ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION



### NORTH DAKOTA Gold Seal Center, 918 E. Divide Ave. Bismarck, ND 58501-1947
^ r

. DEPARTMENT O HEALTH

f 701.328.5200 (fax) ^. ^ a

. : • ^. www.ndhealth.gov February 21, 2014 Gina McCarthy Administrator US EPA Headquarters William Jefferson Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 1101 A Washington, DC 20460 Janet McCabe Acting Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation US EPA Headquarters William Jefferson Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 6101A Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator McCarthy and Assistant Administrator McCabe: We have been in contact with environmental protection commissioners and public health officials representing several states from across the "eoiintry interested in expressing the unique proposed challenges greenhouse gas regulations would have on energy producing states. Each of the States has a significant interest in the productioin and/or distri'oution of energy across our country. As such, we write to express the need for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to promptly make adequate the public comment period arid process associated with EPA's proposed rules for new and existing energy production facilities. We are concerned that EPA's proposed rule entitled "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources," 79 Fed. Reg..1430 (.1.an. 8, 2014), provides,a mere 60 day public comment period, which EPA currently has announced will close on March 10, 2014. Such a. truncat:.d period on this significarit rulemaking is. far less,zhan EPA routinely affords for other important and wide reaching agency proposals and does not give adequate time for the States to consider the proposed iule, discuss with EPA concerns or comments to the proposal and to tlien submit formal written comments. The States were pleased to hear the President express in his State of the Union address that he has directed his administration to work with the States to set new emission standards. We look forward to working with EPA on this important issue. Our request that EPA immediately grant a modest enlargement of both the timing and nature of the current rulemaking process stems from the fact that the Clean Air Act expressly reserves a role for the States to work with EPA as partners in implementing important measures for protecting air quality and allowing responsible energy production and other economic developmen.t. That important aspect of longstanding law and policy has commonly been referred to as "cooperative federalism" and it is fundamental to how States meaningfully exercise their regulatory programs involving environmental protection and energy development. EPA's current proposed rule,involves.complex technical issues that have many far reaching implications for our States and we.are thus greatly concerned that the existing rulemaking schedule is not adequate to identify and communicate the full nature of comments and suggestions we may have to EPA.

.,,

Environmental Health Division of bivision of Division of Division of Section Chiefs Of°ice Air Quality Municipal Facilities Waste Management Water Quality 701.328.5150 701.328.5188 701.328.5211 701.328.5166 , • 701.328.5210 Printed on recycled paper.2.

We are keenly aware that you both have suggested EPA wishes to receive substantive input from the states before EPA, under the President's direction, makes any final decisions for moving forward with the development of greenhouse gas regulations. In that light (and not meant as an endorsement of EPA's proposed regulatory initiatives), the States represented here respectfully request your immediate consideration of our request for EPA to extend the period for public comment on the proposed rule to June 2, 2014. In addition, we also request that you work with us by participating (and any other States who may wish to participate) in a State-EPA roundtable in Bismarck, North Dakota scheduled for April 16-17, 2014 where both partners under the Clean Air Act may have an open and meaningful dialogue on EPA's NSPS rulemakings. Given the linkage EPA acknowledges between CAA § 111(b) and I 11(d), any dialogue should include discussion on the nature and scope of guidelines for the standards EPA may develop. In such a forum, States can expect to ask questions of EPA and expect to receive direct EPA responses, and of course, EPA could expect the same from those participating States. It is crucial for EPA to participate in a comprehensive and fu11 discussion that includes those States that will be most affected. We believe immediately acting to honor our request is the best way to give real and sincere effect to State-EPA relations as partners under the Clean Air Act. Only by EPA extending the period for public cormnent and sitting down with interested States will EPA be more fully and directly informed on issues associated with its current approach and be in a better position to think over all aspects of the Agency's proposed rule before finalizing such a significant rule. We look forward to your timely response to our request.

Sincerely,

. 

# ;• / ^ ^
Lance LeFleur, Alabama

Tom Easterly, Indiana 

# /

L. David Glatt, North Dakotai^^t^ y



# ^}

ssvio lsaiJ a312lOS3Md 

# W C_^ 

### ^ 0 = W W ~ 

# ^ y W ^ W W 

# ^ ri) o v o ^ o m W N Y Z OO N H 

### ^ 

# 1 ^m 

# ^ I 

# Ii co ^ C2 ^^ ^ U- ' o NOO
+ •1 i 5fiti..

^ ^ • L'=

. • i^ :^! ^ 

# CY) r
to 

### N J U W
(D ry C) 

### O m 

# z ^ O f— E — 

## Z

Z 

# ^U Q^ Q^O zc°^ 

### QcnQQU
Of 

## H 0 w ^ } z 

# U=^pZO U 

## ^OwZ z w o Q ^^^2 c

v^— ,, ^: ^!1

t f'!

W 

### Q

r J O 0 Q 

## 0= ^ 

## ^o
W Q ^ 00 Q ^ J 

### z 

## 2 L W 

### Q^^ W 

## ^O m N 0

Y ^" ^

W Jo

co 

## O a Zv 

## z Q^ Z o 2EQY 2i o

^_ 0 Q U_ 6 > J ^ ^ ,- ^_

W^ Co ^ o O ln U 

# r^

0 4ra

cc Ye

co LLI 14