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 Dakota
i^^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 

+•1i 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 cv^—,, ^:

^!1 

t 

f'! 

W 

Q 

r J O 0 

Q 0= ^ ^o 

Q ^ W 

00 Q ^ J z 

2L 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