pollution control regulations, and statutes
that have been previously approved by EPA and incorporated into the
North Dakota SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.1820.

VI. Analysis of the State Submittals

    1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives
such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.
    Multiple SIP-approved State air quality regulations within the NDAC
and cited in North Dakota's certifications provide enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures, means of techniques, schedules
for compliance, and other related matters necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, subject to the following
clarifications.
    First, this infrastructure element does not require the submittal
of regulations or emission limitations developed specifically for
attaining the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
Furthermore, North Dakota has no areas designated as nonattainment for
the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
North Dakota's certifications (contained within this docket) generally
listed provisions within its SIP which regulate pollutants through
various programs, including major and minor source permit programs.
This suffices, in the case of North Dakota, to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
    Second, as previously discussed, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. A number of states, including North
Dakota, have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing
EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the agency plans to take
action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    Finally, in this action, EPA is also not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state provision with regard to excess emissions
during SSM of operations at a facility. A number of states, including
North Dakota, have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and
existing EPA guidance \2\ and the agency is addressing such state
regulations separately (80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.'' (September 20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2
NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A)
to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques to meet the applicable requirements of this
element.
    2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B)
requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate
devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to ``(i) monitor,
compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon
request, make such data available to the Administrator.''
    Ambient monitoring is covered in Chapter 6 of the North Dakota SIP.
It provides for the design and operation of a monitoring network,
reporting of data obtained from the monitors, and annual network review
including notification to

EPA of any changes, and public notification of exceedances of NAAQS.
EPA approved North Dakota's Division of Air Quality's (DAQ) 2013
Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and
2010 NO2 NAAQS on April 2, 2015. North Dakota's air
monitoring programs and data systems meet the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
    3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section
110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a program to provide for the
enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and
regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure
NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C
and D.
    To generally meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the
State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, and
minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this
action, EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as
the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. EPA is
evaluating the State's PSD program as required by part C of the Act,
and the State's minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).

PSD Requirements

    With respect to elements (C) and (J), EPA interprets the CAA to
require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new
or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete
PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all
regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of element (D)(i)(II) may
also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD
permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants.
North Dakota has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place
that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases
(GHGs).
    North Dakota implements the PSD program by, for the most part,
incorporating by reference the federal PSD program as it existed on a
specific date. The State periodically updates the PSD program by
revising the date of incorporation by reference and submitting the
change as a SIP revision. As a result, the SIP revisions generally
reflect changes to PSD requirements that EPA has promulgated prior to
the revised date of incorporation by reference.
    On June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31291), we approved a North Dakota SIP
revision that revised the date of incorporation by reference of the
federal PSD program to August 1, 2007. That revision addressed the PSD
requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule promulgated in
2005 (70 FR 71612). As a result, the approved North Dakota PSD program
meets current requirements for ozone.
    Similarly, on October 23, 2012 (77 FR 64736), we approved a North
Dakota SIP revision that revised the date of incorporation by reference
of the federal PSD program to July 2, 2010. As explained in the notice
for that action, that revision addressed the PSD requirements related
to GHGs provided in EPA's June 3, 2010 ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (75 FR
31514). The approved North Dakota PSD program thus also meets current
requirements for GHGs.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat
GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source
is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Supreme Court
also said that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs,
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with
its understanding of the Court's decision pending further judicial
action to effectuate the decision, EPA is not continuing to apply EPA
regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting
requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically,
EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD
program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only
pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above
the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant
emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a
modification (e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to
revise federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In
addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing
SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The
timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to EPA
regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed
by additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not
expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of
infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions
to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent
with the Supreme Court's decision.
    At present, EPA has determined that North Dakota's SIP is
sufficient to satisfy elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to
GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into
the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based
on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved North
Dakota PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are
no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does
not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP contains the necessary PSD
requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is
not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions
regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider
necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed
approval of North Dakota's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
    Finally, we evaluate the PSD program with respect to current
requirements for PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, EPA
promulgated the rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review Program
for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)''
(73 FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010 EPA promulgated the rule,
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)''
(75 FR 64864). EPA regards adoption of these PM2.5 rules as
a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes
of element (C).
    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment
that remanded EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered

EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with
this opinion.'' Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 of the CAA
establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment
areas.
    The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision,
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of
PM2.5 in nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and
attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4
only pertain to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the portions
of the 2008 Implementation rule that address requirements for
PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by
the court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to
revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 Implementation rule
in order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's
proposed approval of North Dakota's infrastructure SIP as to elements C
or J with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008
Implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.
    The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule also does not
affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA
interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or
revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to
as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by
the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part
D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some
elements.
    The second PSD requirement for PM2.5 is contained in
EPA's October 20, 2010 rule, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864). EPA regards
adoption of the PM2.5 increments as a necessary requirement
when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C).
    As mentioned above, EPA previously approved a North Dakota SIP
revision that revised the date of incorporation by reference of the
federal PSD program to July 2, 2010 (77 FR 64736, Oct. 23, 2012). This
SIP revision also addressed the requirements of the 2008
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. On January 1, 2012, the State
submitted revisions to chapter 33-15-15-01.2, Scope, of the NDAC that
adopted all elements of the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule by
incorporating by reference the federal PSD program at 40 CFR part 52,
section 21, as it existed on January 1, 2012. The submitted revisions
make North Dakota's PSD program up to date with respect to current
requirements for PM2.5. EPA approved the necessary portions
of North Dakota's January 24, 2013 submission which incorporate the
requirements of the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule on July 30,
2013 (78 FR 45866). North Dakota's SIP-approved PSD program meets
current requirements for PM2.5. EPA therefore is proposing
to approve North Dakota's SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010
NO2 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a PSD permit program in the SIP as required by
part C of the Act.

Minor NSR

    The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR program was originally
approved by EPA on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43401). Since approval of the
minor NSR program, the State and EPA have relied on the program to
assure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR
permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's infrastructure SIP for
the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect to
the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in
the SIP that regulates the enforcement, modification and construction
of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are
achieved.
    4. Interstate Transport: The interstate transport provisions in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions)
require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that will
have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements related to the
impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The two
elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity
within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (element 1)
contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with
respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (element
2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the
same NAAQS. The two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to
contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation
plan for any other state under part C (element 3) to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality or (element 4) to protect
visibility. In this action, EPA is addressing all four elements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    EPA is addressing the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with
regard to elements 1 (significant contribution) and 2 (interference
with maintenance). EPA is addressing elements 3 (interference with PSD)
and 4 (interference with visibility protection) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
regard to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and
element 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. We are not addressing elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in this action. These elements will be addressed in a later rulemaking.

A. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and
Interference With Maintenance

2008 Pb NAAQS
    North Dakota's analysis of potential interstate transport for the
2008 Pb NAAQS includes considerations of Pb emissions at sources near
the State's borders and the distance of Pb sources in North Dakota to
the nearest nonattainment area. The State's analysis is available in
the docket for this action.
    As noted in our 2011 Memo, there is a sharp decrease in Pb
concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a
Pb source increases. For this reason, EPA found that the ``requirements
of subsection (2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) could be satisfied through
a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources
located in close proximity to their state borders have emissions that
impact the neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state.'' \3\ In
that guidance document, EPA further specified that any source appeared
unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment unless it was
located less than 2 miles from a state border and emitted at least 0.5
tons per year of Pb.

North Dakota's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) analysis specifically noted that
there are no sources in the State that meet both of these criteria. EPA
concurs with the State's analysis and conclusion that no North Dakota
sources have the combination of Pb emission levels and proximity to
nearby nonattainment or maintenance areas to contribute significantly
to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance by other states for
this NAAQS. North Dakota's SIP is therefore adequate to ensure that
such impacts do not occur. We are proposing to approve North Dakota's
submission in that its SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 2011 Memo, at pg 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2010 NO2 NAAQS
    North Dakota's 2010 NO2 transport analysis for element 1
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) notes that there are no designated nonattainment
areas for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The State asserts that,
because there are no nonattainment areas for this NAAQS, North Dakota
does not significantly contribute to nonattainment.
    North Dakota's analysis for element 2 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) considered
the distance to the South Coast Air Basin in California, the only
NO2 maintenance area in the U.S., as well as the low
monitored NO2 values in North Dakota and the historically
decreasing NO2 emission levels in the State. North Dakota
also noted that it anticipated further decreases in NOX
emissions going forward, specifically noting the decreases resulting
from the State's regional haze SIP. The State's analysis is available
in the docket for this action. EPA concurs with the technical
components of North Dakota's 2010 NO2 transport analyses for
both elements 1 and 2, but clarifies that element 1 is not specific to
designated nonattainment areas. In addition to the factors considered
in the State's analysis, EPA also notes that the highest monitored
NO2 design values in each state bordering or near North
Dakota are significantly below the NAAQS (see Table 2, below). This
fact further supports the State's contention that significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
NO2 NAAQS from North Dakota is very unlikely based on the
lack of relatively nearby areas with high NO2. This is
especially relevant for element 2 (interference with maintenance),
because in addition to the lack of nonattainment areas, there are also
no areas near the State approaching violation of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS which might therefore have difficulty with
maintenance of the standard.

         Table 2--Highest Monitored 2010 NO2 NAAQS Design Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2011-2013 design      % of NAAQS
               State                        value            (100 ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota.........................  46 ppb..............              46
Montana...........................  46 ppb \4\..........              46
South Dakota......................  37 ppb..............              37
Wyoming...........................  35 ppb..............              35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

In addition to the monitored levels of NO2 in states near
North Dakota being well below the NAAQS, North Dakota's highest design
value from 2011-2013 was also significantly below this NAAQS (37
ppb).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Montana's maximum design value was calculated using EPA's
AirData Web site, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html.
    \5\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

    Based on all of these factors, EPA concurs with the State's
conclusion that North Dakota does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS in other states. EPA is therefore proposing to determine that
North Dakota's SIP includes adequate provisions to prohibit sources or
other emission activities within the State from emitting NO2
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment in or
interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect specifically
to the NO2 NAAQS.

B. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant
Deterioration (PSD)

    With regard to the PSD portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the
state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting
program in the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and
that satisfies the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rule(s).\6\
As discussed in section VI.3 of this proposed action, North Dakota has
such a PSD-permitting program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 2013 Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the 2013 Memo, in-state sources not subject to PSD for
any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA
because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS related to those
particular pollutants may also have the potential to interfere with PSD
in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state. North Dakota
does not contain any nonattainment areas. The consideration of
nonattainment NSR for element 3 is therefore not relevant as all major
sources locating in the State are subject to PSD. As North Dakota's SIP
meets structural PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, and
does not have any nonattainment areas, EPA is proposing to approve the
infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the applicable requirements of
element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Pb and
2010 NO2 NAAQS.

C. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility

    The determination of whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirement for visibility is satisfied is closely connected to EPA's
Regional Haze (RH) program. Under the RH program, each state with a
Class I area is required to submit a SIP with reasonable progress goals
for each such area that provides for an improvement in visibility for
the most impaired days and ensures no degradation of the best days. CAA
Sec.  169A.
    Because of the often significant impacts on visibility from the
interstate transport of pollutants, we interpret the provisions of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) described above as requiring states to
include in their SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would
interfere with the reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I
areas in other states. This is consistent with the requirements in the
RH program which explicitly require each state to address its share of
the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals
for

surrounding Class I areas. 64 FR 35714, 35735 (July 1, 1999). States
working together through a regional planning process are required to
address an agreed upon share of their contribution to visibility
impairment in the Class I areas of their neighbors. Given these
requirements in the RH program we have concluded that a fully approved
RH SIP satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with
respect to visibility.
    In the absence of a fully approved RH SIP, a state can still make a
demonstration that its SIP satisfies the visibility requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).\7\ States worked through regional planning
organizations (RPOs), such as the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) in the case of North Dakota, to develop strategies to address
RH. To help states in establishing reasonable progress goals, the RPOs
modeled future visibility conditions. The modeling assumed emissions
reductions from each state, based on extensive consultation among the
states as to appropriate strategies for addressing haze. In setting
reasonable progress goals, states generally relied on this modeling. As
a result, we generally consider a SIP that ensures emission reductions
commensurate with the assumptions underlying the reasonable progress
goals to meet the visibility requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 2013 Memo at 34. See also 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011)
(EPA's approval of the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
based on a demonstration by Colorado that did not rely on the
Colorado Regional Haze SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010
NO2 infrastructure certifications, North Dakota points to
existing portions in the North Dakota SIP, specifically referencing the
North Dakota RH SIP, to certify that the State meets the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). For the 2006 PM2.5,
2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the State also
references the PSD (NDAC 33-15-15) and Visibility Protection (NDAC 33-
15-19) portions of its SIP, as well as EPA's RH federal implementation
plan (FIP).\8\ While Pb emissions have less impact on visibility, North
Dakota addressed Pb no differently than other NAAQS in its 2008 Pb
certification. Regardless, EPA noted in the 2013 Memo that ``Pb-related
visibility impacts were found to be insignificant,'' and that
``significant impacts from Pb emissions from stationary sources are
expected to be limited to short distances from the source.'' \9\ As
stated earlier in this section, North Dakota does not have any Pb
sources near bordering states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's final action including a partial approval, partial
disapproval and FIP of the North Dakota RH SIP was published in the
Federal Register April 6, 2012 (77 FR 20894).
    \9\ See 2013 Memo at 33-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are proposing to find that the emissions
reductions approved into North Dakota's RH SIP are sufficient to ensure
that emissions from sources within the State do not interfere with the
reasonable progress goals of nearby states. North Dakota participated
in a regional planning process with the WRAP. In the regional planning
process, North Dakota accepted and incorporated the WRAP-developed
visibility modeling into its RH SIP, and the SIP included the controls
assumed in the modeling.
    EPA did not fully approve the North Dakota RH SIP, as we partially
disapproved, among other elements, the State's selection of
NOX Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for
Great River Energy's Coal Creek Station. 77 FR 20894 (April 6, 2012).
As a result of our partial disapproval, North Dakota's SIP does not
ensure NOX emission reductions from Coal Creek Station,
emission reductions which were assumed in the WRAP's visibility
modeling that was relied on in setting reasonable progress goals in
nearby states.\10\ We note, however, that the North Dakota RH SIP also
adopted NOX controls that were not included in the WRAP's
modeling for Otter Tail Power Company's Coyote Station. EPA approved
these controls into the North Dakota RH SIP as part of our April 6,
2012 final action. The SIP provision will reduce NOX
emissions at Coyote Station by approximately 4,213 tons per year, a
larger decrease in emissions than the assumed NOX BART
reductions for Coal Creek Station of approximately 3,200 tons per year.
As Coal Creek and Coyote Stations are roughly 32 miles apart, a
relatively short distance, the visibility impacts from NOX
emission reductions at either source on out-of-state Class I areas
would be similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA notes that we also disapproved and promulgated a FIP
for the State's reasonable progress determination for Basin
Electric's Antelope Valley Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the reductions in North Dakota's approved RH SIP are
greater than those assumed by the WRAP modeling, EPA is proposing to
find that North Dakota's SIP includes controls sufficient to address
the relevant requirements related to impacts on Class I areas in other
states.
    5. Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring
compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115
(relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).
Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources
to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.
    Section 126(a) of the CAA requires notification to affected, nearby
states of major proposed new (or modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and
(c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the Administrator of the
EPA (Administrator) regarding sources violating the ``interstate
transport'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 of the
CAA similarly pertains to international transport of air pollution.
    With regard to section 126(a), North Dakota's SIP-approved PSD
program requires notice of proposed new sources or modifications to
states whose lands may be significantly affected by emissions from the
source or modification (see NDAC 33-15-15-01.2(q)(2)(d)). This
provision satisfies the notice requirement of section 126(a).
    North Dakota has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or
115(b); therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those
sections. In summary, the SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2
NAAQS.
    6. Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to
provide necessary assurances that the State will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP
(and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from
carrying out the SIP or portion thereof). Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also
requires each state to comply with the requirements respecting state
boards under CAA section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states
to ``provide necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a
local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the
implementation of any [SIP] provision, the State has responsibility for
ensuring adequate implementation of such [SIP] provision.''
    a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate personnel, funding, and
legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related
issues.
    NDCC 23-25-03 provides adequate authority for the State of North
Dakota and the Department to carry out its SIP obligations with respect
to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
The State receives section 103 and 105 grant funds through its
Performance Partnership Grant from EPA along with

required state matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out
North Dakota's SIP requirements. North Dakota's resources meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E).
    With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the regulations cited by
North Dakota in their certifications and verified through additional
communication \11\ (NDCC 23-25-02(01), 33-15-04-02, 23-01-05(02), 23-
25-03(5), and 23-25-10) and contained within this docket also provide
the necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for adequate
implementation of SIP provisions by local governments. Therefore, we
propose to approve North Dakota's SIP as meeting the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Email from Tom Bachman ``Request for Clarificaitons_ND
iSIP 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAAQS'' April 13, 2015,
available within docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Sub-element (ii): State boards.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state's SIP to contain
provisions that comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA.
That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board
or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA
shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public
interest and do not derive a significant portion of their income from
persons subject to such permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) that
any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or
the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately
disclosed.
    On July 30, 2013 (78 FR 45866) EPA approved revised language in
North Dakota's SIP, chapter 2, section 15, Respecting Boards to include
provisions for addressing conflict of interest requirements. Details on
how this portion of chapter 2, section 15 rules meet the requirements
of section 128 are provided in our May 13, 2013 proposal notice (78 FR
27898). North Dakota's SIP continues to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we propose to approve the infrastructure
SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS for this
element.
    7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F)
requires: (i) The installation, maintenance, and replacement of
equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners
or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such
sources; (ii) Periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions-related data from such sources; and (iii) Correlation of
such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to the Act, which reports shall be
available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    The North Dakota statutory provisions listed in the State's
certifications (NDCC 23-25-03) and contained within this docket provide
authority to establish a program for measurement and testing of
sources, including requirements for sampling and testing. North
Dakota's SIP-approved minor source and PSD programs provide for
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for sources
subject to minor and major source permitting. The State cites several
regulations (NDAC 33-15-14-02.9, 33-15-14-03.6, 33-15-14-06.5 and
contained within this docket) requiring monitoring of emissions from
stationary sources, recordkeeping and reporting of emissions, and
monitoring date. Source surveillance is also addressed in Chapter 8 of
the SIP. This chapter provides for the permitting of sources,
inspection of the sources, recordkeeping and reporting by sources, and
compliance determinations. Section 8.2 of the SIP commits the
Department to the correlation of data with the applicable requirements.
All reports are available for public inspection in accordance with NDAC
33-15-01-16.1.
    Additionally, North Dakota is required to submit emissions data to
the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI
is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA
published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008,
which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air
emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to
report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar
year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a
comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report
emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online
Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six
criteria pollutants and their associated precursors--nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and
volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report
emissions of hazardous air pollutants. North Dakota made its latest
update to the NEI on October 23, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data,
supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public
through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
    Based on the analysis above, we propose to approve the North Dakota
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires
infrastructure SIPs to ``provide for authority comparable to that in
[CAA section 303] and adequate contingency plans to implement such
authority.''
    Under CAA section 303, the EPA Administrator has authority to bring
suit to immediately restrain an air pollution source that presents an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or
the environment.\12\ If such action may not practicably assure prompt
protection, then the Administrator has authority to issue temporary
administrative orders to protect the public health or welfare, or the
environment, and such orders can be extended if EPA subsequently files
a civil suit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A discussion of the requirements for meeting CAA section
303 is provided in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation
of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements
for the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040,
Dec. 1, 2014) under ``VI. Analysis of State Submittals, 8. Emergency
powers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 23-25 of the NDCC provides relevant language and authority
for ``Air Pollution Control.'' The purpose of this chapter is ``to
achieve and maintain the best air quality possible'' and to ``protect
human health, welfare and property, [and] prevent injury to plant and
animal life'' (NDCC 23-25-01(2)). NDCC 23-25-01 defines ``air
pollution'' as ``the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more
air contaminants in such quantities and duration as is or may be
injurious to human health, welfare, or property, animal or plant life,
or which unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life or
property.'' As such, the chapter aims to protect all three areas
required by section 303; human health, welfare, and environment. The
``Air Pollution Control'' chapter provides general grants of authority
to maintain actions in certain situations. We find these grants provide
comparable authority to that provided in Section 303. Furthermore, the
NDAC 33-15-01-15(1) makes it unlawful to ``permit or cause air
pollution'' as defined in NDCC 23-25-01. A person causing or
contributing to emissions that endanger public health, welfare, or the
environment, would be causing ``air pollution'' within the meaning of
North Dakota law, and would therefore be in

violation of NDAC 33-15-01-15(1). This could occur in either an
emergency or non-emergency situation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Email from Tom Bachman ``Request for Clarifications_ND
iSIP 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAAQS'' April 13, 2015,
available within docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDCC 23-25-10(5) provides that ``the department has the authority
to maintain an action in the name of the state against any person to
enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any provision of this
chapter or any permit condition, rule, order, limitation, or other
applicable requirement implementing this chapter.'' Under NDCC 23-25-
10(5), the Department has the authority to bring an action to enjoin a
violation of NDCC 23-25 or its rules. The Department may seek a court
order to restrain a source from causing or contributing to emissions
that endanger public health, welfare, or the environment. In an
emergency, this may take the form of an injunction or temporary
restraining order (see NDCC 32-06-02).\14\ Therefore, the NDDH has the
authority to seek judicial actions during emergency situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Email from Tom Bachman ``Request for Clarifications_ND
iSIP 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAAQS'' April 13,
2015, available within docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Dakota's statutes also provide the NDDH with the authority to
issue administrative orders and emergency rules to protect the public
health, welfare, and the environment under certain circumstances. NDCC
23-25-08, as cited in North Dakota's SIP submittals, authorizes that in
the event of ``an emergency requiring immediate action to protect the
public health and safety,'' the NDDH has the authority to ``issue an
order reciting the existence of such emergency and requiring that such
action be taken as is necessary'' to meet the emergency. The emergency
order is effective immediately. Any person who violates the order is
subject to enforcement, penalties, and injunctions under NDCC 23-25-10.
    Furthermore, as cited in North Dakota's SIP submittals, the NDDH
has the authority to ``use an emergency adjudicative proceeding, in its
discretion, in an emergency situation involving imminent peril to the
public health, safety, or welfare'' (NDCC 28-32-32). Accordingly, ``in
an emergency, the administrative agency may take action pursuant to a
specific statute as is necessary to prevent or avoid imminent peril to
the public health, safety, or welfare'' (NDCC-28-32-32.1). In the
absence of a specific statute requiring other administrative action,
``the administrative agency shall issue an order'' (NDCC 28-32-32(4)).
    Further supplemental authority is found in a broad provision, cited
by the State in their SIP submittals, granting additional authority to
the NDDH. The NDDH has the authority to ``[i]ssue such orders as may be
necessary to effectuate the purposes'' of the ``Air Pollution Control''
chapter NDCC 23-25-03.5. These orders can be enforced ``by all
appropriate administrative and judicial procedures'' (NDCC 23-25-03.5).
Thus, this broad grant of authority includes the authority to issue
administrative orders during air pollution emergencies which would
disrupt protection of human health, welfare, and animal and plant life.
    The combination of NDCC and NDAC provisions discussed above provide
for authority comparable to section 303 to immediately bring suit to
restrain, issue emergency orders against, and use special rule adoption
procedures for applicable emergencies to take prompt administrative
action against, any person causing or contributing to air pollution
that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health
or welfare, or the environment. We propose that they are sufficient to
meet the authority requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
    States must also have adequate contingency plans adopted into their
SIP to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority (as
discussed above). This can be done by submitting a plan that meets the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for the relevant
NAAQS if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations.
    Subpart H of 40 CFR part 51 requires states to classify regions and
to develop contingency plans (also known as emergency episode plans)
after ambient concentrations of certain criteria pollutants in an area
have exceeded specified levels. For example, if ambient concentrations
of nitrogen dioxide in an area have exceeded 0.06 ppm (annual
arithmetic mean), then the area is classified as a Priority I region,
and the state must develop a contingency plan that meets the
requirements of sections 51.151 and 51.152. North Dakota has not
monitored any values above the priority cut point for ozone or
NO2.
    Prevention of air pollution emergency episodes is addressed in
Section 5 of North Dakota's SIP and was approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR
10842). We find that North Dakota's air pollution emergency provisions
establish stages of episode criteria (Section 5.2), provide for public
announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to exist
(Section 5.3), and specify emission control actions to be taken at each
episode stage (Section 5.5) consistent with the EPA emergency episode
SIP requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (prevention of
air pollution emergency episode) for ozone and NO2.
    As noted in the October 14, 2011 guidance,\15\ based on EPA's
experience to date with the Pb NAAQS and designating Pb nonattainment
areas, EPA expects that an emergency episode associated with Pb
emissions would be unlikely and, if it were to occur, would be the
result of a malfunction or other emergency situation at a relatively
large source of Pb. Accordingly, EPA believes the central components of
a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the source at
issue and communicate with the public as needed. We note that 40 CFR
part 51, subpart H (51.150-51.152) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix L do
not apply to Pb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).''
Steve Page, OAQPS Director, October 14, 2011, at p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above analysis, we propose approval of North Dakota's
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs
provide for revision of such plan: (i) From time to time as may be
necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved
or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard; and (ii),
except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator
finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that
the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it
implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements
under this [Act].
    EPA approved relevant sections of the North Dakota SIP on September
17, 2012 (77 FR 57029). North Dakota's statutory provision at NDCC 23-
25-03 provides adequate authority for the Department to carry out such
revisions. Therefore, we propose to approve North Dakota's SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).
    10. Consultation with government officials, public notification,
PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each
SIP ``meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title
(relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to
public notification), and part C of this

subchapter (relating to PSD of air quality and visibility
protection).''
    The State has demonstrated it has the authority and rules in place
through its certifications (contained within this docket) to provide a
process of consultation with general purpose local governments,
designated organizations of elected officials of local governments and
any Federal Land Manager having authority over federal land to which
the SIP applies, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 121.
Furthermore, EPA previously addressed the requirements of CAA section
127 for the North Dakota SIP and determined public notification
requirements are appropriate (45 FR 53475, Aug. 12, 1980).
    As discussed above, the State has a SIP-approved PSD program that
incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has
further evaluated North Dakota's SIP approved PSD program in this
proposed action under element (C) and determined the State has
satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as noted above.
Therefore, the State has also satisfied the requirements of element
110(a)(2)(J).
    Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we
find that there are no applicable visibility requirements under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
    Based on the above analysis, we propose to approve the North Dakota
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    11. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires
each SIP provide for: (i) The performance of such air quality modeling
as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the
effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for
which the Administrator has established a NAAQS; and (ii) the
submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling
to the Administrator.
    North Dakota's PSD program requires estimates of ambient air
concentrations be based on applicable air quality models specified in
Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, and incorporates by reference the
provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(I)(2) requiring that modification or
substitution of a model specified in Appendix W must be approved by the
Administrator. Section 7.7, Air Quality Modeling, of North Dakota's SIP
commits the Department to performing air quality modeling to predict
the impact of a source on air quality, and providing data to EPA upon
request. As a result, the SIP provides for such air quality modeling as
the Administrator has prescribed. Therefore, we propose to approve the
North Dakota SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    12. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires the owner or
operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting
authority, as a condition of any permit required under this act, a fee
sufficient to cover: (i) The reasonable costs of reviewing and acting
upon any application for such a permit; and (ii) if the owner or
operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of
implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit
(not including any court costs or other costs associated with any
enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with
respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee
program under title V.
    The State cites the SIP approved fee provisions for construction
permits (NDAC 33-15-23-02 approved at 62 FR 19224, April 21, 1997),
which include costs of processing not covered by the application fee.
We also note that all the State SIPs we are proposing to approve in
this action cite the regulation that provides for collection of
permitting fees under North Dakota's approved title V permit program
(64 FR 32433, June 17, 1999). As discussed in that approval, the State
demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the
program.
    Therefore, based on the State's experience in relying on the funds
collected through application and processing fees at NDAC 33-15-23, and
the use of title V fees to implement and enforce PSD permits once they
are incorporated into title V permits, we propose to approve the
submissions as supplemented by the State for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    13. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section
110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP.
    The statutory provisions cited in North Dakota's SIP submittals
(NDCC 23-25-03 and 23-25-02, contained within this docket) meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve
North Dakota's SIP as meeting these requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

VII. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the following
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010
NO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD
requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA proposes to approve element 4 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, EPA
proposes approval of D(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb, and 2010
NO2 NAAQS. EPA will act separately on infrastructure element
(D)(i)(I), interstate transport, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 25, 2015.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-17380 Filed 7-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65587-65589]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26174]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0243; A-1-FRL-9918-00-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Volatile Organic Compound Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving four
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Maine. These revisions establish Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for two categories of volatile organic compound (VOC)
sources and revise two existing VOC RACT regulations previously
approved into Maine's SIP. The intended effect of this action is to
approve these requirements into the Maine SIP. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 5, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0243. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public

inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau
of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First
Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex,
Augusta, ME 04333-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (617) 918-
0697, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On August 8, 2014 (79 FR 46384), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maine. In that action, EPA proposed
approval of Maine's Chapter 159, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
from Adhesives and Sealants, and Chapter 154, Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Flexible Package Printing, submitted to EPA as a
SIP revision on June 20, 2014 and October 26, 2011, respectively. These
regulations address RACT for the named VOC source categories consistent
with the relevant Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA.\1\
In addition, EPA proposed approval of revisions to Maine's revised
Chapter 111, Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor Controls, and Chapter 112,
Bulk Terminal Petroleum Liquid Transfer Requirements which further
reduce VOC emissions from petroleum liquid storage tanks and bulk
terminals, respectively. Maine's revised Chapters 111 and 112 were
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on October 13, 1999, and February
26, 1998, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's CTGs are posted at http://www.epa.gov/aiqulaity/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A detailed discussion of Maine's VOC SIP revisions and EPA's
rationale for proposing approval of these SIP revisions was provided in
the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received
on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Maine SIP, Maine's
Chapter 159, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Adhesives and
Sealants, and Chapter 154, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Flexible Package Printing, as meeting RACT for the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives and flexible package printing CTG categories,
respectively. In addition, EPA is approving, and incorporating into the
Maine SIP, Maine's revised Chapter 111, Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor
Controls, and revised Chapter 112, Bulk Terminal Petroleum Liquid
Transfer Requirements, both of which are consistent with CAA
requirements and with EPA guidance for reducing VOC emissions from
petroleum liquid storage facilities and from bulk terminals,
respectively.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 5, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 27, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart U--Maine

0
2. In Sec.  52.1020, the table in paragraph (c) entitled ``EPA-Approved
Maine Regulations'' is amended by revising entries for Chapters 111 and
112 and adding entries in numerical order for Chapters 154 and 159 to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA approved regulations.

                                         EPA-Approved Maine Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State       EPA approval date
         State citation              Title/subject     effective date    and citation \1\       Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Chapter 111....................  Petroleum Liquid           9/29/1999  11/5/2014 [Insert
                                  Storage Vapor                         Federal Register
                                  Control.                              citation].
Chapter 112....................  Bulk Terminal              2/22/1998  11/5/2014 [Insert
                                  Petroleum Liquid                      Federal Register
                                  Transfer                              citation].
                                  Requirements.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Chapter 154....................  Control of Volatile        7/20/2010  11/5/2014 [Insert
                                  Organic Compounds                     Federal Register
                                  from Flexible                         citation].
                                  Package Printing.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Chapter 159....................  Control of Volatile         6/2/2014  11/5/2014 [Insert
                                  Organic Compounds                     Federal Register
                                  from Adhesives and                    citation].
                                  Sealants.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-26174 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 129 (Friday, July 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36283-36284]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-Z-0025]

Requests for Proposals for Insulin Reimportation and Personal
Prescription Drug Importation; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (Department or
HHS) is announcing the withdrawal of a notice published in the Federal
Register on January 21, 2021, entitled ``Requests for Proposals for
Insulin Reimportation and Personal Prescription Drug Importation.'' HHS
also withdraws the requests for proposals issued on its website on
September 24, 2020, and revised on January 13, 2021, and ends the
period for submission of proposals in response to the requests for
proposals.

DATES: The notice published in the Federal Register on January 21,
2021, at 86 FR 6343, is withdrawn as of July 9, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katelyn Mineo, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
1054.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 24, 2020, HHS issued two
requests for proposals for the reimportation of insulin and the
personal importation of prescription drugs (collectively, the RFPs) and
posted related ``Frequently Asked Questions'' documents (FAQs) on its
website. On January 21, 2021, HHS published a notice in the Federal
Register entitled ``Requests for Proposals for Insulin Reimportation
and Personal Prescription Drug Importation'' (the HHS Notice) (86 FR
6343). The HHS Notice referred to revised versions

of the RFPs. The responses to the RFPs were directed in the HHS Notice
and in the RFP for Personal Prescription Drug Importation issued on
September 24, 2020, and revised on January 13, 2021, to be submitted to
an HHS email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>while the RFP for Insulin
Reimportation Programs issued on September 24, 2020, and revised on
January 13, 2021, directed that responses be sent to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
to the Director of the FDA Import Division in the region of the
intended port of entry. The Department is not aware that any proposals
were received in response to the HHS Notice or RFPs. The HHS Notice,
RFPs, and FAQs are withdrawn. All website statements and other informal
issuances with respect to the HHS Notice and RFPs are also withdrawn.
Accordingly, no proposals submitted to HHS or FDA in response to the
HHS Notice or RFPs on or after July 9, 2021 will be considered by HHS
or FDA. HHS intends to consider alternatives to the RFPs.

    Dated: June 11, 2021.
Janet Woodcock,
Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

    Dated: June 28, 2021.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2021-14637 Filed 7-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52156-52157]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16746]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2736-046]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2736-046.
    c. Date Filed: February 14, 2023.
    d. Applicant: Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power).
    e. Name of Project: American Falls Hydroelectric Project (project).
    f. Location: On the Snake River, in Power County, Idaho, near the
City of American Falls, Idaho. The project occupies 7.37 acres of
United States lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Brett Dumas, Idaho Power Company, P.O. Box 70
(83707), 1221 West Idaho Street, Boise, ID 83702;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
at [email protected].
    j. FERC Contact: Kristen Sinclair at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    k. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: September
29, 2023.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. All
filings must clearly identify the project name and docket number on the
first page: American Falls Hydroelectric Project (P-2736-046).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    l. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready
for environmental analysis at this time.
    m. The existing American Falls Hydroelectric Project is located at
Reclamation's American Falls Dam and consists of: (1) three 18-foot-
diameter, 240-foot-long, steel-lined penstocks, that connect upstream
with similar U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's penstocks and the intake
works; (2) a reinforced concrete powerhouse containing three 22.5 MW
turbines for total installed capacity of 67.5 MW; (3) a 2,300-foot-
long, 138-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending from the
powerhouse downstream to the American Falls Switchyard; (4) a tailrace;
(5) recreation facilities; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project
generates an annual average of 395,000 megawatt-hours.
    The project is operated in a run-of-river mode and generates an
estimated average of 40,669 megawatt-hours per year.
    Idaho Power is not proposing any changes to the current operations
of the project, as project operations are completely dependent on
Reclamation's operation of the dam and available flows.
    As part of the license application, Idaho Power filed a settlement
agreement between itself and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG) that resolves issues related to project effects of turbine
mortality on trout. As part of the settlement agreement, Idaho Power
proposes to increase the poundage of hatchery-reared trout to be
stocked by Idaho Power annually from 8,000-pounds to 24,000-pounds,
with the size (fish per pound), time of stocking, and location
determined by IDFG in consultation with Idaho Power. Before release,
IDFG will certify the general health and condition of the fish.
    n. A copy of the application is available for review via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov),
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the
last three digits in the docket number field, to access the document.
At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining

the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all
protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the
proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
    When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the
Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--September 2023
Comments on Scoping Document 1 Due--October 2023
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)--November 2023
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--December 2023

    Dated: July 31, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16746 Filed 8-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM July 14, 2006 TO: Docket EPA HQ OAR 2001 0017 FROM: Erika Sasser, OAQPS RE: Meeting with National Tribal Caucus and National Tribal Air Association On July 11, 2006, EPA officials ( Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, Acting AA Bill Wehrum, Carol Jorgensen, Steve Page, Gary Hudiburgh, Caren Robinson, Janice Poole, Eloise Mulford, Jason Burnett, Lydia Wegman, Laura McKelvey, Jim Havard, Steve Silverman, John Bachmann, Beth Hassett Sipple, Erika Sasser, Drusilla Yorke, Lorena Cedeno Romero, Katherine Tunis, George Frantz, Christine Yost, Janice Whitney, Bill Patton, Jonathan Hook, George Craft, Wolfgang Brandner, Jeffrey Osley, Karen Erwin, Laura Yoshi, Jean Gamache, Debra Iacano, and Fred Leutner) held a teleconference with representatives of the National Tribal Caucus and the National Tribal Air Association to discuss their comments on the PM NAAQS proposal. The following National Tribal Caucus members participated: Stephen B. Etsitty, Ken Norton, Rhonda Azure, Scott Sufficool, Sharri Venno, Joyce King, Jamie Long, Paul Ninham, Laura W. Spurr, Honorable Chad Smith, Honorable Julian Coriz, Felix Kitto, Don Aragon, Gerald Wagner, Clay Bravo, Marie Barry, Lydia Olympic, Ronald Wassillie, Daniel Ellanak, Sr., Francis SiJohn, and Brian Cladoosby. Also, J. Stephen Hartsfield from the National Tribal Air Association participated.

Tribal representatives expressed concern about various aspects of the PM NAAQS proposals, focusing particularly on the proposed coarse particle standard and the implications of the proposal for Tribal PM monitors and health studies in rural areas. The EPA representatives responded to questions about the proposal.