[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14049-14058]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04427]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0005; FRL-8683-02-R8]

Air Plan Approval; North Dakota; Revisions to Permitting Rules;
and Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by North Dakota on August
3, 2020. The revisions contain amendments to the State's Ambient Air
Quality Standards, Permit to Construct, and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) regulations. In addition, we are correcting the
citation to a revision to North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC)
section 33.1-15-20-04.4. In our proposal, we provided the incorrect
citation to section 33.1-15-20-04.3.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0005. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The EPA is taking final action to approve the SIP amendments to the
North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC), which North Dakota submitted
to EPA on August 3, 2020. These amendments to the NDAC are found in
Article 33.1-15 (Air Pollution Control) and include revisions to
Chapter 33.1-15-01 (General Provisions), Chapter 33.1-15-02 (Ambient
Air Quality Standards, Table 1), Chapter 33.1-15-03 (Restriction of
Emission of Visible Air Contaminants), Chapter 33.1-15-14 (Designated
Air Contaminant Sources, Permit to Construct, Minor Source Permit to
Operate, Title V to Operate), Chapter 33.1-15-15 (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality), Chapter 33.1-15-19
(Visibility Protection), and Chapter 33.1-15-20 (Control of Emissions
from Oil and Gas Well Production Facilities). Revisions to Chapter
33.1-15-25 (Regional Haze Requirements) were acted on in a separate
rulemaking.\1\ North Dakota is also revising Chapter 2 Section 2.15
(Respecting Boards) located in North Dakota's EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA approved North Dakota's rule revisions to chapter
33.1-15-25 (regional haze) on June 8, 2021 (86 FR 30387).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to taking final action approving North Dakota's
revisions, we are also correcting an error in citation we made in our
proposal for the revision to section 33.1-15-10-04.4. In our Federal
Register document 86 FR 41413, appearing on page 41415 in

section G, subchapter 2, second asterisk, section 33.1-15-20-04.3
should have read section 33.1-15-20-04.4. We consider this error to be
a typographical error, which we believe did not have a deleterious
effect on the public's ability to comment on the substance of the
revision. This is supported by the fact that the revision description
in our proposal with the incorrect citation matches the description of
the revision in North Dakota's SIP submittal containing the correct
citation to section 33.1-15.20-04.4 which was made available in our
docket. In addition, we drew a comment on the provision with the
commenter providing the correct citation to section 33.1-15-.20-04.4.
    Our August 21, 2021, proposed rulemaking contains a detailed
summary of the SIP revisions in question and explains the bases for our
proposed approval.\2\ We invited comment on all aspects of our
proposal, and provided a 30-day comment period, which was extended and
ended on October 4, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 86 FR 41413.
    \3\ We published a correction to the proposed rule and extended
the comment period due to an incorrect docket citation. See 86 FR
49500 (Sept. 3, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    We received comments from the Center for Biological Diversity on
October 4, 2021. The comments focused on the four revisions to chapter
33.1-15-20 titled ``Control of Emissions from Oil and Gas Well
Production Facilities.'' \4\ The four revisions will be discussed in
more detail in the responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Chapter 33.1-15-20 is also commonly referred to as the oil
and gas registration rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The summary of the comments and our responses are provided below.
The full text received from the commenter is included in the docket
associated with this action.
    Comment: Minor sources have the potential to impact the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and threaten public health.
Emissions from the oil and gas industry include a number of pollutants
that are linked to serious health effects. The Dakota Resource Council
has documented oil and gas pollution's impacts on North Dakota's
families. According to the ``North Dakota Oil and Gas Threat Map,'' the
area of highest oil and gas also has the highest negative health
impacts. This area includes environmental justice communities both on
North Dakota state land and the Fort Berthold Reservation. Considering
the adverse impacts already experienced by these communities, EPA must
work with the State to meaningfully strengthen the SIP provisions,
using science and available cost-effective measures to control the
criteria and hazardous air pollutants to deliver environmental justice
to the Fort Berthold and other impacted communities.
    Response: As an agency, we strive to incorporate environmental
justice considerations into our actions and decisions to the extent
possible. As explained in more detail below, we do not expect negative
environmental consequences, nor do we expect disproportionate human
health or environmental effects on environmental justice communities
because the revisions being proposed include both revisions that are
administrative in nature and revisions that are not expected to result
in an increase in emissions of air contaminants that could impact the
environment.
    Comment: The revisions proposed to section 33.1-15-20-04.3 are not
administrative in nature. The State's proposed change to section 33.1-
15-20-04.3 amends the pollutants covered by the rule from volatile
organic compound gases to organic compound gases. This change is
substantive. While there is a definition for volatile organic
compounds, there is no definition for `organic compound gases' and it
is unclear what group of gases this phrase references.
    Response: We do not agree with commenter's assessment that the two
revisions to North Dakota's section 33.1-15-20-04.3 are substantive.
North Dakota made two revisions to chapter 33.1-15-20-04.3. First, the
term ``volatile'' was removed prior to ``organic compound gas(es) and
vapor(s)'' from the provision so that it now reads, ``Any organic gases
and vapors may be subject to controls specified in chapter 33.1-15-
07.'' Chapter 33.1-15.07 addresses control of organic compounds
emissions. Chapter 33.1-15-07 uses the term ``volatile organic
compound'' but does not use the term ``volatile organic compound vapor
and gas [emphasis added].'' Section 33.1-15-07-02 specifically
addresses ``gases and vapors'' and in particular ``organic compound
gases and vapors'' but does not use the term ``volatile organic
compound gas(es) and vapor(s).'' Because North Dakota uses the terms
``volatile organic compound'' and ``organic compound gases and vapors''
in chapter 33.1-15-07 and not ``volatile organic compound gas(es) and
vapor(s),'' it is reasonable to assume that the edits North Dakota
proposed is to correct an error in the language of the regulation
whereby North Dakota incorrectly referred to ``volatile organic
compound gas and vapor'' when it meant ``organic compound gases and
vapors'' so that chapter 33.1-15-07 aligns with section 33.1-15-20-4.3
which the provision references. Therefore, we characterized this change
in our proposal as administrative since the edits to section 33.1-15-
20-4.3 reflect a desire to align language between section 33.1-15-20-
4.3 and chapter 33.1-15-07 for ``organic compound gases and vapors.''
    The commenter is correct that the Air Pollution Control Regulations
(Article 33.1-15) does not define what organic compound gases and
vapors are, but the Air Pollution Control Regulations do control the
emissions of organic compounds including organic compound gases and
vapors as found in chapter 33.1-15-07. Without the proposed revision to
chapter 33.1-15-20-4.3 by North Dakota, it is possible that it would
not be clear to the public that organic compound gases and vapors under
chapter 33.1-15-20-4.3 may be also subject to chapter 33.1-15-07 and in
particular with section 33.1-15-07-02 of chapter 33.1-15-07 which
specifically regulates organic compound gases and vapors. That is why
EPA proposed approval under a rationale that this change was
administrative in nature which clarified chapter 33.1-15-20.4.3 to
align with its corollary chapter 33.1-15-07.
    The second revision to chapter 33.1-15-20-4.3 is the pluralizing of
gases and vapors by adding ``es'' and ``s'' to gas and vapor.
Pluralizing a word is considered purely administrative in nature since
the only impact is that we are changing gas and vapor from singular to
plural which does not impact the meaning of the terms ``gas'' and
``vapor.''
    Comment: We believe that the revisions proposed to section 33.1-15-
20-04.4 are not administrative in nature. Section 33.1-15-20-4.4
requires routine inspections and maintenance of certain listed
equipment ``used for gas containing hydrogen sulfide
(H2S).'' The proposed revision would apparently expand the
rule to cover routine inspection and maintenance of equipment
regardless of the type of pollutants emitted. This would mean the rule
covers all pollutants emitted at a production facility, not just
H2S. This would be an improvement of air quality if the rule
were enforceable, but we don't believe the rule is enforceable since
there are no required recordkeeping and reporting requirements for this
provision. In addition, the definition of production facility found in
section 33.1-15-20-

01.2 is more expansive than the list of equipment covered by the
current rule for routine inspection and maintenance. Expanding the
coverage of a vague rule is not an administrative change.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed change to
section 33.1-15-20-04.4 is not administrative in nature. Previously
section 33.1-15-20-04.4, provided that ``Routine inspections and
maintenance of tanks, hatches, compressors, vent lines, pressure relief
valves, packing elements and couplings must be conducted to minimize
emissions from equipment used for gas containing hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) . . .'' North Dakota's revision to section 33.1-15-20-
04.4 removes the phrase ``used for gas containing hydrogen sulfide
(H2S)'' and replaces it with ``production facility'' so that
the provision now reads as follows: ``routine inspections and
maintenance of tanks, hatches, compressors, vent lines, pressure relief
valves, packing elements, and couplings must be conducted to minimize
emissions from equipment at a production facility. Tank hatches must
hold a positive working pressure or must be repaired or replaced.''
Chapter 33.1-15-20-01 provides the definition of ``production
facility'' to include'' all equipment, wells, flow lines, separators,
treaters, tanks, flares, gathering lines, and auxiliary
nontransportation-related equipment used in the exploration,
development, or subsequent production or handling of oil and gas from
an oil or gas well or wells which are located on one or more contiguous
or adjacent surface properties, and are under the control of the same
person (or persons under common control).''
    By changing to requiring routine inspections of equipment to
minimize emissions at a production facility, North Dakota is also
requiring routine inspections to minimize emissions of volatile organic
compounds and carbon monoxide as well as hydrogen sulfide since those
are the expected air contaminants from an oil and gas production
facility. This revision strengthens this provision and does not weaken
the SIP since it expands the equipment that are subject to this
regulation. The commenter is also correct that the definition of
production facility as spelled out in the definition section found in
chapter 33.1-15-20-01-2.n is more expansive than the prior term
``equipment used for gas containing hydrogen sulfide'' in this section.
Chapter 33.1-15-20-01-2.n defines ``production facility'' as ``all
equipment, wells, flow lines, separators, treaters, tanks, flares,
gathering lines and auxiliary nontransportation-related equipment used
in exploration, development, or subsequent production or handling of
oil and gas from an oil and gas well or wells which are located on one
or more contiguous or adjacent surface properties, and are under the
control of the same person (or persons under common control).'' By
expanding the definition of equipment at oil and gas facilities that
emit air contaminants, and not necessarily hydrogen sulfide, this
expands the equipment that is subject to routine inspection to include
oil storage tanks, control flares at storage tanks, casing head gas,
generators, tank and heaters, and valves and flanges. Because the
revision to section 33.1-15-20-04.4 expands the equipment subject to
inspection and maintenance, we are expecting better running equipment
and prevention of unplanned emissions of air contaminants. Thus, we
believe the revision to section 33.1-15-20-4.4 is more stringent than
the previous iteration.
    As to the comment that this chapter is not enforceable because it
does not have required recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the
commenter is correct that section 33.1-15-20-4.3 does not contain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Both the proposed revision
and the previous version of section 33.1-15-20-4.3 do not address
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are provided in North Dakota's chapter 33.1-15-20-02, and
North Dakota did not submit, and we are not acting on revisions to
chapter 33.1-15-20-02.\5\ Therefore, we cannot agree with commenters
statement that chapter 33.1-15-20-4.3 is not enforceable because there
is no required recordkeeping and reporting requirements since the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are found in chapter 33.1-15-
20-02 and they have not been revised since their prior approval in
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We approved North Dakota's chapter 33.1-15-20.02
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 2019. See 84 FR 1610
(Feb. 5, 2019)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the commenter's comment about the enforceability of this
requirement, enforcement of North Dakota's Air Pollution Control
regulation including chapter 33.1-15-20 Control of Emissions from Oil
and Gas Well Production Facilities are administered by chapter 33.1-15-
01 General Provisions. Specifically, section 33.1-15-01-17 regulates
enforcement of North Dakota's Air Pollution Regulations including
chapter 33.1-15-20. For this rulemaking, North Dakota did not submit
nor are we acting on North Dakota's section 33.1-15-01-17 addressing
enforcement of North Dakota's Air Pollution Regulations.
    Comment: Expanding coverage of section 33.1-15-20-4.2 to cover all
air contaminants as opposed to just sulfur dioxide (SO2) for
flare stack height requirements is not a basis for approval as EPA
suggests in its proposal. Neither EPA's nor the State's proposal
discloses what other air contaminants are covered and what-if any-stack
height rules apply to the expanded list of all air contaminants.
    In addition, EPA's proposed approval of these revisions do not
apply EPA's stack height requirements for new sources under New Source
Review (NSR). In light of the broad applicability of the registration
rule revisions that not only include oil and gas wells, EPA must ensure
that the stack height requirements apply to the sources that are exempt
from the NSR permit process, which EPA has not done.
    We also think that the proposed rule revision expands the coverage
of the rule to more pollutants and more emitting units and source of
emissions which contradicts the permitting requirements to determine
what constitutes the stationary source. The outcome is that the
proposed rule allows the owner/operator of a unit covered by the rule
to subdivide what should be aggregated into a major source into many
smaller units and escape major source permitting.
    Response: We do not agree with commenter's statement that expanding
coverage for flare stack height requirements in section 33.1-15-20-4.2
to cover all air contaminants versus covering just SO2
should not be a basis for approval. Generally, we consider expanding
regulatory coverage to address all air contaminants to be more
protective than the previous iteration of the requirement. In our case,
North Dakota submitted revisions to section 33.1-15-20-4.2
(requirements for control of production facility emissions) replacing
``sulfur dioxide'' with ``air contaminants.'' Section 33.1-15-20-4.2
now reads ``each flare used for combusting gas at a production facility
must be equipped and operated with an automatic igniter or a continuous
burning pilot which must be maintained and operated in good working
order. This is required even if the flare is used for emergency
purposes only. A continuous burning pilot is required if this
department determines that an automatic ignition system is ineffective
due to production characteristics. The flare stack must be of
sufficient height to allow for adequate dispersion of air contaminants
as necessary to meet the requirements of this article.''

    The commenter is correct that section 33.1-15-20-04.2 does not
spell out what air contaminants are covered under this section but
``air contaminants'' are defined in the Air Pollution Control general
provisions definitions section found in section 33.1-15-01-4.2. The
general provisions definitions in section 33.1-15-01 are applicable to
all of chapter 33.1-15 including section 33.1-15-01-4.2. Under the NDAC
section 33.1-15-01-4.2, ``'air contaminant' is defined as ``any solid,
liquid, gas, or odorous substance or any combination thereof emitted to
the ambient air.''
    As to the commenter's concerns that the revision doesn't provide
clarity on what stack height rules apply to the expanded list of air
contaminants, we do not believe that North Dakota's replacement of
``hydrogen sulfide'' with ``air contaminants'' for flare stack height
requirements impacts the clarity of the proposed revision to section
33.1-15-20-4.2. The original language reads ``flare stack must be of
sufficient height to allow for adequate dispersion of hydrogen sulfide
as necessary to meet the requirement of this article.'' The revised
language now reads ``flare stack must be of sufficient height to allow
for adequate dispersion of air contaminants as necessary to meet the
requirements of this article.'' The rule revision is not regulating
additional criteria pollutants because there is no change in the
pollutants being emitted. The rule revision is rather clarifying that
the rule applies to all pollutants, not just hydrogen sulfide. Thus,
there are no new emissions sources to be evaluated and the flare stack
height is not impacted from the revision to section 33.1-15-20-4.2.
    The commenter is correct that this revision relating to flare
stacks does not apply to EPA's stack height requirements for new
sources under NSR. This is not an issue because stack height
requirements for new sources under NSR are governed by chapter 33-15-
18. In addition, stack height requirements for new sources under NSR
specifically state that stack height requirements do not apply to flare
stacks. This is true both for the federal NSR program and North
Dakota's federally approved NSR program.\6\ The commenter appears to
confuse the stack height requirements under NSR and flare stacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR 51.118 and NDAC section 33.1-15-18 for the
federal requirements for stack height (not including flare stacks)
and North Dakota's corollary provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not agree with the commenter that the rule revision to
section 33.1-15-20-4.2 expanding the coverage of the stack height
requirements to all pollutants under the flare rule contradicts
permitting requirements to determine what constitutes a stationary
source or that the proposed rule allows the owner/operator of a unit
covered by the rule to subdivide what should be aggregated into a major
source into many smaller units and escape major source permitting. The
commenter is correct that the revision to section 33.1-15-20-4.2
expanding to all pollutants will mean that more emitting units and
source of emissions will be subject to section 33.1-15-20-4.2. However,
it is not clear how the commenter connects being subject to section
33.1-15-20-4.2 results in North Dakota's stationary source requirements
being circumvented or escaping major source requirements. North
Dakota's stationary source and permitting requirements are governed by
chapter 33.1-15-14 titled ``Designated Air Sources, Permit to
Construct, Minor Source Permit to Operate, and Title V to operate.''
Specifically, section 33.1-15-14-06.1.bb defines ``stationary sources''
for permitting purposes as ``any building, structure, facility, or
installation that emits or may emit any regulated air contaminant or
any contaminant listed under section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air
Act.'' In addition, section 33.1-15-14-06.1.q defines ``major source''
for permitting purposes as the same definition of ``major source''
under title V of the CAA. North Dakota did not submit revisions to
section 33.1-15-14-06, nor did EPA propose to act on section 33.1-15-
14-06 in this action. We fail to see how the revision to section 33.1-
15-20-4.2, which requires a flare stack to be of sufficient height to
allow for adequate dispersion of all air contaminants versus just flare
stacks that emit hydrogen sulfide, revises the permitting requirements
for stationary sources and major source permitting found in Chapter
33.1-15-14.
    Comment: EPA's proposed approval of the State's revisions to
chapter 33.1-15-20, also known as the oil and registration rule \7\ did
not include a CAA section 110(l) demonstration. Expanding control
measures to cover additional equipment and all pollutants triggers
section 110(l) review because the registration rule is a stationary
source per section 110(i). Section 110(i) requires that SIP
requirements for stationary sources must undergo the SIP revision
process, which in turn requires EPA to determine that the requirement
in section 110(l) is met, including non-interference with attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response: In accordance with CAA Section 110(l), EPA cannot approve
a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA 110(l) does not
require a state to conduct a 110(l) analysis for every action; rather,
CAA 110(l) requires that the Administer shall not approve a revision to
a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. The EPA evaluated North Dakota's
submittal containing the four revisions to chapter 33.1-15-20 (one
revision to section 33.1-15-20-4.2, two revisions to section 33.1-15-
20-4.3, and one revision to section 33.15-20-4.4) on which we received
comments for interference with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
    North Dakota proposed a revision to section 33.1-15-20-4.2 which
North Dakota expanded flare stack height requirements to include
``adequate dispersion of air contaminants as necessary to meet the
requirements of this article.'' Section 33.1-15-20-4.2 was formerly
limited to stack height for adequate dispersion of hydrogen sulfide.
The rule revision is not regulating additional criteria pollutants
because there is no change in the pollutants being emitted, rather, it
is clarifying that the rule applies to all pollutants, not just
hydrogen sulfide. Thus, there are no new emissions sources to be
evaluated, and the commenter has not identified a specific emissions
increase that would require a 110(l) evaluation. The rule continues to
specify that the stack must be designed with sufficient height to allow
for adequate dispersion of all air contaminants. Thus, we do not
believe that the revision to section 33.1-15-20-4.2 will interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    North Dakota proposed two revisions to section 33.1-15-20-4.3.
First, North Dakota removed the term ``volatile'' when referencing
``organic compound gas and vapor.'' North Dakota removed the term
``volatile'' to align with the language in chapter 33.1-15-07 since
section 33.1-15-20-4.3 specifically references chapter 33.1-15-07.
Section 33.1-15-20-4.3 states that ``any organic compound gases and
vapors may be subject to controls as specified in chapter 33.1-15-07.
Secondly, North

Dakota pluralized gas``es'' and vapor``s'' in section 33.1-15-20-4.3.
As explained in more detail in our previous response, we consider the
deletion of ``volatile'' aligning the two corollary provisions of
section 33.1-15-20-4.3 and chapter 33.1-15-07 as well as the
pluralization of gas and vapor to be administrative in nature and thus,
we do not anticipate impacts to applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement under the CAA.
    North Dakota also proposed a revision to chapter 33.1-15-20-4.4 in
which the term ``used for gas containing hydrogen sulfide'' was
replaced with ``at a production facility'' for routine inspections and
maintenance of tanks, hatches, compressors, vent lines, pressure relief
valves, packing elements and couplings . . . to minimize emissions from
equipment at a production facility. We do not expect to see an increase
in emissions of any pollutant or interfere with attainment and
reasonable further progress requirements because increased routine
inspection and maintenance increases the opportunity to identify and
fix and/or prevent fugitive emissions and does not add to the
emissions. It is strictly part of keeping equipment in working order in
order for a facility to comply with CAA requirements. Thus, we do not
believe that the revisions to section 33.1-15-20-4.4 will interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    In addition to the sections revised by North Dakota indicating no
interference with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA, all counties in North Dakota are designated as attainment for all
criteria pollutants under the CAA. The rule revision is administrative
in that it addresses permitting for potential new sources in the
future. The rule revision itself does not approve any increases in
actual emissions, and thus there are no specific increases in emissions
to be addressed for interstate transport. Moreover, this rule does not
affect the already existing legally and practicably enforceable
requirements that facilities are already routinely achieving through
the installation and operation of control equipment for health, safety
and market purposes. This rule also does not exempt these facilities
from other potentially applicable regulatory or permitting
requirements. Because of these factors, EPA expects the revisions to
North Dakota's chapter 33.1-15-20 will not interfere with any
applicable CAA requirement, including attainment.
    Comment: EPA's proposed approval of North Dakota's revisions to
chapter 33.1-15-20 do not comply with 40 CFR 51.160(f). 40 CFR
51.160(f) requires that a state SIP must discuss the air quality data
and the dispersion or other air quality modeling used to review new
sources and modification pursuant to the requirements in 40 CFR 51.160-
51.166. 40 CFR 51.160(f) applies to all sources covered by the NSR
program, including the oil and gas wells/facilities subject to the
revisions to North Dakota's registration rule. Contrary to EPA's
regulation, the State's registration rule SIP amendments did not
discuss what air quality data and dispersion or other modeling data the
State used and relied on in developing the revisions. We included Tier
3 NO2 modeling at the SandRidge Exploration and Production
LLC's Bighorn Pad facility showed concentrations over six times the
one-hour NO2 NAAQS. Furthermore, the registration rule does
not contain any provisions for the State to consider air quality data
and the dispersion or other air quality modeling information in
implementing the registration rule.
    Response: We do not agree with the commenter that we are not
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(f) for air data and the
dispersion or other air quality modeling used to review new sources and
modification pursuant to the requirements in 40 CFR 51.160-51.166. 40.
40 CFR 51.160-51.166 addresses the requirements for review of new
sources and modifications. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.160 provides that a
state must submit a plan that contains legally enforceable procedures
to enable the state to determine whether the construction or
modification of a facility will result interference with attainment or
maintenance of a national standard. In addition, 40 CFR 51.160 provides
that the state must have procedures for the submission of the owner or
operator of the facility to be constructed or modified including the
requirement (found in 40 CFR 51.160(f)), as commenter stated, that the
state SIP must discuss the type of air quality data and modeling
required in the state permit application procedures for construction or
modification of a source.
    North Dakota's plan for the review of new sources and modifications
is found in chapter 33.1-15-14. Specifically, North Dakota's section
33.1-15-14-02 spells out the State's requirements for permit to
construct and alterations to sources. Section 33.1-15-14-02 was
approved in a prior action by EPA.\8\ In this rulemaking, we are
finalizing approval of North Dakota's proposed revision to section
33.1-15-14-02.4a in which North Dakota incorporated by reference the
PSD modeling guidance requirements found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W
(Guideline on Air Quality Models). This aligns with the requirements
set out in 40 CFR 51.160(f)(1) of the air quality modeling requirement
for new sources and modifications. In addition, the existing section
33.1-15-14-02.4b aligns with 40 CFR 51.160(f)(2). Thus, the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(f) are being met by North Dakota's
section 33.1-15-14-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 85 FR 38079 (Jun. 25, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter confuses the requirement of 40 CFR 51.160(f) to
require each SIP revision to contain air quality data and modeling when
in fact 40 CFR 51.160(f) requires a state to have procedures in place
discussing the type of air quality data and modeling required in the
state permit application procedures for construction or modification of
a source which North Dakota does in section 33.1-15-14.
    Comment: There is no demonstration that the revisions to North
Dakota's chapter 33.1-15-20 are protective of the PSD increments. Under
40 CFR 51.166(a)(1), a state's SIP must contain emission limitations
and such other measures as may be necessary to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality. If a SIP revision would result in
increased air quality deterioration over any baseline concentration,
the plan revision should include a demonstration that it will not cause
or contribute to a violation of the applicable increments. The State's
SIP submittal expands the pollutants to include SO2,
NO2, and PM, however, there is no demonstration of the
effectiveness of the controls. Lacking these details and the required
elements for enforceability, it is reasonable to assume that emissions
from the oil and gas wells/facilities that are registered under the
rule will increase air quality deterioration over the baseline
concentration. Therefore, the SIP revision is required to include a
demonstration that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of
the applicable increments. The State's SIP submittal did not include
this.
    Response: We do not agree with the commenter that it is reasonable
to assume the four revisions to North Dakota's chapter 33.1-15-20 will
increase air quality deterioration over the baseline concentration. We
discuss in detail in our response to the 110(l) demonstration comment
that we do not

expect that the revisions to chapter 33.1-15-20 will result in an
increase in emissions and thus does not trigger a demonstration that
revisions will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable
increment as spelled out in 40 CFR 51.166(a)(2).\9\ Thus, we do not
need to demonstrate the effectiveness of controls for the revisions to
section 33.1-15-20-4.2, section 33.1-15-20-4.3, and section 33.1-15-20-
4.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Commenter cites 40 CFR 51.166(a)(1) which addresses the
original submitted PSD SIP requirements. 40 CFR 51.166(a)(2)
addresses requirements for revisions to a PSD SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also points to the perceived lack of enforceability
of chapter 33.1-15-20. In our previous response to an enforceability
comment, we pointed to chapter 33-15-01-17 which provides the
enforcement provisions for Article 33.1-15 including chapter 33.1-15-
20. Chapter 33-15-01-17 are not impacted by North Dakota's revisions to
chapter 33.1-15-20. The enforcement of those revisions remains under
section 33.1-15-01-17.
    Comment: North Dakota's proposed revisions are not practically
enforceable. The requirements for enforceability of a minor NSR program
is found at 40 CFR 51.160 which requires that state SIPs include the
authority to prevent the construction of a facility or modification
that will cause a violation of applicable portions of the control
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. The
expanded coverage of the registration rule provisions, which are
integrated into the registration rule and rely on self-registration by
owners/operator, lack authority for the State to prevent construction
or modification. North Dakota's SIP amendments lack a technically
accurate limitation and also lacks a time period for the limitation.
There are no methods specified in the SIP amendments for the owners and
operators to determine compliance and no requirement to keep records.
The rule does not specify any consequences for enforcement. In
addition, the SIP revisions and SIP submittal lacks provisions that
demonstrate how the state complies with these requirements. The SIP
amendments leave it entirely up to the owner/operator of the oil and
gas well/facility to decide whether, when and how to conduct an
inspection. The amendments lack clarity on how swiftly maintenance must
be performed, whether the root cause of maintenance must be determined
and identification and implementation of measures to reduce
maintenance. Furthermore, the inspections/maintenance work practice
requirement is only conducted to minimize emissions. Given the nature
of fugitive emissions from oil and gas operations, the rule should
require more than just minimizing emissions. There should be ongoing
requirements for inspection and repair. Additionally, there are no
requirements that the owners/operators make records of the testing,
inspections, and retain them. This is contrary to the requirements in
40 CFR 51.211 which requires legally enforceable procedures for
requiring owners or operators of stationary source to maintain records
and periodically report to the State. The rule revisions lack
information on the nature and amount of emissions from the stationary
sources as well as other information as may be necessary to enable the
State to determine whether the sources are in compliance with
applicable portions of the control strategy. The rule revisions lack
provisions for calculating compliance on a 12-month rolling average and
against the applicable short-term NAAQS limits. The public has no means
to know what is going on regarding implementation of this rule and thus
is barred from use of the CAA's citizen suits provisions. The revisions
to the rule also lack provisions for the State to request additional
information about the operations. The revisions to the rule also lack
provisions that provide that oil and gas wells/facilities with
emissions that exceed the major source emissions threshold constitute
violations of permitting and SIP requirements. Lacking all these
provisions means there is no way to determine compliance and ensure
that the NAAQS and other requirements of the CAA are protected.
    Response: The commenter confuses the chapter 33-15-20 revisions
(oil and gas registration requirements) with other provisions of the
NSR program. Chapter 33-15-20 is silent as to compliance,
recordkeeping, and enforcement since the provisions that address all
facilities including oil and gas facilities is found in North Dakota's
federally approved NSR program. As stated previously, North Dakota's
overall NSR program including compliance is codified in Chapters 33-15-
14 and 33-15-15 and are modeled after the federal NSR program found in
40 CFR 51.160-51.166. Recordkeeping is codified in North Dakota's
chapter 33.1-15-20.02. Enforcement requirements that the revisions are
subject to are codified in 33-15-01-17. Compliance, recordkeeping, and
enforcement requirements that are applicable to section 33.1-15-20 are
not being proposed for revision.\10\ Therefore, these comments on
compliance, recordkeeping, and enforcement are outside the scope of the
revisions we are acting on in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ While we proposed approval of four revisions to chapter
33.1-15-15 in this rulemaking, the revisions did not modify and
compliance requirements. The proposed revisions: (1) Updated the
incorporation by reference of federal PSD requirements; (2) expanded
administrator to include ''or the administrator's authorized
representative;''(3) added the requirement that when the state goes
out to comment under this chapter that the state must also provide
notice on the department's website; and (4) adds language that draft
permit to construct are also required to be published during the
public comment period for a permit. The proposed changes to chapter
33.1-15-15 did not receive comment. In addition, we proposed no
changes to chapter 33-15-14. See our proposal for a more detailed
explanation of the North Dakota revisions that were proposed for
approval, and we are now finalizing approval at 86 FR 41413 (Aug. 2,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: North Dakota's revisions to chapter 33.1-15-20 allow minor
sources to avoid the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(d). 40 CFR 51.160(d)
requires a SIP to include procedures that if an owner or operator
receives approval to construct or modify a source, the owner or
operator must still comply with applicable portions of the control
strategy. The revisions to the chapter 33.1-15-20 lack language that
requires that an owner or operator to comply with the applicable
portions of the existing SIP control strategies.
    Response: We do not agree with commenter that the revisions to
chapter 33.1-15-20 allow minor sources to avoid the requirements of 40
CFR 51.160(d). 40 CFR 51.160(d) requires the state program for review
of new sources and modifications include procedures that approval of
any construction or modification must not affect the responsibility to
the owner or operator with the applicable portions of the control
strategy. North Dakota adopted the provisions of 40 CFR 51.160(d)
within NDAC section 33.1-15-14-02.10.a. Section 33.1-15-14-02.10.a
states that ``the issuance of a permit to construct for any source does
not affect the responsibility of an owner or operator to comply with
applicable portions of a control strategy affecting the source.'' We
approved chapter 33.1-15-14-02 on June 25, 2020.\11\ Chapter 33.1-15-20
does not contain provisions of 40 CFR 51.160(d) either before or after
North Dakota's revisions to this chapter since it is provided in
chapter 33.1-15-14-02 and chapter 33.1-15-14-02 is applicable to all
facilities including oil and gas facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 85 FR 38079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The SIP revisions do not comply with the regional haze
requirements. EPA's regional haze

program requires states to design and implement programs to curb haze-
causing emissions within their state. Emissions from the oil and gas
wells and associated equipment impact visibility. The CAA does not
provide an off-ramp from the reasonable progress four-factor analysis
for sources that would rely on the proposed amendments to North
Dakota's registration program. EPA's proposed action to approve the
changes to North Dakota registration regulations did not take into
consideration all requirements of the CAA, including the long-term
strategy for regional haze. EPA must not make decisions in isolation,
set aside distinct requirements or delay their implementation. North
Dakota's proposed SIP amendments should not be approved by EPA as they
would replace the State's responsibility under the CAA to conduct the
required reasonable progress four factor analysis for the oil and gas
sources.
    Response: This comment addresses provisions that were not affected
by the revisions approved in this action and is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking. This rulemaking does not address revisions to North
Dakota's regional haze requirements. Our proposed rulemaking explicitly
stated that the regional haze requirements had been addressed in a
prior rulemaking. In that prior rulemaking, the EPA approved North
Dakota's rule revisions to chapter 33.1-15-25 (regional haze) on June
8, 2021 (86 FR 30387). The commenter does not demonstrate that the
changes approved in this action will allow oil and gas sources to
increase emissions to a degree that influences the effectiveness of
North Dakota's regional haze regulations.
    Comment: North Dakota's submittal lacked information required for
EPA to process the SIP. Specifically, North Dakota's SIP submittal
lacked the following technical support required by appendix V of 40 CFR
part 51: (1) identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the
revisions; (2) identification of the locations of affected sources
including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designations of the
locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected areas;
(3) quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the
affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from
affected sources; (4) state's demonstration that the NAAQS, PSD
increments, and visibility, are protected if the plan revisions are
approved and implemented; (5) modeling information to support the
proposed revision; (6) evidence that the plan contains emission
limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting
requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels; and (7)
compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be
determined in practice. With the missing required technical support, it
was inappropriate for EPA to proceed with evaluating an incomplete SIP
submission and propose approval.
    Response: We disagree with the comment that the submittal lacked
information required for EPA to process the SIP under appendix V of 40
CFR part 51. As explained in our prior responses, the revisions consist
of those that are administrative in nature as well as revisions that do
not lead to an increase in emissions. Thus, the additional technical
documentation related to an increase in emissions that the commenter is
seeking is not required.
    CAA section 110(k) provides a two-step process for EPA's review of
SIP submittals. First, within six months of receiving a SIP submission,
EPA must make a threshold ``completeness determination'' to determine
whether the SIP contains certain ``minimum criteria'' designated by EPA
as ``the information necessary to . . . determine whether the plan
submission complies with the provisions of the CAA.'' \12\ These
minimum criteria are listed in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.\13\ There is
no requirement in the CAA or EPA's regulations that EPA document its
completeness review prior to proposing to approve a SIP revision. To
the contrary, if EPA fails to make the completeness determination
within six months, the SIP submission is deemed complete by operation
of law.\14\ Here, EPA received North Dakota's SIP submittal on July 28,
2020. EPA did not make a formal completeness determination within six
months; thus, the SIP submittal was deemed complete by operation of law
and constitutes an official submission.\15\ North Dakota's authority to
adopt the SIP is addressed in the Opinion issued by the North Dakota
Office of Attorney General and submitted with the SIP revision.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(A), (B).
    \13\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
    \14\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(C); 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, Sec.
1.2.
    \15\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, Sec.  1.2 (``A determination of
completeness under this paragraph means that the submission is an
official submission for purposes of Sec.  51.103.'')
    \16\ Letter dated July 28, 2020, from Doug Burgum, Governor,
North Dakota, to Gregory Sopkin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
8, Subject: Revisions to North Dakota Regional Haze SIP for control
of air pollution; North Dakota, Final Revisions to Implementation
Plan for Control of Air Pollution, Amendment No. 2 to North Dakota
State Implementation Plan First Planning Period for Regional Haze
(July 2020) (Amendment No. 2) at 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the second step of the two-step process, EPA evaluates SIP
submittals for compliance with substantive requirements.\17\ Here, the
relevant provisions \18\ are section 33.1-15-20-4.2 (which expanded the
definition of flare stack height to air contaminants when it was
previously limited to hydrogen sulfide), section 33.1-15-20-4.3 (which
edited the provision to match language in chapter 33.1-15-07 which the
section refers to by removing the term ``volatile'' from the term
``organic compound gas(es) and vapor(s)), section 33.1-15-20-4.3
pluralized the terms ``vapor'' and ``gas'' to reference both volatile
and non-volatile gases, and section 33.1-15-20-4.4 (which expanded
inspections and routine maintenance to minimize all emissions from oil
and gas equipment). EPA explained in the proposed rule and in our
responses above how North Dakota's SIP revision complies with these
substantive requirements of the CAA including how the enforceability of
the chapter 33.1-15-20 has not been impacted much less weakened by
North Dakota's four revisions to chapter 33.1-15-20. Thus, the
commenters' assertions that North Dakota's SIP revision to chapter
33.1-15-20 was inadequate because it lacked appendix V criteria and
that EPA's proposal was inadequate because it lacked an appendix V
completeness determination are without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NRDC v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
    \18\ We drew adverse comments on chapter 33.1-15-20. Control of
Emissions from oil and gas well production facilities and are
limiting are response to that provision. We did review all the
submitted rule revisions by North Dakota and found that they meet
the requirements of CAA 110(k). Since we did not receive adverse
comments on these other revisions, we are not speaking in detail
about these other revisions in our responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to achieve
environmental justice through identification and addressing
disproportionate high and adverse human health or environmental effects
of its programs. Executive Order 14008 addresses climate change while
implementing environmental justice. Contrary to the requirements of
Executive Order 12898 and 14008, EPA's proposal fails to integrate the
Executive Orders 12898 and 14008. EPA must not approve SIP amendments
that lack clarity and enforceability, fail to meet the requirements of
the CAA and EPA's regulations, and relax protections for the impacted
environmental justice communities.

    Response: This action is finalizing approval of North Dakota's
revisions to the State's Air Pollution Control regulations. In
particular, we drew comments on the approvability of revisions to
chapter 33.1-15-20 in which North Dakota proposed four revisions. As
explained in more detail in the previous responses, two of the
revisions expanded the coverage of what is regulated under chapter
33.1-15-20 \19\ and two revisions were administrative in nature.\20\
Our previous responses also address how the clarity and enforceability
of the regulations have not been impacted by the revisions and how
North Dakota's revisions to chapter 33.1-15-20 meet the requirements of
the CAA. We do not agree that the revisions which expand coverage to
all air contaminants for flare stack height, routine inspection and
maintenance of oil and gas facility equipment, as well as revisions the
clarify language to align with its referring chapter relax protections
for impacted environmental justice communities. In fact, we believe it
will have the opposite effect. Executive Order 12898 and Executive
Order 14008 does direct the agency to identify and address
environmental justice and the disproportionate impacts on impacted
communities in federal actions. However, the rule being approved in
this action does not weaken any part of the existing oil and gas
registration program and therefore is not expected to adversely impact
communities with environmental justice concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Section 33.1-15-20-4.2 expanded the definition of flare
stack height to air contaminants when it was previously limited to
hydrogen sulfide. Section 33.1-15-20-4.4 expanded routine
inspections and maintenance of oil and gas equipment to include
minimization of all air contaminants at a production facility and
not just hydrogen sulfide.
    \20\ Section 33.1-15-20-4.3 removed the term ``volatile'' from
the term ``organic compound vapor and gas(es)'' so that it aligned
with the referring terms in chapter 33.1-15-07. Section 33.1-15-20-
4.3 also pluralized the terms ``vapor'' and ``gas'' to reference
both volatile and non-volatile gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    As outlined in our proposed rulemaking, the EPA is taking final
action to approve the addition of new and revised rules to Article
33.1-15 (Air Pollution Control), as submitted on August 3, 2020.
    Specifically, we are taking final action to approve the following
revisions: Revisions to Chapter 33.1-15-01 (General Provisions)--
section 33.1-15-01-01; section 33.1-15-01-01-04; section 33.1-15-01-01-
05 Revisions to Chapter 33.1-15-02 (Ambient Air Quality Standards)--,
Table 1; Revisions to Chapter 33.1-15-03 (Restriction of Emission of
Visible Air Contaminants); Revisions to Chapter 33.1-15-14 (Designation
of Air Contaminant Sources; Permit to Construct, Title V Permit to
Operate)--section 33.1-15-14-1.1; section 33.1-15-14-02; Revisions to
Chapter 33.1-15-15 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality)--section 33.1-15-15-1.2; Revisions to Chapter 33.1-15-19
(Visibility Protection)--section 33.1-15-19-1.1; section 33.1-15-19-
1.2; Revisions to Chapter 33.1-15-20 (Control of Emissions from Oil and
Gas Well Production Facilities)--section 33.1-15-20-4.2; section 33.1-
15-20-4.3; section 33.1-15-20-4.4; Revisions to Section 2.15
(Respecting Boards).
    In addition to taking final action approving North Dakota's
revisions, we are also correcting an error in citation we made in our
proposal for the revision to section 33.1-15-10-04.4. In FR document 86
FR 41413, appearing on page 41415 in section G, subchapter 2, second
asterisk, section 33.1-15-20-04.3 should read section 33.1-15-20-04.4.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of
certain amendments to the NDAC, as listed in section III. Final Action
of this preamble, which regulate the State's Ambient Air Quality
Standards, Permit to Construct, and PSD. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. 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).
    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.
The 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 May 8, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: February 28, 2023.
KC Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble words of issuance 40 CFR
part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart JJ--North Dakota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1820:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (c), revise the entries ``33.1-15-01-01'',
``33.1-15-01-04'', ``33.1-15-01-05'', ``Table 1'', ``33.1-15-14-01.1'',
``33.1-15-14-02'', ``33.1-15-15-01.2'', ``33.1-15-19-01'', and ``33.1-
15-20-04''.
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e), revise the entry ``Section 2.15''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

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

                                                                      * * * * * * *
33.1-15-01-01........................  Purpose.................        7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [insert Federal Register
                                                                                citation], 3/7/2023.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
33.1-15-01-04........................  Definitions.............        7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [insert Federal Register
                                                                                citation], 3/7/2023.
33.1-15-01-05........................  Abbreviations...........        7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [insert Federal Register
                                                                                citation], 3/7/2023.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Table 1..............................  Ambient Air Quality             7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [insert Federal Register
                                        Standards.                                                citation], 3/7/2023.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
33.1-15-14-01.1......................  Definitions.............        7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [insert Federal Register
                                                                                citation], 3/7/2023.
33.1-15-14-02........................  Permit to Construct.....        7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [insert Federal Register
                                                                                citation], 3/7/2023.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
33.1-15-15-01.2......................  Scope...................        7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [insert Federal Register
                                                                                citation], 3/7/2023.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
33.1-15-19-01........................  General Provisions......        7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [insert Federal Register
                                                                                citation], 3/7/2023.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
33.1-15-20-04........................  Requirements for control        7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [insert Federal Register
                                        of production facility                                    citation], 3/7/2023.
                                        emissions.

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

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

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Chapter 2. Legal Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 2.15.........................  Respecting Boards.......        7/1/2020        4/6/2023  [Insert Federal Register
                                                                                citation], 3/7/2023.

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

[FR Doc. 2023-04427 Filed 3-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                          Incorporation by Reference
                      Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0147
                                 June 16, 2011

The contents of the following dockets are hereby incorporated by reference into and are considered to be included in, contained in and to have been placed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0147 (Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments Package):

1) EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508 (Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting)
2) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923 (Oil and Natural Gas Systems)
4) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926 (Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration)
5) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927 (Additional Sources of Fluorinated Gases)

Accessing dockets:

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74084-74086]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30809]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65814; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-154]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Exclude All Rights and Warrants from the Pilot Rule for Trading Pauses
Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility

November 23, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 18, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ''), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by NASDAQ. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASDAQ proposes to exclude all rights and warrants from the pilot
trading pause process under Rule 4120(a)(11).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from NASDAQ's Web
site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/Filings/, at NASDAQ's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.sec.gov.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to amend Rule 4120(a)(11) to exclude all rights and
warrants from the trading pause process under the rule. The Commission
approved Rule 4120(a)(11) on a pilot basis on June 10, 2010, together
with the analogous rules of other equity exchanges (collectively with
NASDAQ, the ``Exchanges'') and FINRA, to provide for trading pauses in
individual securities due to extraordinary market volatility in all
securities included within the S&P 500 Index (``S&P 500'') (the ``Pause
Pilot'').\3\ NASDAQ noted in its filing to adopt Rule 4120(a)(11) that
during the Pause Pilot period it would continue to assess whether
additional securities need to be added and whether the parameters of
Rule 4120(a)(11) would need to be modified to accommodate trading
characteristics of different securities. The Exchanges and FINRA
subsequently received approval to add to the Pause Pilot the securities
included in the Russell 1000 Index (``Russell 1000'') and a specified
list of Exchange Traded Products (``ETPs'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission approved the Pause Pilot for all equities
exchanges and FINRA. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62252
(June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-
2010-014; SR-EDGA-2010-01; SR-EDGX-2010-01; SR-BX-2010-037; SR-ISE-
2010-48; SR-NYSE-2010-39; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-46; SR-NYSEArca-2010-41;
SR-NASDAQ-2010-061; SR-CHX-2010-10; SR-NSX-2010-05; and SR-CBOE-
2010-047), and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62251 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34183 (June 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-025).
    \4\ The Commission approved the addition to the Pause Pilot of
the securities included in the Russell 1000 and ETPs, where
applicable, for all equities exchanges and FINRA. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62884 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56618
(September 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-018; SR-BX-2010-044;
SR-CBOE-2010-065; SR-CHX-2010-14; SR-EDGA-2010-05; SR-EDGX-2010-05;
SR-ISE-2010-66; SR-NASDAQ-2010-079; SR-NYSE-2010-49; SR-NYSEAmex-
2010-63; SR-NYSEArca-2010-61; and SR-NSX-2010-08, and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608
(September 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033). NASDAQ submitted a
proposed rule change shortly after the addition of the Russell 1000
securities and ETPs to extend the operation of the Pause Pilot,
which was set to expire on December 10, 2010, until April 11, 2011.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63505 (December 9, 2010), 75
FR 78302 (December 15, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-162). On March 31,
2011, NASDAQ submitted a proposed rule change to further extend the
Pause Pilot until the earlier of August 11, 2011 or the date on
which a limit up/limit down mechanism to address extraordinary
market volatility, if adopted, applies. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64174 (April 4, 2011), 76 FR 19819 (April 8, 2011) (SR-
NASDAQ-2011-042). On August 8, 2011, NASDAQ submitted a proposed
rule change to further extend the Pause Pilot until January 31,
2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65094 (August 10,
2011), 76 FR 50779 (August 16, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-115).

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

    On June 23, 2011, the Commission approved proposed rule changes of
the Exchanges and FINRA to amend their respective rules to expand the
Pause Pilot to include all remaining NMS stocks (``Phase III
Securities''), which includes rights and warrants.\5\ Unlike the
original Pause Pilot securities, amended Rule 4120(a)(11) applies wider
percentage price moves to the Phase III Securities before a trading
pause is triggered.\6\ The changes to Rule 4120(a)(11) became effective
on August 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64735 (June 23,
2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-067, et al.).
    \6\ Under amended Rule 4120(a)(11), a pause is triggered by a
30% or more price move in a Phase III Security priced at $1 or
higher, and by a 50% or more price move to such a security priced
less than $1. The price of a security is based on the closing price
on the previous trading day, or, if no closing price exists, the
last sale reported to the Consolidated Tape on the previous trading
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges and FINRA analyzed the nature of the trading pauses
triggered since adoption of the Pause Pilot and found that over 25% of
such pauses have occurred in rights and warrants. Further, the
Exchanges and FINRA have experienced a significant increase in trading
pauses involving rights and warrants since the implementation of the
Phase III Securities, with such pauses representing approximately 52%
[sic] all trading pauses occurring through the end of August 2011.
Rights and warrants trade on equity exchanges, but are closely related
to call options. Rights and warrants entitle owners to purchase shares
of stock at predetermined prices subject to various timing and other
conditions. Like options, the price of rights and warrants are affected
by the price of the underlying stock as well as other factors,
particularly the volatility of the stock. As a consequence, the prices
of rights and warrants may move more dramatically than the prices of
the underlying stocks even when the rights and warrants (and the
underlying stock) are trading in an orderly manner. This difference in
trading behavior may result in the rights and warrants triggering the
circuit breaker under Rule 4120(a)(11) and being subject to a trading
pause, even while the underlying stock continues to trade. This can be
particularly true of rights and warrants that have low prices. As such,
the Exchanges and FINRA have determined to exclude rights and warrants
from the Pause Pilot, and accordingly, NASDAQ is proposing to amend
Rule 4120(a)(11) to exclude rights and warrants from the rule's
application.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The proposed rule change also is
designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \9\ of the Act
in that it seeks to ensure fair competition among brokers and dealers
and among exchange markets. NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule
meets these requirements because it excludes certain securities from
the rule's coverage that are prone to triggering pauses because of
their unique characteristics. These securities are unique in that they
may move more dramatically than the prices of the underlying stocks to
which they are related even when both securities are trading in an
orderly manner. As such, the securities that are subject to this
proposal may trigger the circuit breaker under Rule 4120(a)(11) and be
subject to a trading pause, even while the underlying security
continues to trade. Although there is little benefit in pausing trading
in these securities, such pauses sequester regulatory resources that
are better applied to the review of trading pauses in other securities
that have a greater impact on the national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Including rights and warrants in the pilot program which may trigger a
circuit breaker and be subject to a trading pause, even while the

underlying security continues to trade, provides little benefit and has
the potential to create confusion among investors. Excluding rights and
warrants from the pilot program should minimize investor confusion that
could result from temporary trading pauses in these securities. For
this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as
operative upon the date of this Notice.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-154 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-154. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-154 and should be
submitted on or before December 21, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30809 Filed 11-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 60834-60835]
[DOCID:fr26oc07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-5-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Magnolia Enterprise Holdings, Inc.;
Notice of Application

October 19, 2007.
    Take notice that on October 5, 2007, Southern Natural Gas Company
(Southern), P.O. Box 2563, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-2563, filed an
application in Docket No. CP08-5-000 pursuant to section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), for approval to abandon and lease certain
pipeline and appurtenant facilities and authorization to construct,
install and operate a new compressor unit on its Cypress Pipeline and
related appurtenant facilities. Magnolia Enterprise Holdings, Inc.
(MEHI), Ten Peachtree Place, Location 1466, Atlanta, Georgia 30309,
filed a request in the same application pursuant to section 7 of the
NGA, for authorization to acquire certain pipeline, measurement and
compression facilities and to lease those facilities back to Southern,
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    It is stated that pursuant to the terms of a Purchase and Sale
Agreement between Southern and AGL Resources, Inc., MEHI's parent
company, Southern requests authorization to abandon by sale to MEHI an
undivided interest of the following:

    Twin 30 Pipelines extending from Southern's interconnection with
Elba Island to Port Wentworth, Georgia in Chatham

County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina; 10 miles of
Southern's 20-inch Wrens to Savannah Second Loop Line from the
interconnection with the Twin 30 Pipelines at Port Wentworth,
Georgia, to the Rincon Gate in Effingham County, Georgia; The
Cypress Pipeline from the take off point on the Wrens Savannah Lines
to the interconnection with Atlanta Gas Light Company's (AGLC)
Brunswick Pipeline in Glynn County, Georgia, including, as
applicable, the compressor facilities to be constructed on that
portion of the Cypress Pipeline; and Southern's Brunswick Pipeline
from the Jackson Measurement Station at Milepost 53.8 to Milepost
0.0.

    It is stated that upon closing of the sale of the facilities, MEHI
and Southern request authorization for MEHI to lease to Southern the
facilities, including the compression facilities to be constructed, and
AGLC's Brunswick Pipeline that it proposes to sell to MEHI so that
Southern may operate and maintain the facilities as part of its
interstate gas pipeline system under the terms of Southern's tariff. In
addition, it is stated that MEHI requests pregranted abandonment
authority to sell the AGLC Brunswick Pipeline back to AGLC upon
termination of the lease.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 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. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Toll-free: 1-

866-208-3676; or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any initial questions regarding Southern's proposal in this
application should be directed to Patricia S. Francis, Senior Counsel,
Southern Natural Gas Company, P.O. Box 2563, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-
2563, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Any initial questions regarding EMHI's
proposal in this application should be directed to Shannon Omia Pierce,
Senior Regulatory Counsel, AGL Resources, Inc., Ten Peachtree Place,
15th floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments
considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two
copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The
Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to
make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules
require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project, should submit an original and two copies of their
comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will
receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of
meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. The Commission's rules require that
persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of
their protests only to the applicant. However, the non-party commentors
will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or
issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental
documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek
court review of the commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: November 9, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21160 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P