[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19635-19643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06904]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406; FRL-9206-02-R8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
North Dakota; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of North Dakota on August 3, 2020, addressing regional haze. 
Specifically, EPA is approving Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota SIP 
for Regional Haze to satisfy certain requirements for the first 
implementation period of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) regional haze 
program. Amendment No. 2 adopts the same regional haze requirements for 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 
and 2 promulgated by EPA in our 2012 Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). 
In conjunction with the approval of Amendment No. 2, we are also 
withdrawing the 2012 FIP as it applies to the Antelope Valley Station 
as well as certain provisions related to Coal Creek Station that were 
vacated by a judicial determination. EPA will work with North Dakota to 
ensure that the State corrects the SIP deficiencies related to Coal 
Creek Station. EPA is finalizing this action pursuant to sections 110 
and 169A of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
website and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please call or email the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Worstell, Air and Radiation 
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6073, email address: 
[email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan
    B. Federal Implementation Plan Withdrawal
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. The EPA's Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Determination Under Clean Air Act Section 307(d)
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
    M. Judicial Review

I. Background

    The background for this action is described in detail in our March 
12, 2021 proposed rule.\1\ In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to 
approve Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota Regional Haze SIP as 
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 86 FR 14055 (March 12, 2021).

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

[[Page 19636]]

A. Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan

    We proposed to approve the following elements of Amendment No. 2 to 
the North Dakota Regional Haze SIP: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The regulatory provisions of SIP Amendment No. 2 (which are 
the only parts of Amendment No. 2 being incorporated by reference) 
are contained in Appendix D.6, Permit to Construct for Antelope 
Valley, number PTC20031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A NOX emission limit of 0.17 lb/MMBtu (30-day 
rolling average) each for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2, 
applicable at all times including during periods of startup, shutdown, 
emergency, and malfunction;
     The associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2;
     Provisions requiring compliance with the emission limit 
and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the SIP 
revision no later than the effective date of this final action; and
     Related nonregulatory provisions as reflected in additions 
and changes to the 2010 Regional Haze SIP in section 9.5.1 (Antelope 
Valley Station), Appendix J.1.6 (Federal Land Manager Comments on 
Amendment No. 2 and Department's Response), and Appendix J.3.4 (U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Comments on Amendment No. 2 and 
Department's Response).
    We proposed to find that North Dakota fulfilled its requirement to 
consult with the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in development of 
Amendment No. 2.
    We also proposed to restore certain other nonregulatory text 
amendments under 40 CFR 52.1820(e). The proposed amendments include 
incorporation of provisions previously approved in our 2012 final 
rule.\3\ EPA partially approved these provisions as meeting the 
requirements of the CAA and applicable regulations in previous actions; 
\4\ however, when updating 40 CFR 52.1820(e) in 2015, we inadvertently 
deleted all approved provisions relevant to North Dakota regional 
haze.\5\ We proposed to remedy that error; however, we did not 
otherwise address or reopen for comment any of the previously approved 
provisions. We deem any comments on these provisions beyond the scope 
of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 77 FR 20894 (April 6, 2012).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ 80 FR 76211 (December 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Federal Implementation Plan Withdrawal

    Because we proposed to find that Amendment No. 2 satisfies the 
reasonable progress requirements for NOX at Antelope Valley 
Station Units 1 and 2 for the first regional haze planning period, we 
also proposed to withdraw the corresponding portions of the North 
Dakota Regional Haze FIP at 40 CFR 52.1825.
    In addition, EPA stated that we planned to remove from the Code of 
Federal Regulations the FIP requirements for Coal Creek Station that 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated in North 
Dakota v. EPA.\6\ Because this is a purely ministerial action to ensure 
that the Code of Federal Regulations reflects current case law, we did 
not invite public comment on our removal of the vacated language. North 
Dakota's BART obligation for Coal Creek Station remains outstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 730 F.3d 750, 764 (8th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 
2662 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We did not propose any other changes related to our 2012 final rule 
because no other changes were addressed in Amendment No. 2 or required 
by the North Dakota decision. Accordingly, our determinations regarding 
North Dakota's reasonable progress goals, long-term strategy, and 
interstate transport obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
concerning visibility protection,\7\ remain in place.\8\ We did not 
reopen or take comment on these aspects of our 2012 final rule. We deem 
any comments on these issues beyond the scope of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    \8\ 77 FR 20896, 20899-900; see also 85 FR 20165, 20177 (April 
10, 2020) (regarding the status of North Dakota's obligations under 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) concerning visibility protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed rule provided background on the requirements of the 
CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule, and EPA's rationale for its proposed 
action. That background information and rationale will not be restated 
here. For the reasons stated in the proposed rule and this document, 
EPA approves Amendment No. 2 to the North Dakota SIP for Regional Haze 
to satisfy certain requirements for the first implementation period \9\ 
of the CAA's regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Implementation period'' and ``planning period'' are used 
interchangeably in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    We received comments from the public and a group of conservation 
organizations through the internet and mail. The full text of comments 
received from these commenters is included in the publicly posted 
docket associated with this action at https://www.regulations.gov. The 
National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and Badlands 
Conservation Alliance (Conservation Organizations) submitted detailed 
written comments in opposition to our proposed approval of Amendment 
No. 2. We also received a short comment from a member of the public in 
support of our proposed approval.
    Comment summary: The commenters assert that EPA's proposal relies 
on outdated data and technical information. They state that North 
Dakota's SIP submittal does not contain a four-factor reasonable 
progress analysis of its own, nor does it reference EPA's FIP analysis. 
Further the commenters state that the emission data and technical 
analysis regarding costs and controls in EPA's 2012 FIP are more than 
nine years old, and no longer represent current operations. The 
commenters state that current operational data is missing from the 
record, and that Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 are currently 
meeting NOX emission limits of 0.11 lb/MMBtu, which is 
significantly less than the FIP and SIP revision limit of 0.17 lb/
MMBtu. The commenters assert that EPA's regulations require that SIPs 
must provide for ``public availability of emission data reported by 
source owners or operators or otherwise obtained by a State or local 
agency,'' which is then required to be correlated with the applicable 
reasonable progress emission limitations. The commenters assert that 
neither North Dakota's SIP submittal nor EPA's proposal contain an 
updated reasonable progress analysis and consideration of additional 
controls.
    Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. First, neither North 
Dakota nor EPA is required to conduct a new four factor reasonable 
progress analysis for this action because the relevant analysis was 
completed during the first regional haze planning period in support of 
EPA's 2012 FIP. As explained in the proposed rule, this action involves 
a mere transfer of the first planning period NOX reasonable 
progress requirements for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 from 
EPA's 2012 FIP to North Dakota's SIP.
    Under the Regional Haze Rule, states were required to submit SIP 
revisions including first planning period regional haze requirements on 
December 17, 2007.\10\ North Dakota submitted its regional haze SIP 
revision in 2010.\11\ As explained in the proposed rule, in 2012, EPA 
disapproved North Dakota's NOX reasonable progress 
determination for

[[Page 19637]]

Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 and instead promulgated a FIP. To 
support the FIP, EPA performed a thorough, six-step, reasonable 
progress analysis.\12\ EPA presented control efficiencies, emissions 
data, emissions reductions for six different control options (including 
no controls), analyzed costs for five control options, and noted 
visibility benefits of 0.754 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt National 
Park from the installation of new low-NOX burners and 
separated overfire air (LNB and SOFA, or ``combustion controls'') on 
Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2. As a result of EPA's six-step 
analysis, EPA determined that an emission limit consistent with the 
installation of LNB and SOFA (0.17 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling 
average) was appropriate to require as reasonable progress for the 
first planning period.\13\ North Dakota's SIP revision at issue in this 
action adopts the exact same emission limit and associated monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that EPA included in its 2012 
FIP, thereby adopting the exact same first planning period 
NOX reasonable progress requirements for Antelope Valley 
Station Units 1 and 2 that EPA set in 2012. Thus, neither North Dakota 
nor EPA was required to perform a new analysis duplicative of EPA's 
earlier analysis for purposes of this federal-to-state transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 51.308(b).
    \11\ 86 FR 14057.
    \12\ 76 FR 58570, 58630-32 (September 21, 2011).
    \13\ 77 FR 20899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, neither North Dakota nor EPA was required to update the 
prior analysis with current emissions data or tighten the 
NOX emission limit based on current operations.\14\ Again, 
the determination being transferred from EPA's 2012 FIP to North 
Dakota's SIP in this action is a first planning period determination. 
The analysis that supported EPA's 2012 determination and the emission 
limit that EPA set (0.17 lbs/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average) was 
consistent with the EPA's understanding at the time of the emission 
limit achievable with combustion controls at similar units.\15\ That 
Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 currently could meet a lower 
NOX emission limit with the installed combustion controls 
may be relevant to North Dakota's forthcoming second planning period 
regional haze SIP revision, but that information does not demand a 
revised analysis to support the mere transfer of first planning period 
requirements from EPA's FIP to North Dakota's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Note that the commenters are incorrect that current 
operational data is missing from the record for this action. See AVS 
Monthly AMPD Data, EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406-0440.
    \15\ 76 FR 58632. See also, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.E.5 
(stating that 0.17 lb/MMBtu is the presumptive limit that can be met 
by tangential-fired boilers using combustion control technology and 
burning lignite coal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment summary: The commenters assert that EPA must not approve 
North Dakota's proposed SIP amendments because they are inconsistent 
with EPA's FIP. Specifically, the commenters assert that the regulatory 
text in 40 CFR 52.1820(e) contains two conflicting provisions:
     EPA proposes to adopt by reference North Dakota's SIP that 
was effective under State law on July 8, 2020 (which contains 
information and references to the disapproved SIP in Section 9.5.1 of 
North Dakota's SIP Amendment No. 2); and
     While in the same portion of the regulatory text, EPA's 
``Comments'' for the Regional Haze line entry indicates that it is 
incorporating by reference the entire State Plan ``[e]xcluding 
provisions disapproved on April 6, 2012. 77 FR 20894.''
    The commenters state that Section 9.5.1 of North Dakota's SIP 
references assumptions and analysis from the disapproved sections of 
its Regional Haze SIP, including control efficiencies and emission 
reductions. The commenters state that EPA's disapproval explained that 
North Dakota's control efficiencies and emission reductions for Units 1 
and 2 differed from EPA analysis, and EPA ultimately relied on its own 
analysis promulgating the FIP. The commenters also argue that EPA's 
current proposal erred in stating that North Dakota's SIP Amendment No. 
2 merely adopts the FIP. The commenters conclude that EPA is proposing 
to approve portions of North Dakota's SIP that it earlier disapproved. 
The commenters also assert that North Dakota has attempted to use this 
SIP amendment to restore assumptions and analysis EPA disapproved and 
replaced with its FIP analysis and final reasonable progress 
determination.
    The commenters contend that it is unreasonable and inappropriate 
for EPA to approve the sentences in North Dakota's narrative in Section 
9.5.1 because they are inconsistent with EPA's FIP analysis. 
Additionally, the commenters contend that neither North Dakota's SIP 
amendment nor EPA's proposal contain the substantive technical analysis 
to support North Dakota's brief discussion in Section 9.5.1. The 
commenters state that there is no information for the public to review 
and comment on. The commenters believe that North Dakota may have 
included the discussion and reference to its disapproved SIP provisions 
in an attempt to then reference this information as ``EPA approved'' in 
its upcoming proposed regional haze SIP due to EPA by July 31, 2021. 
The commenters conclude that EPA must not approve the State's 
disapproved first round reasonable progress analysis for Antelope 
Valley Station.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, the commenters 
are incorrect that EPA's 2012 disapproval ``explained that [North 
Dakota's] control efficiencies and emission reductions for Units 1 and 
2 differed from [the] EPA analysis, and EPA ultimately relied on its 
own analysis promulgating the FIP.'' In the 2011 proposed rule, we 
explicitly stated that ``[o]ur analysis is based on the information 
provided by North Dakota, except that, as we explain below, we are 
disregarding North Dakota's visibility analysis.'' \16\ In EPA's 
analysis supporting the FIP, the control efficiency and emission 
reductions for each control were identical to those in North Dakota's 
analysis.\17\ For example, both EPA and North Dakota assumed that LNB 
with SOFA could achieve a 51% control efficiency and reduce 
NOX emissions by 3,889 tons per year at Unit 1 and by 3,450 
tons per year at Unit 2. Thus, by relying on the 2012 analysis for this 
rule, EPA is not relying on assumptions and analysis that EPA 
disapproved in 2012, as the commenters contend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 76 FR 58631.
    \17\ Compare id., Table 71, Summary of Antelope Valley Station 
NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis Control Technologies for 
Unit 1 and 2 Boilers, with North Dakota Department of Health, North 
Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, February 24, 
2010, Table 9.8, Control Cost Options, page 204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as acknowledged by the commenters, the proposed 
regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.1820(e) for this action specifies that the 
provisions of the 2010 SIP that were disapproved in our 2012 final 
action, including those in Section 9.5.1, will remain disapproved.\18\ 
Thus, in this action, we are not approving previously disapproved 
portions of North Dakota's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 86 FR 14061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the commenters presented no evidence to support their 
contention that North Dakota intends to rely on the technical analysis 
from its 2010 SIP for its second planning period regional haze SIP 
revision. We are aware that North Dakota has selected Antelope Valley 
Station as a source to analyze for additional control measures in the 
second planning period. We are also aware that the new four factor 
analysis conducted for North Dakota's second

[[Page 19638]]

planning period SIP revision will be based on an updated technical 
analysis, including updated representative baseline emissions, control 
efficiencies, emission reductions, and costs.\19\ North Dakota's second 
planning period SIP revision and the accompanying new four factor 
analysis will be subject to EPA review and subsequent public notice and 
comment. Any errors or deficiencies in the analysis will be addressed 
at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, Air 
Pollution Control Program, Division of Air Quality, DRAFT for 
Federal Land Manager Review, North Dakota State Implementation Plan 
for Regional Haze, available at https://deq.nd.gov/publications/AQ/Planning/RegionalHaze/Round_2/ND_RH_SIP_v2.0DRAFT.pdf. See four- 
factor analysis for Antelope Valley Station in Appendix A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment summary: The commenters assert that North Dakota has not 
made an ``official plan submission'' to EPA and EPA has not 
demonstrated that the SIP submittal is complete. Specifically, the 
commenters assert that North Dakota failed to submit a SIP revision 
consistent with 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, because the submittal does 
not describe the ``[c]ompliance/enforcement strategies'' it intends to 
follow in implementing the SIP, ``including how compliance will be 
determined in practice.'' They assert that the SIP revision also lacks 
a ``description of the enforcement methods'' that North Dakota plans to 
use when it implements the reasonable progress control strategy for the 
Antelope Valley Station. Additionally, the commenters contend that 
North Dakota's SIP revision lacks a technical basis and reasoned 
analysis for including EPA's FIP in the SIP. The commenters state that 
it is unclear what authority North Dakota relied on to adopt and then 
implement the SIP.
    The commenters further assert that EPA failed to prepare a 
completeness analysis under appendix V for public review and comment. 
The commenters contend that without a completeness analysis, EPA has 
not demonstrated that the SIP revision contains ``[e]vidence that the 
plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and 
recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure 
[reasonable progress determination] emission levels.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. CAA section 110(k) 
provides a two-step process for EPA's review of SIP submittals. First, 
within six months of receiving a SIP submission, EPA must make a 
threshold ``completeness determination'' to determine whether the SIP 
contains certain ``minimum criteria'' designated by EPA as ``the 
information necessary to . . . determine whether the plan submission 
complies with the provisions of the CAA.'' \20\ These minimum criteria 
are listed in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.\21\ There is no requirement 
in the CAA or EPA's regulations that EPA document its completeness 
review prior to proposing to approve a SIP revision. To the contrary, 
if EPA fails to make the completeness determination within six months, 
the SIP submission is deemed complete by operation of law.\22\ Here, 
EPA received North Dakota's SIP submittal on July 28, 2020. EPA did not 
make a formal completeness determination within six months; thus, the 
SIP submittal was deemed complete by operation of law and constitutes 
an official submission.\23\ North Dakota's authority to adopt the SIP 
is addressed in the Opinion issued by the North Dakota Office of 
Attorney General and submitted with the SIP revision.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(A), (B).
    \21\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
    \22\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(C); 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, Sec.  
1.2.
    \23\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, Sec.  1.2 (``A determination of 
completeness under this paragraph means that the submission is an 
official submission for purposes of Sec.  51.103.'').
    \24\ Letter dated July 28, 2020, from Doug Burgum, Governor, 
North Dakota, to Gregory Sopkin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 
8, Subject: Revisions to North Dakota Regional Haze SIP for control 
of air pollution; North Dakota, Final Revisions to Implementation 
Plan for Control of Air Pollution, Amendment No. 2 to North Dakota 
State Implementation Plan First Planning Period for Regional Haze 
(July 2020) (Amendment No. 2) at 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the second step of the two-step process, EPA evaluates SIP 
submittals for compliance with substantive CAA requirements.\25\ Here, 
the relevant provisions are CAA sections 110 and 169A and 40 CFR 
51.308. EPA explained in the proposed rule and elsewhere in this 
document how North Dakota's SIP revision complies with these 
substantive requirements of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule, and 
specifically addresses the commenters' concerns regarding 
enforceability in this document below.\26\ Thus, the commenters' 
assertions that North Dakota's SIP revision was inadequate because it 
lacked appendix V criteria and that EPA's proposal was inadequate 
because it lacked an appendix V completeness determination are without 
merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NRDC v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
    \26\ 86 FR 14055, 14057-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment summary: The commenters state that, in order to approve 
North Dakota's SIP that replaces the FIP, the SIP revision must be 
substantively identical to the FIP and enforceable. The commenters 
contend that EPA's proposal does not include all the permit provisions 
necessary to make the SIP equivalent to the FIP, but instead includes 
only selective provisions from North Dakota's air pollution control 
permit to construct: ``emission limit[s] for Units 1 and 2 and 
corresponding monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.'' 
The commenters assert that EPA's proposal is not substantively 
identical to its FIP because it does not propose approving parallel 
permit conditions that are necessary for enforceability, such as permit 
conditions related to definitions, compliance dates, continuous 
emissions monitoring, and others. The commenters also state that there 
are permit conditions for which there are not parallel provisions in 
the FIP that, if approved into the SIP, would at least in part address 
their concerns regarding enforceability. Finally, the commenters state 
that there are permit conditions for which there are not parallel 
conditions in the FIP and that we do not have authority to approve, 
such as those related to continuous emission monitoring procedures, 
audits, and reporting, and to emission inventory reporting. In 
particular, the commenters contend that EPA must not approve the permit 
conditions that involve reporting on State-supplied forms because (1) 
the forms may contain information inconsistent with that required by 
the FIP, (2) the permit conditions do not specify what is on these 
forms, and the public did not have an opportunity to review and comment 
on the forms, and (3) the information in the forms is left to the 
State's discretion. The commenter makes similar arguments regarding 
monitoring procedures and audits.
    Response: We agree with this comment, in part, and are making 
changes in this final rule accordingly. In our proposed rule, the 
comment column in the regulatory text for Antelope Valley Station 
indicated that we proposed to incorporate into the SIP those permit 
conditions found in the permit-to-construct (PTC20031) related only to 
the ``NOX BART emission limit for Units 1 and 2 and 
corresponding monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.'' 
\27\ While this language could be understood to mean that any permit 
condition necessary for enforceability would be included in the SIP, 
the commenters interpreted it to mean that only the permit conditions 
in the three sections of the permit with corresponding titles would be 
incorporated into the SIP: Section

[[Page 19639]]

II.A.2--Emission Limits; Section II.A.5--Monitoring Requirements and 
Conditions; and Section II.A.6--Reporting. To provide clarity, we are 
removing the comment from the source-specific requirements for Antelope 
Valley Station Units 1 and 2. This should address the commenters' 
concerns regarding the permit conditions necessary for enforceability, 
as well as whether the SIP is substantively the same as the FIP. In 
addition, we note that this approach (not specifying which permit 
conditions are being incorporated into the SIP) is consistent with the 
approach we took for other sources in our 2012 final rule (i.e., for 
Heskett Station Units 1 and 2, Leland Olds Units 1 and 2, Milton R. 
Young Units 1 and 2, and Staton Station Unit 1).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 86 FR 14061.
    \28\ 77 FR 20943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree that we do not have authority to, and must not, approve 
additional permit conditions for which there are not parallel 
conditions in the FIP. With the clarifying change we are making to the 
source-specific requirements of 40 CFR 52.1820(d) today, we are 
incorporating into the SIP all provisions that are necessary for 
enforceability (e.g., monitoring, record keeping, and reporting). Thus, 
any permit conditions that are in addition to parallel conditions in 
the FIP only serve to enhance enforceability. In any event, these 
additional permit conditions are included in the Title V permit for 
Antelope Valley Station, and are thus already federally 
enforceable.\29\ Moreover, the same or similar permit conditions also 
appear in the permit-to-construct for each of the sources for which we 
approved source-specific requirements in our 2012 final rule.\30\ 
Finally, the forms that concern the commenters are publicly available 
on North Dakota's website.\31\ We have reviewed them and find no reason 
to conclude that they would allow violations of the emission limit for 
Units 1 and 2 or the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements, or interfere with enforceability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Air Pollution Control Title V Permit to Operate, Permit 
Number T5-F8600, renewal no. 4, June 26, 2019. North Dakota has a 
fully approved operating permit program. 40 CFR part 70, appendix A.
    \30\ 77 FR 20943.
    \31\ See Title V Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, https://www.deq.nd.gov/forms/aq/title-v/SFN52737.pdf; Title V Annual 
Compliance Certification Report, https://www.deq.nd.gov/forms/aq/title-v/SFN52738.pdf; see also https://www.deq.nd.gov/AQ/Forms.aspx 
(list of North Dakota Air Quality Forms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment summary: The commenters assert that North Dakota's SIP 
revision did not contain an analysis under CAA section 110(l), and that 
EPA's analysis is inaccurate and incomplete. In particular, the 
commenters contend that EPA wrongly referenced a CAA section 110(l) 
analysis completed for the 2012 FIP. The commenters further assert that 
EPA wrongly considered only National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) requirements and not other CAA requirements, including regional 
haze requirements, in its CAA section 110(l) analysis. Additionally, 
the commenters contend that the public was not provided an opportunity 
to comment on the required section 110(l) analysis that considers all 
the Act's requirements.
    Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. CAA section 110(l) 
states in relevant part: ``The Administrator shall not approve a 
revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as 
defined in section 7501 of this title), and any other applicable 
requirement of this chapter.'' \32\ CAA section 110(l) applies to all 
requirements of the CAA and it applies to all areas of the country, 
whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable or maintenance for 
one or more of the six criteria pollutants. In general, a section 
110(l) demonstration should address all pollutants whose emissions and/
or ambient concentrations would change as a result of a plan revision. 
The level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l) demonstration will 
vary depending on the nature and circumstances of the revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, the commenters fail to identify any change to 
emissions or ambient concentrations of NOX that will result 
from approval of North Dakota's SIP revision. Nor can they. As we 
explained in the proposed rule and above in response to comments, the 
first planning period reasonable progress requirements for Antelope 
Valley Station Units 1 and 2 in North Dakota's SIP revision are the 
exact same requirements in EPA's 2012 FIP.\33\ Thus, there is no 
difference in emissions between the 2012 FIP and the SIP revision. 
Accordingly, EPA's approval of North Dakota's SIP revision cannot 
interfere with any applicable CAA requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 86 FR 14057-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, there was no CAA section 110(l) analysis for the 2012 
final rule, and thus, EPA did not rely on a prior CAA 110(l) analysis 
in the 2021 proposal. Instead, in the 2021 proposal, EPA stated that 
`[t]he previous section of [the proposal] and our 2011 proposed rule 
and 2012 final rule explain how the proposed SIP revision will comply 
with applicable regional haze requirements and general implementation 
plan requirements such as enforceability.'' \34\ In other words, under 
CAA section 110(l), we proposed to find that EPA's approval of North 
Dakota's SIP revision does not interfere with the CAA's regional haze 
provisions (or other implementation plan requirements) because the SIP 
revision mirrors EPA's 2012 FIP requirements, which EPA determined in 
2012 meet the requirements of the CAA's regional haze provisions (and 
other implementation plan requirements). Accordingly, EPA's CAA section 
110(l) analysis is not inaccurate or incomplete--EPA considered 
potential interference with all applicable CAA requirements, including 
regional haze requirements. But EPA tailored its analysis to the 
circumstances at issue here--a mere transfer of the existing emission 
limit for Units 1 and 2 and the associated monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements (and no corresponding change in emissions) 
from EPA's 2012 FIP to an approved SIP revision. We find that approval 
of Amendment No. 2, and concurrent withdrawal of the corresponding FIP, 
are not anticipated to interfere with applicable requirements of the 
CAA and therefore CAA section 110(l) does not prohibit approval of this 
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 86 FR 14058. EPA also added that there are no NAAQS 
nonattainment or maintenance areas in North Dakota. See Current 
Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html (last visited Jan. 11, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment summary: The commenters further contend that EPA's approval 
of North Dakota's SIP revision would violate the CAA's anti-backsliding 
provisions. The commenters state that EPA may not approve North 
Dakota's SIP revision because it would allow increased NOX 
emissions and visibility impairment in violation of the CAA section 
110(l) and case law. The commenters criticize EPA for failing to 
evaluate how emissions will change as a result of North Dakota's SIP 
revision when compared to the FIP and for failing to fully evaluate the 
differences between the FIP and North Dakota's SIP revision.
    The commenters contend that EPA's replacement of its FIP with North 
Dakota's SIP revision would violate CAA section 110(l) by allowing 
increased air pollution for several reasons. First, the commenters 
contend that EPA failed to propose to approve all the provisions in 
North Dakota's permit,

[[Page 19640]]

which according to the commenters means that citizens and others will 
not have the same opportunities to enforce the emission limits as under 
the FIP and will result in less stringent requirements and likely 
increased emissions. Second, the commenters contend that EPA failed to 
propose approval of provisions in North Dakota's permit that would 
address their enforceability concerns. Third, commenters contend that 
EPA proposed to include provisions in the approved SIP revision that do 
not appear in the FIP, including provisions that allow unbounded 
discretion to North Dakota, which the commenters contend could also 
result in increasing emissions.
    Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. As explained above, 
the transfer of first planning period NOX regional haze 
requirements for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 from EPA's 2012 
FIP to North Dakota's SIP will not result in any change in 
NOX emissions. Moreover, as also explained above, the SIP 
revision and corresponding permit are not less stringent than the FIP, 
nor is the SIP revision less enforceable. The commenters have offered 
no support for their contention that, under the SIP revision, the State 
obtains ``unbounded discretion'' inconsistent with the FIP and we find 
none. Accordingly, there is no support for the commenters' assertion 
that the SIP approval results in backsliding under the CAA.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064, 1074 (9th Cir. 
2014) (finding that the petitioners identified nothing in Nevada's 
SIP that weakened or removed any pollution controls and that when a 
``SIP merely maintained the status quo, that would not interfere 
with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS'' and the approval 
did not contravene CAA section 110(l)); see also El Comite Para El 
Bienestar de Earlimart v. EPA, 786 F.3d 688, 696-97 (9th Cir. 2015) 
(finding that EPA did not fail to consider CAA section 110(l) when 
it reasonably concluded that California's prior SIP requirement and 
the SIP revision requirement were equivalent). Because the SIP 
revision at issue here is not less stringent than the FIP, the other 
cases cited in footnote 40 of the comment letter are inapposite. In 
any event, they do not stand for the proposition that the commenters 
assert--neither the plain language of CAA section 110(l) nor case 
law supports an interpretation that per se prohibits approval of any 
SIP revision that allows an increase in emissions or weakens 
requirements relative to the existing implementation plan. Rather, 
the statute prohibits approval of such a SIP revision if it would 
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, 
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. See Indiana v. EPA, 
796 F.3d 803, 811 (7th Cir. 2015); Alabama Environmental Council v. 
EPA, 711 F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Train v. NRDC, 
Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975)); Kentucky Resource Council v. EPA, 467 
F.3d 986, 994-996 (6th Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment summary: The commenters state that, if EPA were to take 
final action, it must fix fatal errors in its proposed regulatory text. 
In a footnote, the commenters state that EPA did not explain its 
authority for correcting the regulatory text to include provisions 
approved in 2012 and inadvertently deleted in 2015. Additionally, the 
commenters contend that making the correction would resolve the error 
going forward but would not restore the regulatory text missing from 
the Code of Federal Regulations from 2015 to present. The commenters 
contend that EPA's final action and regulatory text must clearly 
include language that covers the missing years so that the SIP is 
enforceable during that time period.
    The commenters also criticize EPA for proposing a single ``State 
effective date'' of July 8, 2020, in the proposed regulatory text 
language in 40 CFR 52.1820(e). The commenters identify three reasons 
why they believe the state effective date must be corrected. First, the 
commenters state that the only portions of the State regional haze SIP 
that were effective as a matter of State law on July 8, 2020, were the 
following: Section 9.5.1; Appendix J.1.6: FLM Comments on SIP Amendment 
2; and Appendix J.3.4. Second, the commenters state that North Dakota's 
cover letter to Basin Electric Cooperative for construction permit 
PTC20031 for its Antelope Valley Station explains that the State's 
intent was to make the permit effective if/when EPA approved the SIP 
Amendment No. 2, not at the time the SIP was adopted by the State. The 
commenters state that EPA's proposed regulatory text for the ``State 
effective date'' needs to be clarified on this point. Third, the 
commenters state that the remaining sections of North Dakota's regional 
haze SIP incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 52.1820(e), which EPA 
inadvertently deleted in 2015, were effective in 2012, not on July 8, 
2020. The commenters conclude that the EPA must correct these errors 
for SIP enforceability purposes and revise the regulatory text to 
reflect the three different State effective dates for the regional haze 
SIP.
    In addition, the commenters argue that EPA's FIP contains separate 
emission limits for Units 1 and 2, while EPA's proposed regulatory text 
proposes one emission limit for both units. The commenters assert that 
one plantwide emission limit would mean that when one unit is down for 
maintenance or other reasons, Antelope Valley Station could operate the 
controls on the second operating unit less stringently in order to save 
money. The commenters conclude that, if EPA elects to finalize this 
proposal, it must amend this regulatory text so that it is consistent 
with the FIP and regional haze program requirements.
    Response: As stated in our proposed rule, we did not take comment 
on the restoration of the nonregulatory text amendments under 40 CFR 
52.1820(e) that we inadvertently deleted in 2015. Thus, we deem the 
comment beyond the scope of this action. Contrary to the commenters' 
suggestion, EPA had authority to correct this error without additional 
notice and comment under the ``good cause'' exception in the 
Administrative Procedure Act.\36\ Today's action simply restores 
nonregulatory provisions which were previously approved after public 
notice and comment for the 2012 final rule. Thus, another notice and 
opportunity for comment to correct the error is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, we disagree that it is necessary for the regulatory 
text to include language that covers previous regional haze actions to 
ensure that the regional haze SIP, as a whole, is enforceable. The 
nonregulatory provisions found in 40 CFR 52.1820(e), including the SIP 
narrative, are not enforceable. Instead, the enforceable portions of 
the SIP are incorporated by reference in paragraph in 40 CFR 
52.1820(c), EPA-approved regulations, and 40 CFR 52.1820(d), EPA-
approved source specific requirements. Thus, the nonregulatory 
amendments are not necessary to ensure enforceability regardless of 
whether citations to previous actions are listed. Moreover, the 
regional haze amendments have been treated in the same manner as other 
sections of the State's SIP. That is, only the effective date of the 
most recent revision to a relevant chapter or section of the SIP (in 
this case, July 8, 2020) is given. Finally, we are clarifying that the 
``State effective date'' is the effective date of the State's SIP or 
rule, and differs from the compliance date (through the permit to 
construct) to meet emission limits and related requirements.
    The commenters are incorrect that EPA proposed to approve a plant-
wide emission limit for Units 1 and 2. The permit, PTC20031, which we 
are now incorporating into the SIP in whole, includes condition II.A.2 
stating that ``Basin Electric Power Coop. shall not emit or cause to be 
emitted from each unit NOX in excess of 0.17 pounds per 
million British Thermal Units (0.17 lb/10\6\ Btu) averaged over a 30-
day period (30-day rolling average)'' (emphasis added). Permit 
condition II.A.2 is consistent with the separate emission limits in the 
FIP that we are withdrawing. Regardless, as discussed above, the 
proposed comment language

[[Page 19641]]

in 40 CFR 52.1820(d) to which the commenters refer is not included in 
this final action.
    Comment summary: The commenters contend that EPA's proposal fails 
to abide by the environmental justice requirements in 2021 Executive 
Orders. The commenters state that EPA is required to ensure that its 
action on SIP regional haze plans address any disproportionate 
environmental impacts of the pollution that contributes to haze. The 
commenters further assert that EPA missed the mark in considering only 
Executive Order 12898, because in January 2021, the current 
Administration signed additional Executive Orders that require agencies 
to advance and prioritize environmental justice (citing Executive 
Orders 13998 and 14008). The commenters criticize EPA for failing to 
consider impacts on nearby environmental justice communities located on 
and near the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation under these additional 
Executive Orders and instead relying on its 2012 analysis under 
Executive Order 12898. The commenters assert that EPA must provide a 
new environmental justice analysis and tighter NOX limits to 
improve visibility and air quality in the Fort Berthold Indian 
Reservation.
    Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. As established in the 
responses above, the requirements of the State's SIP are substantively 
the same as in EPA's FIP. Our 2012 FIP for Antelope Valley Station 
resulted in substantial NOX reductions from Units 1 and 2. 
In particular, in our 2012 FIP, we calculated that the emission limit 
of 0.17 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) would lead to NOX 
reductions of 3,889 tons per year for Unit 1 and 3,450 tons per year 
for Unit 2.\37\ We expect this level of NOX reductions will 
continue under North Dakota's SIP revision. Thus, the impacts of this 
action, like the 2012 FIP, are expected to be beneficial, rather than 
adverse, and its benefits are expected to accrue to communities in and 
near Indian country lands within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. 
Our review of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008, cited by the 
commenters, do not lead us to a different conclusion regarding the need 
for additional analysis under the circumstances at issue in this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 76 FR 58631, Table 71. Calculated reductions were based on 
baseline (no controls) emissions of 7,625 tons per year and 6,765 
tons per year for Units 1 and 2, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment summary: The commenters state that EPA should not finalize 
approval of this action. The commenters also state that, if EPA were to 
finalize approval, we should make corrections (per comments above) to 
ensure that the EPA's approval of the SIP is substantively equivalent 
to the FIP. The commenters contend that otherwise EPA's approval of the 
SIP revision would be less stringent and inconsistent with the FIP and 
current emissions, and also undermine the Eighth Circuit's decision 
affirming the FIP for the Antelope Valley Station. The commenters state 
that the reductions and provisions required in the 2012 FIP should 
remain in place for Antelope Valley Station to maintain emission 
reduction requirements to better air quality in national parks and 
wilderness areas and the public health co-benefits for the 
environmental justice communities in the Fort Berthold Reservation and 
nearby communities. Finally, the commenters state that EPA should make 
various corrections, obtain missing SIP information from North Dakota 
after it amends its SIP, and add missing analysis as described in our 
summary of comments earlier in this notice. In doing so, the commenters 
believe that EPA should re-notice its proposal so that the public has 
an opportunity to comment on the missing information and analysis.
    Response: We disagree that we should re-notice our proposal. The 
commenters concern regarding the enforceability of Amendment No. 2, as 
well as its equivalence to the FIP, have been addressed in response to 
other comments above. The level of NOX emissions allowed 
under Amendment No. 2 will be the same as those allowed under the FIP.
    Comment summary: A member of the public commented that they think 
it is a good idea that EPA is proposing to approve the North Dakota SIP 
revision addressing regional haze. The commenter believes the approval 
will help improve air quality which will have a positive effect on air 
pollution. The commenter states that the proposal will also satisfy 
some aspects of the CAA.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's support for our proposed 
action.

III. The EPA's Final Action

    For the reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed rule and in 
this document, and with the clarifications to the regulatory text 
discussed herein, we are fully approving Amendment No. 2 to the North 
Dakota SIP for Regional Haze to satisfy certain requirements for the 
first implementation period of the regional haze program. Because we 
find that Amendment No. 2 satisfies the reasonable progress 
requirements for NOX at Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 
2 for the first regional haze planning period, we are also withdrawing 
the corresponding portions of the North Dakota Regional Haze FIP at 40 
CFR 52.1825. We are also restoring certain other nonregulatory text 
amendments under 40 CFR 52.1820(e), as described in the preamble to the 
proposed rule and in this document. Finally, we are removing from the 
Code of Federal Regulations the FIP requirements for Coal Creek Station 
that the Eighth Circuit vacated in North Dakota v. EPA.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that 
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the 
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by 
reference of the SIP amendments described in section I.A of this 
preamble and set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to 
make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov (refer to docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406) and at the 
EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for 
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA 
into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 
113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the 
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director 
of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) because it will apply to a single facility in the State of 
North Dakota. It is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the

[[Page 19642]]

PRA. Because this rule revises regional haze reporting requirements for 
a single facility, the PRA does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule 
does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities as 
no small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Subsector 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045. The EPA 
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA 
has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the 
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the 
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety 
risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

K. Determination Under Clean Air Act Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA sections 307(d)(1)(B) and 307(d)(1)(V), the 
Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions 
of section 307(d). CAA section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that section 
307(d) applies to, among other things, ``the promulgation or revision 
of an implementation plan by the Administrator under [CAA section 
110(c)].'' \40\ Under section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of section 
307(d) also apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may 
determine.'' \41\ To the extent the approval of North Dakota's SIP 
revision is not expressly identified under section 307(d), the 
Administrator hereby determines that section 307(d) applies to this 
aspect of this action. The agency has complied with the procedural 
requirements of CAA section 307(d) during the course of this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(B).
    \41\ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular 
applicability that only applies to a single named facility.

M. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2022. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for purposes of judicial review nor does it 
extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Sulfur oxides.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart JJ--North Dakota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1820:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding the center heading 
``Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2.'' and the entry ``PTC20031'' 
at the end of the table.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the center heading 
``North Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze.'' and the 
entry ``North Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze'' at 
the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.1820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

[[Page 19643]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State        EPA
            Rule No.                 Rule title      effective   effective      Final rule          Comments
                                                       date        date       citation/date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTC20031.......................  Air pollution        4/5/2022    5/5/2022  [insert Federal    .................
                                  control permit                             Register
                                  to construct for                           citation], 4/5/
                                  Federal                                    2022.
                                  Implementation
                                  Plan Replacement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State        EPA
            Rule No.                 Rule title      effective   effective      Final rule          Comments
                                                       date        date       citation/date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            North Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota State               North Dakota           7/8/20    5/5/2022  [insert Federal    Excluding
 Implementation Plan for          State                                      Register           provisions
 Regional Haze.                   Implementation                             citation], 5/5/    disapproved on
                                  Plan for                                   2022.              April 6, 2012,
                                  Regional Haze.                                                77 FR 20894.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  52.1825  [Removed and Reserved]

0
3. Remove and reserve Sec.  52.1825.

[FR Doc. 2022-06904 Filed 4-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


