25652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

preparation, college completion, and a 

‘‘First in the World’’ competition. For 

those unable to attend one of the policy 

roundtable discussions, we will also 

accept written comments and 

suggestions on the topics discussed at 

the roundtable. 

The Department intends to use these 

roundtable discussions to inform our 

postsecondary education policies in 

three key areas—teacher preparation, 

college completion, and the proposed 

‘‘First in the World’’ grant competition, 

proposed in the President’s fiscal year 

(FY) 2012 budget under the Fund for the 

Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education (FIPSE). The three roundtable 

discussions at each of the four locations 

announced above will each focus on one 

of these areas. 

The first topic will be the design and 

implementation plans for teacher 

preparation programs. We will discuss: 

(1) The proposed Presidential Teaching 

Fellows program along with the already 

authorized Honorable Augustus F. 

Hawkins Centers for Excellence program 

(subpart 2, part B, title II of the HEA) for 

which the Administration has requested 

funding; (2) ways in which the 

Department can streamline institutional 

reporting requirements; and (3) State 

identification of low-performing teacher 

preparation programs pursuant to 

sections 205 and 207 of the HEA. 

A second topic will be college 

completion, with a focus on obtaining 

information about State-level reform 

efforts that show the most promise for 

increasing college completion. We will 

also discuss the College Completion 

Incentive Grants program, proposed in 

the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2012 

budget, which would encourage States 

to make systemic reforms in their higher 

education systems to increase the 

number of students who complete a 

postsecondary degree or certificate 

program and also reward institutions 

within those States that increase their 

completion rates. 

The third topic will be possible 

priorities and structure for the (FIPSE) 

‘‘First in the World’’ competition. The 

purpose of this discussion is to obtain 

information about institutional reform 

efforts that show the most promise for 

increasing college completion, 

expanding institutional capacity, and 

improving quality of student outcomes. 

This input will be used to inform the 

development of competitive preferences 

and invitational priorities and the 

structure of the FIPSE ‘‘First in the 

World’’ competition. 

While the Department is inviting 

representatives of students, families, 

teachers, teacher educators, college 

access professionals, and college 

success practitioners to participate in 

these roundtable discussions, the 

roundtable discussions will also be 

open to the public, with opportunities 

to provide public comment. Individuals 

desiring to participate in the roundtable 

discussions must register by sending an 

email to HigherEducationRoundtable.

2011@ed.gov. The email should include 

the name of the participant and his or 

her affiliation, and identify which 

policy roundtable discussion she or he 

would like to participate in, and at 

which location. We will attempt to 

accommodate each participant’s 

preference but, if we are unable to do so, 

we will make the determination based 

on the time and date the email was 

received. The Department will notify 

each registrant by email of the specific 

location and roundtable discussion he 

or she was selected to participate in. An 

individual may only participate in one 

roundtable discussion per location. If 

we receive more registrations than we 

are able to accommodate, the 

Department reserves the right to reject 

the registration of an entity or 

individual that is affiliated with an 

entity or individual that is already 

scheduled to participate in the same 

roundtable discussion, and to select 

among registrants to ensure that a broad 

range of entities and individuals are 

allowed to present. We will accept 

walk-in participants on a first-come 

first-served basis beginning at 8:30 a.m. 

on the day of each roundtable 

discussion at the Department’s on-site 

registration table. 

The public hearing/roundtable sites 

are accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. Individuals needing an 

auxiliary aid or service to participate in 

the hearing or a roundtable discussion 

(e.g., interpreting service, assistive 

listening device, or materials in 

alternative format), should notify the 

contact person identified for 

information about hearings listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in 

this document in advance of the 

scheduled hearing date. Although we 

will attempt to meet any request we 

receive, we may not be able to make 

available the requested auxiliary aid or 

service if we do not have sufficient time 

to arrange it. 

Schedule for Negotiations 

We anticipate that any negotiated 

rulemaking committees established after 

these public hearings will begin 

negotiations in August or September 

2011, with each committee meeting for 

up to three sessions of approximately 

three days at roughly monthly intervals. 

The committees will meet in the 

Washington, DC area. The dates and 

locations of these meetings will be 

announced in a subsequent document in 

the Federal Register, and will be posted 

on the Department’s Web site at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/

reg/hearulemaking/2011/hearings.html. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site you can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: http://

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022– 

1022h, 1098a. 

Dated: April 28, 2011. 

Eduardo M. Ochoa, 

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10909 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0556; FRL–9302–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; North 

Dakota; Revisions to the Air Pollution 

Control Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the North Dakota State 

Implementation Plan that the Governor 

of North Dakota submitted with a letter 

dated April 6, 2009. The revisions affect 

North Dakota’s air pollution control 

rules regarding general provisions 

(including rules regarding shutdowns 

and malfunctions), ambient air quality 

standards, emissions of particulate 

matter, permitting, and fees. In addition, 

EPA is proposing administrative 

corrections to the regulatory text for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25653 

North Dakota that will be codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations; we made 

errors in the identification of plan table 

when we approved the North Dakota 

State Implementation Plan revisions for 

Interstate Transport of pollution, which 

the Governor also submitted on April 6, 

2009. This action is being taken under 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 6, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0556, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Fallon.Gail@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are 

faxing comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2009– 

0556. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I, 

‘‘General Information,’’ of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. 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, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail 

Fallon, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6281, 

Fallon.Gail@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. Analysis of SIP Revisions 

IV. Corrections to Regulatory Text 

V. Section 110(l) 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, the 

following definitions apply: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Federal Clean Air 

Act, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(v) The words State or ND mean the 

State of North Dakota, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(vi) The initials NDDH mean or refer 

to the North Dakota Department of 

Health. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1This interpretation has been expressed in 

several documents. Most relevant to this action are 

the following: Memorandum dated September 28, 

1982, from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant 

Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation, 

entitled ‘‘Policy on Excess Emissions During 

Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions’’ (the 1982 Memorandum); a 

clarification to that memorandum from Kathleen M. 

Bennett issued on February 15, 1983 (the 1983 

Memorandum); and a memorandum dated 

September 20, 1999 entitled ‘‘State Implementation 

Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,’’ from Steven 

A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation (the 1999 Memorandum). As 

explained in these memoranda, because excess 

emissions might aggravate air quality so as to 

prevent attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS 

and compliance with other CAA requirements, EPA 

views all periods of excess emissions as violations 

of the applicable emission limitation. Therefore, 

EPA will disapprove SIP revisions that 

automatically exempt from enforcement excess 

emissions claimed to result from an equipment 

malfunction. In addition, as made explicit in the 

1999 Memorandum, EPA will disapprove SIP 

revisions that give discretion to a state director to 

determine whether an instance of excess emissions 

is a violation of an emission limitation, because 

such a determination could bar EPA and citizens 

from enforcing applicable requirements. 

II. Background 

The Act requires States to follow 

certain procedures in developing 

implementation plans and plan 

revisions for submission to us. Sections 

110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the Act provide 

that each implementation plan must be 

adopted after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. 

To provide for public comment, the 

North Dakota Department of Health 

(NDDH), after providing notice, held a 

public hearing on October 7, 2008 to 

consider the revisions to the Air 

Pollution Control Rules. Following the 

public hearing, comment period, and 

legal review by the North Dakota 

Attorney General’s Office, NDDH 

adopted the revisions. The revisions to 

the Air Pollution Control Rules became 

effective on April 1, 2009. The North 

Dakota Governor submitted the SIP 

revisions to us with a letter dated April 

6, 2009. This submittal also included (1) 

SIP revisions to address Interstate 

Transport requirements related to the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, 

which we acted on in 2010 (75 FR 

31290, June 3, 2010, and 75 FR 71023, 

November 22, 2010), and (2) SIP 

revisions (commonly referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements) to 

address implementation of current 

NAAQS for PM10, PM2.5, and ozone, 

which we will be acting on separately. 

In our June 3, 2010 and November 22, 

2010 actions on North Dakota’s 

Interstate Transport SIP revisions, we 

made errors in the identification of plan 

table located in 40 CFR 52.1820(e). We 

describe these errors in section IV, 

below. 

III. Analysis of SIP Revisions 

The SIP revisions in the April 6, 2009 

submittal that we are proposing to act 

on in this document involve the 

following chapters of the North Dakota 

Administrative Code (N.D.A.C.): 33–15– 

01, ‘‘General Provisions;’’ 33–15–02, 

‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards;’’ 33– 

15–05, ‘‘Emissions of Particulate Matter 

Restricted;’’ 33–15–14, ‘‘Designated Air 

Contaminant Sources, Permit to 

Construct, Minor Source Permit to 

Operate, Title V Permit to Operate;’’ and 

33–15–23, ‘‘Fees.’’ The following is our 

description and analysis of the 

revisions. 

A. Chapter 33–15–01, N.D.A.C., General 

Provisions 

The State revised sections 33–15–01– 

04, 33–15–01–05, and 33–15–01–13 and 

submitted the entire revised sections to 

us for approval. In section 33–15–01–04, 

the State made the following changes: 

(1) The State revised the definition of 

‘‘air contaminant’’ to add the words, 

‘‘emitted to the ambient air’’ to the end 

of definition; (2) the State added 

definitions for ‘‘excess emissions’’ and 

‘‘PM2.5;’’ (3) the State re-numbered the 

definitions to account for the addition of 

new definitions; and (4) the State crossreferenced and incorporated by 

reference the version of 40 CFR 

51.100(s) as it existed on March 1, 2008 

for purposes of defining ‘‘volatile 

organic compounds’’ (the prior date 

used was January 1, 2006). These 

changes are minor and are consistent 

with relevant CAA and regulatory 

requirements. 

In section 33–15–01–05, the State 

added abbreviations for PM and PM2.5. 

These revisions are minor and are 

consistent with the CAA. 

The State made several revisions to 

33–15–01–13, ‘‘Shutdown and 

Malfunction of an Installation— 

Requirement for notification.’’ In 33–15– 

01–13.1, ‘‘Maintenance shutdowns,’’ the 

State adopted new subdivision f, which 

reads, ‘‘Nothing in this subsection shall 

in any manner be construed as 

authorizing or legalizing the emission of 

air contaminants in excess of the rate 

allowed by this article or a permit 

issued pursuant to this article.’’ 

Previously, we had been concerned that 

the language of 33–15–01–13.1 could be 

construed as exempting from 

enforcement excess emissions during 

shutdown of air pollution control 

equipment for scheduled maintenance. 

EPA’s interpretation is that the CAA 

requires that all periods of excess 

emissions, regardless of cause, be 

treated as violations and that automatic 

exemptions from emissions limits are 

not appropriate.1 Subdivision f clarifies 

that excess emissions are not authorized 

during maintenance shutdowns. 

Subdivision f is consistent with CAA 

requirements. 

In 33–15–01–13.2, ‘‘Malfunctions,’’ the 

State removed certain language and 

added other language. In 33–15–01– 

13.2.a, the State removed language 

indicating that the State could permit 

the continued operation of an 

installation during a malfunction 

resulting in a violation of an emissions 

limit. We were concerned that this 

language could be construed to exempt 

excess emissions caused by 

malfunctions when the State granted 

permission to continue operations. 

EPA’s interpretation is that such an 

exemption would be inconsistent with 

the CAA. The removal of the language 

is consistent with CAA requirements. 

The State added 33–15–01–13.2.c to 

33–15–01–13.2. This new subdivision c 

identifies procedures sources and the 

State will follow with respect to 

unavoidable malfunctions. Where a 

source believes that excess emissions 

have resulted from an unavoidable 

malfunction, the source must submit a 

written report to the State that includes 

evidence relevant to six criteria 

specified in the rule. The report must be 

submitted within thirty days of the end 

of the calendar quarter in which the 

malfunction occurred or within thirty 

days of a written request by North 

Dakota, whichever is sooner. The rule 

provides that North Dakota will evaluate 

the information submitted by the source 

on a case-by-case basis to determine 

whether to pursue enforcement action 

and that North Dakota may elect not to 

pursue enforcement action after 

considering whether excess emissions 

resulted from an unavoidable 

equipment malfunction. The rule also 

provides that the burden of proof is on 

the source to provide sufficient 

information to demonstrate that an 

unavoidable equipment malfunction 

occurred. 

Under EPA’s interpretations of the 

CAA as set forth in the 1982, 1983, and 

1999 Memoranda, if a state in its SIP 

chooses to address violations that occur 

as a result of claimed malfunctions, the 

state may take two approaches. The 

first, the ‘‘enforcement discretion’’ 

approach, allows a state director to 

refrain from taking enforcement action 

for a violation if certain criteria are met. 

The second, the ‘‘affirmative defense’’ 

approach, allows a source to avoid 

penalties if it can prove that certain 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25655 

2The most recent version of the CFR was current 

as of July 1, 2010 and does not reflect the regulatory 

language contained in our November 22, 2010 

action. The regulatory language as contained in our 

November 22, 2010 action does appear in the 

electronic CFR on the GPOAccess website: http:// 

ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=

4d2eed6d6a2a14bd914c123a19f553c3&rgn=div8&

view=text&node=40:4.0.1.1.1.16.1.1&idno=40. 

conditions are met. North Dakota’s 33– 

15–01–13.2.c follows the enforcement 

discretion approach. 

We have evaluated North Dakota’s 

enforcement discretion provisions for 

excess emissions caused by unavoidable 

equipment malfunctions and find that 

they are consistent with EPA’s 

interpretations of the CAA as described 

in the memoranda above. In particular, 

the criteria specified in 33–15–01–13.2.c 

that the State will consider in deciding 

whether to pursue an enforcement 

action generally parallel the criteria 

outlined in the 1982 and 1983 

Memoranda. 

As noted in footnote 1, above, the 

1999 Memorandum also discusses a 

point not explicitly addressed in North 

Dakota’s new rule—i.e., EPA will not 

approve SIP revisions that recognize or 

appear to recognize a state’s decision 

not to pursue enforcement as barring 

enforcement action by EPA or citizens. 

Rule 33–15–01–13.2.c only addresses 

the State’s exercise of its enforcement 

discretion and contains no language 

suggesting that a State decision not to 

pursue an enforcement action for a 

particular violation bars EPA or citizens 

from taking an enforcement action. 

Therefore, EPA interprets the rule, 

consistent with EPA’s interpretations of 

the CAA, as not barring EPA and citizen 

enforcement of violations of applicable 

requirements when the State declines 

enforcement. 

In 33–15–01–13.3, ‘‘Continuous 

emission monitoring system failures,’’ 

the State removed the phrase, 

‘‘acceptable to the department,’’ from the 

text, ‘‘When a failure of a continuous 

emission monitoring system occurs, an 

alternative method, acceptable to the 

department, for measuring or estimating 

emissions must be undertaken as soon 

as possible.’’ Following this sentence, 

the State added a new sentence that 

reads as follows: ‘‘The owner or operator 

of a source that uses an alternative 

method shall have the burden of 

demonstrating that the method is 

accurate.’’ We had asked the State to 

remove the language ‘‘acceptable to the 

department’’ from the rule and find that 

the new language is consistent with 

CAA requirements. 

In previous rulemakings, we 

referenced an April 11, 2003 submission 

of revisions to 33–15–01–13 and 

indicated that we would act on that 

submission at a later date. See 69 FR 

61762, October 21, 2004; 70 FR 45539, 

October 8, 2005; and 71 FR 3764, 

January 24, 2006. However, in an 

August 17, 2009 letter, North Dakota 

advised EPA that the April 11, 2003 

submission erroneously indicated there 

had been revisions to 33–15–01–13.1.d, 

and that in fact the cited revisions to 

33–15–01–13.1.d had not been adopted 

and were not submitted to EPA with the 

Governor’s April 11, 2003 letter. 

Therefore, there are no remaining 

revisions from the April 11, 2003 

submittal awaiting EPA’s action. 

B. Chapter 33–15–02, N.D.A.C., Ambient 

Air Quality Standards 

Table 1 was revised to amend the 

PM10 and ozone standards and to add 

the 2006 PM2.5 standard. These 

revisions were made to reflect the 

Federal standards and are consistent 

with CAA requirements. 

C. Chapter 33–15–05, N.D.A.C., 

Emissions of Particulate Matter 

Restricted 

The State removed section 33–15–05– 

03.2.2.d., which provided that the State 

could approve continued operation of a 

trash incinerator during a malfunction 

of combustion equipment, emission 

control equipment, monitoring 

equipment, or waste charging 

equipment. We were concerned that 

section 33–15–05–03.2.2.d could be 

construed to exempt excess emissions at 

trash incinerators caused by 

malfunctions when the State granted 

permission to the source to continue 

operations. EPA’s interpretation is that 

such an exemption would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. We asked 

the State to address our concern. The 

removal of section 33–15–05–03.2.2.d 

addresses our concern and is consistent 

with CAA requirements. The SIP will no 

longer provide a potential exemption to 

trash incinerators operating during 

malfunctions based on State approval of 

continued operation during such 

periods. Instead, malfunctions at trash 

incinerators would be treated the same 

as malfunctions at other sources subject 

to SIP requirements—i.e., the source 

would need to follow the procedures 

contained in section 33–15–01–13.2. 

D. Chapter 33–15–14, N.D.A.C., 

Designated Air Contaminant Sources, 

Permit To Construct, Minor Source 

Permit To Operate, Title V Permit To 

Operate 

In section 33–15–14–01, ‘‘Designated 

Air Contaminant Sources,’’ the State 

revised the list of sources ‘‘capable of 

causing or contributing to air pollution.’’ 

Specifically, the State added the word 

‘‘major’’ to 33–15–14–01.14 so that it 

now reads as follows: ‘‘Any major source 

to which a national emission standard 

for hazardous air pollutants for source 

categories (40 CFR 63) would apply.’’ 

This change only affects the 

applicability of certain permitting 

requirements contained in Chapter 33– 

15–14. It does not affect emission limits 

in the SIP or other requirements that 

would affect ambient concentrations of 

criteria pollutants. It also does not affect 

the applicability of 40 CFR part 63 

requirements. This change is consistent 

with CAA requirements. 

E. Chapter 33–15–23, N.D.A.C., Fees 

The State revised section 33–15–23– 

03, ‘‘Minor source permit to operate 

fees.’’ The State simplified the definition 

of a ‘‘designated’’ source. (The rule 

establishes a fee for designated sources.) 

The State also expanded the exemption 

from fees for State government facilities 

to include local government facilities. 

This latter revision simply codified the 

State’s standing practice of not 

collecting fees from local governments. 

In addition, the State made a minor 

change to the due date for sources to 

submit the annual permit fee; the fee is 

now due within 60 days following the 

date of the State’s fee notice rather than 

within 60 days of receipt of the fee 

notice. These are minor clarifying 

changes that do not impact compliance 

with CAA requirements. 

IV. Corrections to Regulatory Text 

On June 3, 2010 and November 22, 

2010 we published final rules approving 

portions of the revised North Dakota SIP 

for Interstate Transport of Pollution for 

the 1997 PM2.5 and 8–Hour Ozone 

NAAQS. See 75 FR 31290 and 75 FR 

71023. When we published those rules, 

we included regulatory text that was 

incorrect. Specifically, we made errors 

in the ‘‘Identification of plan’’ table 

contained in 40 CFR 52.1820(e), ‘‘EPAapproved nonregulatory provisions.’’ As 

published in our November 22, 2010 

action (which augmented and revised 

the table contained in our June 3, 2010 

action), the first portion of the 

explanation for item (1) in the table read 

as follows: ‘‘Excluding subsequent 

revisions, as follows: Chapters 1, 2, 6, 7, 

9, 11, and 12; Sections 2.11, 3.7, 6.8, 

6.10, 6.11, 6.13, 7.7, and 8.3; 

subsections 7.8.1.B., 7.8.1.D., and 

8.3.1.’’ 2 It should have read, ‘‘Excluding 

subsequent revisions, as follows: 

Chapters 6, 11, and 12; Sections 2.11, 

3.7, 6.10, 6.11, 6.13, and 8.3; and 

Subsections 3.2.1, 5.2.1, 7.8.1.A, 7.8.1.B, 

7.8.1.C, and 8.3.1.’’ We also incorrectly 

listed the submittal date for items (21) 

and (22) in the table as 4/09/09 instead 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3North Dakota has no nonattainment areas. Thus, 

CAA part D requirements, including the 

requirement to make reasonable further progress 

toward attainment, do not apply in North Dakota. 

of 4/06/09. Therefore, we are proposing 

to correct the identification of plan table 

in 40 CFR 52.1820(e) accordingly. 

V. Section 110(l) 

Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA 

cannot approve a SIP revision if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. As described in 

section III, above, most of the revisions 

we are proposing to approve conform 

the North Dakota SIP to relevant CAA 

requirements. In particular, the State 

revised shutdown and malfunction 

provisions to comport with CAA 

requirements. The other changes we are 

proposing to approve are minor and will 

not interfere with attainment or 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the NAAQS 3 or any other 

CAA requirements. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to the North Dakota SIP that the 

Governor of North Dakota submitted 

with a letter dated April 6, 2009 and 

that were State-effective April 1, 2009. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve North Dakota’s revisions to the 

following portions of the North Dakota 

Administrative Code: Chapter 33–15– 

01, ‘‘General Provisions,’’ sections 33– 

15–01–04, 33–15–01–05, and 33–15–01– 

13; Chapter 33–15–02, ‘‘Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ section 33–15–02, 

Table 1; Chapter 33–15–05, ‘‘Emissions 

of Particulate Matter Restricted,’’ 

subsection 33–15–05–03.2.2; Chapter 

33–15–14, ‘‘Designated Air Contaminant 

Sources, Permit to Construct, Minor 

Source Permit to Operate, Title V Permit 

to Operate,’’ subsection 33–15–14– 

01.14; and Chapter 33–15–23, ‘‘Fees,’’ 

section 33–15–23–03. See section III of 

this action, above, for a description of 

these revisions. 

In addition, EPA is proposing 

administrative corrections to the 

regulatory text for North Dakota that 

will appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Specifically, we are 

proposing to change the identification of 

plan table that will appear at 40 CFR 

52.1820(e) as follows: 

a. We will change the first portion of 

the explanation for item (1) in the table 

to read, ‘‘Excluding subsequent 

revisions, as follows: Chapters 6, 11, 

and 12; Sections 2.11, 3.7, 6.10, 6.11, 

6.13, and 8.3; and Subsections 3.2.1, 

5.2.1, 7.8.1.A, 7.8.1.B, 7.8.1.C, and 

8.3.1.’’ 

b. We will change the submittal dates 

for items (21) and (22) in the table to 

read, ‘‘4/06/09.’’ 

See section IV of this action, above, 

for further information regarding these 

corrections. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is therefore not subject to 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: April 27, 2011. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10995 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 1809 

RIN 2700–AD54 

Responsibility; Suspension and 

Debarment 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NASA is revising the NASA 

FAR Supplement (NFS) to update 

internal processing procedures related 

to suspension and debarment. Although 

the procedures do not impact the public 

and will not be codified in the Code of 

Federal Regulations, one related change 

does impact the public and that is a new 

requirement for contracting officers to 

notify prospective contractors if they are 

found to be non-responsible. 

Notification provides the prospective 

contractor with the opportunity to take 

corrective action prior to future 

solicitations. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

comments to NASA at the address 

below on or before July 5, 2011 to be 

considered in formulation of the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments, identified by RIN 

number 2700–AD54, using either of the 

following methods: (1) Regulations.gov: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Submit 

comments via the Federal eRulemaking 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS