TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Dave Heineman Gouernor


# MEMORANDUM
Governor Dave Heineman

# 4' A 

### 1-1

# ~OMichael J. Linder, Director 

### l/Vvv--J.Xj August 7, 2006 

### STATE OF NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Michael J. Linder Director Suite 400, The Atrium 1200 'N' Street P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509·8922 Phone (402) 471·2186

FAX (402) 471·2909 website: www.deq.state.ne.us

Request for Approval ofProposed Revisions to Nebraska Title 129 Attached for review and approval are revisions and additions to Title 129

- Nebraska Air Quality Regulations. The Environmental Quality Council (EQC) approved these regulations on June 9, 2006, following a public hearing, held the same day, in North Platte, Nebraska. The Attorney General has also approved them. The items in the Final Agency Checklist are also attached. Additional information is provided below in narrative form pursuant to Executive Order 95-6
. 

### A. SHORT DESCRIPTION: The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide an explanation of amendments to Title 129 that were adopted by the EQC on June 9,2006. The amendments (a) revise Chapter 6 references to appendices; (b) clarify requirements for construction permit application fee in Chapter 17; (c) update references for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Subparts Db and Dc in Chapter 18; (d) update references to the federal Code ofRegulations to reflect current versions of the rules for MACT standards, adopt by reference the MACT standard for ethylene manufacturing process units: heat exchange systems and waste operations, and extend the compliance deadline for sources subject to the MACTstandard for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing in Chapter 28; and (e) de-list methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) from the list of hazardous air pollutants in Appendix II and Appendix III, and completely reformat Appendix II and Appendix III.


### B. RATIONALE FOR ADOPTION: On December 19, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency removed MEK from its list ofregulated hazardous air pollutants. NDEQ has revised Appendix II and Appendix III to reflect this change. At the same time, the information in these appendices has been reformatted. There has been some confusion regarding the statutorily imposed fee for construction permit applications, the rules for which appear in Chapter 17. Therefore, a clarification has been adopted stating that any construction permit application requires a fee, regardless of whether the source

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer @ Printed with soy ink on recycled paper**~**ultimately requires a permit. Recent changes to NSPS standards for celiain industrialcommercial-institutional steam generation units have been adopted
. The CFR references for MACT standards have been updated to reflect the standards as ofJuly 1, 2005 and the MACT standard in 40 CFR 63 Subpart XX has been adopted. Finally, the Federal Register reference in 40 CFR 63 Subpart FFFF has been adopted which allows an 18

- month extension ofthe compliance deadline for sources subject to this standard. C. GENERAL IMPACT: The changes adopted by the EQC in June 2006 either clarify existing rules or bring state rules into conformity with federal rules, so the impact is minimal. The reformatting of Appendix II and Appendix III will hopefully provide a more useful reference for users ofTitle' 129. D. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING: Air Quality Division Program Specialist Beverly Kellison presented the Department's detailed proposals for changes to Title 129. No other oral testimony was presented. A request for clarification of a rule change in Chapter 6 from Rechelle Holloway ofTyson Foods was entered as written testimony. Following the hearing, the Envirorunental Quality Council adopted all proposed rules. E. EFFORTS TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE COMMENTED: The changes proposed in June 2006 were generally routine and non-controversial in nature, so no stakeholder process beyond the required public notice was undertaken. The questions from Tyson Foods mentioned above were the only comments received. F. FISCAL IMPACT: The changes in Chapters 6, 17, and 28 will have no fiscal impact on NDEQ, local subdivisions, or the regulated public. There is potentially a fiscal impact on regulated sources from the changes to sections 001.22, and 001.52 in Chapter 18. 

### It could be anywhere from zero where a source is in compliance and doesn't need to do anything different, to millions where a source isn't in compliance and needs to retrofit to meet the standard. However, a source will be subject to these changes in federal rules even ifNDEQ does not adopt them. The source would be subject to enforcement action by EPA instead ofby NDEQ. There potentially could be a fiscal impact on NDEQ from the deli sting ofMEK in Appendix II and Appendix III. Since MEK will no longer be a regulated hazardous air pollutant, it would not be subject to construction permit requirements in Title 129, Chapter 17 and would not trigger the HAP BACT requirements in Chapter 27. The savings to NDEQ could be in the range of$l,OOO to $10,000 per source emitting MEK, depending on whether the source would have needed a permit before and now will not. For most regulated sources, the decision to de-list MEK will have no fiscal impact because MEK is still listed as a volatile organic compound, making the source still subject to emissions inventory reporting and fees. IfMEK emissions would formerly have caused a source to fall under construction permit requirements, delisting it could provide a substantial savings to the source.

### G. FTE IMPACT : The proposed revisions 

### will have no impact on the number of full-time equivalent positions in the Department. 

### H. UNFUNDED MANDATE: The proposed changes do not include any unfunded mandates on municipalities
. 

### I. ISSUES OF UNIQUE INTEREST: No proposed revision is ofunique interest to a particular geographic area. I request and recommend that you sign the attached proposed revisions to Nebraska Department ofEnvironmental Quality Title 129

- Nebraska Air Quality Regulations
. Please contact Annette Kovar, Beverly Kellison, or me, if you have any questions or concerns. Checklist: (To be completed by Governor's Policy Research Office) 30 day notice ofhearinglwaiver Affidavit of Publication Copy ofNotice to Secretary of State and Executive Board ofLegislative Council Agency Director's Certificate of Adoption Four Copies of Proposal and One Working Copy Attorney General Stamp ofApproval on First and Last Pages Concise Explanatory Statement (including any description ofchanges) FinalFiscal Impact Statement (including any description of changes) Negotiated Rulemaking Notice, if applicable Regulations on diskette (or filed electronically) Memorandum to the Governor with Checklist and InformationTO: Dave**H~ineman** GoVernor



### MEMORANDUM Governor Dave Heineman 

## STATE OF NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVlRONf.{ENfAL QUAUlY Michael J. Linder Director · Suite 400, The Atrium 1200 eN' Street P.O
. Box 98922

. Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 ·8922 Phone (402) 471-2186

. FAX (402) 471-2909 w

e bsite: www .deq.state.ne
.u s

FROM : Mike Linder, Director

### ~. Septe mb er 26, 2007 D ATE: 

### RE: Request fo r Approval of Proposed Revi sions to Title 129

- N ebraska Air Quality Regulations Attached for your review and approval are revisions to Title 129

- Nebraska Air Quality Regulations. The Environmental Quality Council on August 17, 2007, following a public heating held on August 17, 2007 in Lincoln, Nebraska, approved these regulations. The Attorney General has approved the proposed**r~visions.** The items identified in the Final Agency Checklist are also attached. Additional information is provided below in narrative form pursuant to Executive Order 95-6. A. Short Description

- A short description ofthe major and substantive provisions of the revised regulations. Changes originally adopted by the EQC in Septemb er 2006 but re j ected by the Attorney General were re-proposed and adopted by the EQC on August 17 , 2007
. The adopted changes (a) revised Chapter 1 to respond to comments received from the U
. S
. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules and corrected typographical errors; (b) revised Chapter 14 to clarify language in response to EPA's request; (c) revised Chapter 15 to respond 

### to comments from EPA and clarify language describing a source's obligation when a facility's equipment configuration is changed but the change does not result iIi increased emissions; (d) r€visedChapter 17 to correct language, to clarify the policy requiring sources to pay a construction permit application fee when requesting a significant revision to 

# a construction permit, and to allow the construction permitting process to be used to establish Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) permits; (e) revised Chapter 19 to correct PSD rules adopted in September 2005 and eliminate the option· for early tennihation of a Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL); 

### (f) corrected references in Chapter 27; (g) revised Chapter 34 to clarify NDEQ's authority to


### 1 An E qual Opportun itlV'Affirmatiue Action E mployer @ Printed ·with soy ink on recycled paper**~**TO: Dave Heineman Governor



### MEMORANDUM Governor Dave Heineman 

### STATE OF NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Michael J. Linder Oil'ector Suite 400, The Atriu m 1200 'N' Street P.O. Box 98922 Lincol n, Nebraska 68509-8922 Phone (402) 471-2186

FAX (402) 471

-2909 webs ite: www.deq.state.ne.us

FROM: Mike Linder, Director DATE: RE: Request for Approval of Proposed Revisions to Title 129

- Nebraska Air Quality Regulations Attached for your review and approval are revisions to Title 129

- Nebraska Air Quality Regulations. The Environmental Quality Council on December 7, 2007 , following a public hearing held on December 7,2007 in Lincoln, Nebraska, approved these regulations. The Attorney General has approved the proposed revisions. The items identifi ed in the Final Agency Checkli st are also attached. Additional information is provided below in nalTative fonn pursuant to Executive Order 95-6. A. Short Description - A S hOli description of the major and substantive provisions of the revised regulations. The adopted changes are all in section 003.02 of "Chapter 5-0perating PennitsWhen Required." They clarify the process for issuing operating pennits to major sources comprised of different regulated entities or " persons ", as defined in Chapter 1. Chapter 1 defines " person " as any individual partnership; limited liability company; association ; public or private corporation ; trustee ; receiver; assignee ; agent; municipality or other governmental subdivision ; public agency; other legal entity; or any officer or governing or managing body of any public or private corporation , municipality , governmental subdivi sion , public agency , or other legal entity. The current lan guage of section 00 3.02 has only two options for permitting such sources: (1) obtain one permit for th e entire source ; or (2) obtain a general pennit for those emission units ab le to be covered by a general permit and obtain an individual permit for the remaining emissions units. If a general permit is not available, then there is only one option. The revised language would allow each
" person " (regulated entity) to app ly for its own pennit and allow the Department

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer @ Printed with soy ink o n recycled paper**~** 

### I.to issue permits in that manner. In addition, the language is worded such that sources permitted in this manner will not avoid other major source obligations.
B. Rationale for Adoption

- A description of the need for the proposed chapter or amendment, and a description ofthe effects it will have ifpromulgated
. The changes to Chapter 5 clarify the process for issuing operating permits to major sources comprised of different regulated entities or "persons". The Class I operating permit program requires major sources of air pollution to obtain operating pennits. The requirements for controlling hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are different than those for other air pollution control programs. Under the federal HAP program, sources that are adjacent to one another and are under common control must aggregate their HAP emissions for applicability purposes, regardless ofwhether their operations are similar, that is, whether they fit within the same two-digit Standard Industrial Code
. These adjacent operations are cunently required to be permitted under one single operating permit. This practice allows for stringent control ofHAPs at each HAP emission unit, but it creates certain problems for the Department, such as 

### • •


### • • To which regulated entity (person) does the Department issue the pennit? If the pennit is issued to one entity (person) and another one has a violation, how does the Department take enforcement action? Who does the Depmiment designate as the responsible official? What happens when controlling interest is sold to another partner or ifthe original ownership anangement changes? In addition, the cunent rules create difficulties for the sources pennitted in this manner. For example, 

### •



### •

• Only one responsible official can certify compliance with a permit, so the CUlTent regulations could potentially require someone to certify compliance for a source over which he or she has little, if any, control. The pennitted entity would have to make sure that all other businesses with which it has pminerships have the infonnation needed to comply with the pelmit. Businesses are often sold or other pminerships are fonned. If the ownership arrangement changes, further complications and confusion as to how to divide up responsibilities under the pelmit result.

2C. General Impact

- A description of the classes ofperson s who may be affected by the proposed chapter, and how they may be affected
. This should be included even if the affected persons did not appear at the hearing. Persons affected by these changes are owners/ operators of major sources comprised of different regulated entities or " persons ". D. Public Hearing (who testified , position and major comments) Beverly Kellison and Shelley Kaderly, both from the Air Quality Division provided informational testimony on the proposed revisions
. No others testified
. E. Efforts to address issues of groups or individuals who have commented: Are the comments incorporated into the final regulations? If yes, which issues? If not, why not? Include results ofnegotiated rulemaking if app licabl e. No groups or individuals commented on these changes.
F. Fiscal Impact

- None
G. FTE Impact

- None
H
. Unfunded Mandates - None


### 1. Issues ofUnique Interest

- None
Please do not hesitate to contact our agency Legal Counselor me , if you have any questions or concerns.



### 3Checklist: (To be compl eted by Govemor's Policy Research Office) 

### 30 day notice ofhearing/waiver Affidavit ofPublication Copy ofNotice to Secretary of State and Executive Board of Legislative Council Agency Director's Certificate ofAdoption Four Copies of Proposal and One Working Copy Attorney General Stamp ofApproval on First and Last Pages Concise Explanatory Statement (including any description ofchanges) Final Fiscal Impact Statement (including any descliption of changes) Negotiated Rulemaking Notice, if applicable Regulations on Diskette (or filed electronically) Memorandum to the Goven10r with Checklist and Information



### 4TO: Dave Heineman Governor

MEM ORANDUM Governor Dave Heineman 

### S TATE OF N EBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY Michael J
. Linder Director Suite 400, The Atrium 1200 'N' Street P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509·8922 Phone (402) 471-2186

FAX (402) 471-2909 w

ebsite: www.deq.state. n e .us

FROM : Mike Linder, Director

# ~**~** August 7, 2008 DATE: RE: Request for Approval ofProposed Revisions to Title 129

- Nebraska Air Quality Regulations Attached for your review and approval are revisions to Title 129

- Nebraska Air Quality Regulations
. The Environmental Quality Council on July 1, 2008 , following a public hearing held on July 1, 2008 in South Sioux City, Nebraska, approved these regulations. The Attorney General has approved the proposed revisions
. The items identified in the Final Agency Checklist are also attached. Additional information is provided below in nanative fonn pursuant to Executive Order 95-6. A. ShOli Description

- A short description ofthe major and substantive provisions of the revi sed regulations. The changes will (a) repeal the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAA QS ) f or PM IO which was revoked by EPA in December 2006, and adopt the new NAAQS for PM2.5 which was is sued by EPA in Decemb er 2006 ; (b) repeal rules related to regulation ofmercury e missions from electric utilities; (c) repeal rules related to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard for boilers; (d) repeal other vacated MACT standards ; (e) repeal the "CISWI Definitions Rul e" of the New Source PerfOlmance Standard (NSPS) for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units; (f) repeal other vacated New Source Perforn1anceStandards; (g) update New Source Perfonnance Standards; (h) update the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) reference for MACT standards; and (i) adopt recently issued MACT standards.

1 An Equal Opportu nitl¥'AjjirmatiueAction Employer @ Pri nted with soy ink on recycled paper**~**

### B. Rationale for Adoption

- A description ofthe need for the proposed chapter or amendment, and a description ofthe effects it will have ifpromulgated. In December 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PMlO. At the same time, EPA issued a new, lower NAAQS for PM2 .S. The standard was lowered from 65 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter 24 hour average. We propose to remove the obsolete standard for PMlO and adopt the new standard for PM2 .S to be consistent with federal standards. On February 8, 2008, the United States Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)
. l Rules adopted by the EQC in August 2007 essentially adopted CAMR by reference. For that reason, we now propose to repeal the rules adopted in August 2007 relating to control ofmercury emissions. New rules issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate mercury emissions are likely to be very different from the vacated rules
. Given the direct incorporation by reference ofthe now vacated CAMR rule, it is also unlikely that NDEQ could practically implement these Title 129 rules as adopted in August 2007. On June 8, 2007, the same court vacated the MACT standard for certain boilers and the "CISWI Definitions Rule" ofthe New Source Performance Standard for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waster Incinerators (CISWI).2 Therefore, the MACT standard for boilers is proposed for repeal. We propose to adopt the CISWI rule as it was issued in 2000 prior to the issuance ofthe CISWI Definitions Rule in 2005. On March 13,2007, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the MACT standards for Plywood ad Composite Wood Products Surface Coating, for Brick and Structural Clay Products, and for Clay Ceramic Products. These are also proposed for repeal. Finally, we propose to adopt by reference several recently issued MACT standards and update the reference for other previously adopted MACT standards to July 1, 2007 to remain cuuent with the federal rules. A list ofthe changes incorporated by the CFR update is attached to this memorandum.
C. General Impact

- A description ofthe classes ofpersons who may be affected by the proposed chapter, and how they may be affected
. This should be included even ifthe affected persons did not appear at the hearing. The impact ofthe several repeals ofrules is to make the state rules 

### in Title 129 consistent with federal rules so there is not confusion between the federal and state requirements. The impact of adopting the new PM2 .S standard is to bring state rules into compliance with the new federal standard which is more stringent that the cuuent standard in Title 129. A state air quality rule may be more ) New Jersey v. B.PA, F
.3d, 2008 WL 341338 CAD.C., 2008. 2 Natural Resources Defense Council v . E.PA, 489 FJd, 1250 CAD.C. 2007. 2stringent than a federal rule, but may not be less stringent. The impact ofupdating the NSPS rules in Chapter 18 is, again, to bring state rules into compliance with current federal rules. The impact of adopting MACT standards in Chapter 28 is that Nebraska DEQ assumes authority to enforce compliance with these standards should subject sources become operational in Nebraska
. D. Public Hearing (who testified, position and major comments) At the public hearing on July 1, 2008 , Beverly Kellison from the NDEQ Air Quality Division provided informational testimony on the proposed revisions. A letter from Joshua Tapp of the EPA Region 7 Air Planning and Development Branch was entered as testimony which suggested that the EQC consider retaining the annual PM IO standard that EPA revoked in December 2006. The NDEQ responded with EPA's own explanation published in the Federal Register as to why the annual PMIO standard was no longer needed. The Federal Register explanation stated that "the current 24-hour PMIO standard is 'controlling'
... that is, virtually all areas that violate the PMIO standards violate the 24 hour PMIO standard. Some of them may violate the annual PMIO standard as well, but few, if any areas violate the annual standard without violating the 24 hour standard." The EQC adopted the repeal ofthe annual PMIO standard from Title 129 as NDEQ had proposed
. There were no other testimony provided at the hearing
. E. Efforts to address issues of groups or individuals who have commented: Are the comments incorporated into the final regulations? If yes, which issues? If not, why not? Include results of negotiated rulemaking if applicable
. No groups or individuals commented on these changes other than the comment from EPA noted in section D.
F. Fiscal Impact

- None
G. FTE Impact

- None
H. Unfunded Mandates

- None


### 1. Issues ofUnique Interest

- None
Please do not hesitate to contact our agency Legal Counselor me, if you have any questions or concems.


### 3Checklist: (To be completed by Govemor's Policy Research Otlice)

_ _ 30 day notice ofhearinglwaiver Affidavit ofPublication Copy ofNotice to Secretary of State and Executive Board ofLegislative Council Agency Director's Certificate ofAdoption Four Copies of Proposal and One Working Copy Attorney General Stamp ofApproval on First and Last Pages Concise Explanatory Statement (including any description of changes) Final Fiscal Impact Statement (including any description of changes) Negotiated Rulemaking Notice, if applicable Regulations on Diskette (or filed
. electronically) Memorandum to the Governor with Checklist and Information



### 4

### STATE OF NEBRASKA Dave Heineman Governor

MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF E NVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Michael J. Linder Director Suite 400, The Atri um 1200 'N' Street P

.O
. Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922 Phone (402) 47 1-2186

FAX (402) 471 -2909 website: www.deq.state.ne.us TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Governor Dave Heineman Mike Linder,

# Directo~JL-, April 28, 2010 Request for Approval ofProposed Revisions to Title 129 -Nebraska Air Quality Regulations Attached for your review and approval are revisions to Title 129

- Nebraska Air Quality Regulations. Following a public hearing held on December 4,2009 in Lincoln, Nebraska, the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) approved these regulations. The Attorney General has also approved the proposed changes
. The items identified in the Final Agency Checklist are attached. Additional information is provided below in narrative form pursuant to Executive Order 95

-6
. A. Short Description - A short description ofthe major and substantive provisions of the revised regulations. The changes adopted by the EQC at its December 2009 meeting included (a) changes to definitions in Chapter 1 and to rules in Chapters 22 and 30 to encourage the use of air curtain incinerators over open burning; (b) changes to Chapter 18 to align Title 129 rules with the operating permit for a Douglas County landfill ; and (c) updates to the definition ofvolatile organic compounds in Chapter 1, including the delisting of dimethyl carbonate At the December 4 meeting, the EQC adopted a Department amendment withdrawing the proposed incorporation offive federal New Source Performance Standards in Chapter 18
. The EQC also declined to approve proposed changes to Chapter 34, based on objections presented during the public hearing. All other proposed changes were adopted
. The changes as adopted by the EQC are being are being submitted to you for review and approval.
B
. Rationale for Adoption

- A description ofthe need for the proposed chapter or amendment, and a description ofthe effects it will have ifpromulgated.

An Equa l Oppo rtunity/Affirmative Action Emp l oyer @ Printed with soy ink o n recycled pape r**~** 

# - - - -Using air curtain incinerators to combust clean waste results in the emission of far few pollutants than open burning. However, the rules relating to the use ofthese incinerators need to be expanded and clarified in order to encourage their use. We proposed to do this by including the definition of "air curtain incinerator" in Chapter 1, and by specifying rules in Chapter 22 (Incinerators) and in Chapter 30 (Open Burning). In renewing the operating permit for the State Street landfill operated by Douglas County, it was found that its design is not currently accounted for in Title 129 rules. We proposed to correct this situation by incorporating rules into Title 129, in the 111 (d) plan for municipal solid waste landfills, to allow for the alternate design plan for this landfill which has been in operation for a number ofyears. The rules, as adopted, currently will apply only to this facility. The definition of "volatile organic compound" in Chapter 1 includes a listing of compounds which have been determined to have "negligible photochemical reactivity". These compounds are considered exempt from the rules governing the use ofvolatile organic compounds. Several compounds have been added to this list by EPA, including dimethyl carbonate. We proposed to align our definition with EPA's.
C. General Impact

- A description ofthe classes ofpersons who may be affected by the proposed chapter, and how they may be affected. This should be included even ifthe affected persons did not appear at the hearing. The impact of adopting the changes related to air curtain incinerators will encourage the use ofthese incinerators over traditional open burning
. This will be a positive impact on the environment. The change related to the Douglas County State Street landfill will not have impact on any classes ofpersons. 

### It will simply make Title 129 consistent with what is already allowed for in the landfill's operating permit. The exemption of dimethyl carbonate from the list ofvolatile organic compounds will allow for expansion ofits use. A manufacturer ofthis product describes it as an odorless, fast-evaporation solvent, useful in acrylics, urethane and alkyd systems as a co-solvent.
D. Public Hearing (who testified, position and major comments) At the public hearing on December 4,2009, Beverly Kellison from the NDEQ Air Quality Division provided informational testimony on the proposed revisions. Testimony was also presented by Matt Boerkircher ofNebraska Ethanol Safety and Environmental Council; Loran Schmit ofAssociation ofNebraska Ethanol Producers,

2Bernie Hoffman ofTrenton Agri Products LLC and Don Gansert ofTrinity Consultants. These four testifiers expressed concern about the changes proposed for scheduling stack testing. As a result, the Council declined to adopt the proposed changes to Chapter 34.
E. Efforts to address issues of groups or individuals who have commented: Are the comments incorporated into the final regulations? If yes, which issues? Ifnot, why not? Include results ofnegotiated rulemaking if applicable. As noted above, the EQC did not adopt the proposed amendments related to stack testing. Subsequent to the December 4 hearing, staff from the NDEQ Air Quality Compliance Section have met with representatives ofthe ethanol industry in an effort to come to agreement on stack testing scheduling concerns. NDEQ may propose changes to Chapter 34 in coming months.
F. Fiscal Impact

- None G. FTE Impact

- None H. Unfunded Mandates

- None I. Issues ofUnique Interest

- None
Please do not hesitate to contact our agency Legal Counselor me, ifyou have any questions or concerns.

Checklist: (To be completed by Govemor's Policy Research Office)

30 day notice ofhearinglwaiver Affidavit ofPublication Copy ofNotice to Secretary of State and Executive Board of Legislative Council Agency Director's Certificate ofAdoption Four Copies of Proposal and One Working Copy Attorney General Stamp ofApproval on First and Last Pages Concise Explanatory Statement (including any description of changes) Final Fiscal Impact Statement (including any description of changes) Negotiated Rulemaking Notice, if applicable Regulations on Diskette (or filed electronically) Memorandum to the Governor with Checklist and Information

3