[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22227-22235]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10208]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0026; FRL-9978-02--Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
North Dakota; Revisions to Air Pollution Control Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of North Dakota on January 28, 2013, and November 11, 2016. The
EPA is proposing to approve amendments to North Dakota's general
provisions, permit to construct, prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality, oil and gas, and fees regulations.
In addition, amendments to the permit program include the regulation of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), which may be regulated under section
112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Thus, the EPA is taking this action
pursuant to sections 110 and 112 of CAA.

DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before June
13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0026, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 28, 2013, the State of North Dakota submitted a SIP
revision containing amendments to Article 33-15 Air Pollution Control
rules. We approved some of these revisions on October 21, 2016 (81 FR
72716) and on October 10, 2017 (82 FR 46919). The remaining amendments
revise the PSD rules and add a general permit to construct provision.
We will address the PSD revision related to modeling in a separate
action. The North Dakota State Health Council adopted the amendments on
August 14, 2012 (effective January 1, 2013).
    On November 11, 2016, the State of North Dakota submitted a SIP
revision containing amendments to Article 33-15 Air Pollution Control
rules. The amendments: Update the definition of ``volatile organic
compounds'' and PSD rules; revise permit to construct and PSD public
participation methods; clarify applicability of oil and gas
regulations; increase the application and processing fees; add a
significant emission rate for greenhouse gas carbon dioxide equivalent;
add a definition of ``actively producing'' oil and gas wells; remove
greenhouse gas provisions relating to the determination of a major
source and major modification; remove the expired exemption of
greenhouse gases from biogenic sources; and streamline a provision
related to oil and gas registration and reporting. The North Dakota
State Health Council adopted the amendments on February 24, 2016
(effective July 1, 2016).

II. Analysis of State Submittals

    We evaluated North Dakota's January 28, 2013 and November 11, 2016
submittals regarding revisions to the State's Air Pollution Control
rules.

A. January 28, 2013 Submittal

1. Chapter 33-15-14, Designated Air Contaminant Sources, Permit To
Construct, Minor Source Permit To Operate, Title V Permit To Operate
    The State added a ``General permit'' to construct rule in 33-15-14-
02.1.c. providing the State with authority to issue a general permit to
construct ``covering numerous similar minor sources.'' The addition of
North Dakota's general permit to construct rule establishes the
framework for general permits to be issued and references the
requirements and procedures that will be followed in developing the
conditions and terms for issuing each general permit. Under this new
rule, any general permit to construct shall comply with all the
requirements applicable to other permits to construct. The general
permit rule also specifies that any general permit ``shall identify
criteria by which sources may qualify for the general permit.''
Additionally, the rule requires that sources that would qualify for a
general permit must apply to the State for coverage under the terms of
the general permit, or apply for an individual permit to construct. The
rule also requires that the State ``shall grant the conditions and
terms of the general permit'' to sources that qualify. Finally, the
rule allows the State to grant a source's request for authorization to
construct under a general permit without repeating the public
participation procedures under subsection 6 of section 33-15-14-02. We
propose to approve the State's general permit regulation into the SIP
based on the following analysis.
a. Sources Covered Under the General Permit To Construct Provision
    The revision specifies that the State may issue a general permit to
construct covering numerous similar sources which are not subject to
permitting requirements under chapter 33-15-13 (Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants), 33-15-15 (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality), or subpart B of 33-15-22-03 (Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories). Our
discussions with the State also revealed that North Dakota interprets
the rule to include sources that will voluntarily accept conditions in
the general permit that limit emissions below the major source
thresholds (i.e., synthetic minor permits). Thus, the new general
permit to construct rule provides the State with an option to develop
general permits for the following three types of sources: Minor sources
of criteria pollutants (potential emissions below the major source
thresholds in 33-15-15); minor sources of hazardous air pollutants
(potential emissions below the major source thresholds in 33-15-13 and
33-15-22-03); and minor sources of either criteria or hazardous air
pollutants that elect to apply for general permits to limit emissions
below major source thresholds (i.e., synthetic minor permits). The
general permit rule allows sources to comply with the State's existing
minor new source SIP rules by obtaining approval to construct via a
general permit issued by the State in lieu of obtaining approval to
construct via an individual permit. Therefore, we evaluate in II.A.1.c
whether the regulation is consistent with the federal requirements
associated with SIPs under (i.e., section 110 of the CAA), our
regulations, and applicable guidance.
    Finally, in addition to criteria pollutants, as explained above,
sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) may also be eligible for
coverage under North Dakota's general permit program. HAPs are
regulated under sections 111 and 112 of the CAA. Section 112(l) allows
the EPA to approve a state's permit program if it meets the following
statutory criteria for approval under section 112(l)(5): (1) Contains
adequate authority to assure compliance with any section 112 standards,
regulations, or requirements; (2) provides for adequate authority and
resources to implement the program; (3) provides for an expeditious
schedule for assuring compliance with section 112 requirements; and (4)
is otherwise in compliance with agency guidance and is likely to
satisfy the objectives of the CAA.
    Regarding the first criteria, North Dakota's general permit program
contains adequate authority to assure compliance with section 112
requirements since the third criteria of the ``Requirements for the
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans'' \1\
(EPA's 1989 rulemaking) requiring all emissions limitations, controls,
and other requirements imposed will be at least as stringent as any
other applicable limitations and requirements contained in the SIP or
enforceable under the SIP, and that the program may not issue permits
that waive, or make less stringent, any limitation or requirements
contained in or issued pursuant to the SIP, or that are otherwise
``federally enforceable'' (e.g., standards established under sections
111 and 112 of the Act), is met by the both the permit to construct and
general permit programs, i.e., because the programs do not provide for
waiving any section 112 requirement. (Refer to our full analysis in
II.A.1.c.) Regarding the requirement for adequate resources, the State
has demonstrated that it can provide for adequate resources to
implement and enforce the program through the fees it charges. See
Chapter 33-15-23, Fees, and refer to our full analysis in II.B.5. North
Dakota's general permit meets the third criteria to provide for an
expeditious schedule for assuring

compliance with section 112 requirements because nothing in the State's
program would allow a source to avoid or delay compliance with federal
HAPs requirements if it fails to obtain the appropriate federally
enforceable limit by the relevant deadline. Finally, North Dakota's
general permit program is consistent with the intent of section 112 and
the CAA since its purpose is to enable sources to obtain federally
enforceable limits on potential to emit. In addition to the statutory
criteria found in section 112(l)(5), the criteria outlined in 40 CFR
51.160-51.162 as well as the criteria for approving federally
enforceable state operating permits must be met in order to create
federally enforceable limits on the potential to emit HAPs under a
general permit. We describe how North Dakota's general permit program
will meet both of these criteria in II.A.1.c. Thus, the EPA is also
proposing to approve the State's general permit program under section
112(l) of the Act for the purpose of creating federally enforceable
limitations on the potential to emit HAPs regulated under section 112
of the CAA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 54 FR 27274 (June 28, 1989).
    \2\ The EPA approved North Dakota's construction permit and
federally enforceable state operating permit (FESOP) programs under
section 112(l) of the amended CAA for the purposes of creating
federally enforceable permit conditions for sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). 60 FR 43396, 43398-43399 (August 21, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Background and Requirements for General Permit SIPs and North
Dakota's Submittals
    Typically, a general permit is a permit document that contains
standardized requirements that multiple stationary sources can use. For
less complex plant sites, and for source categories involving
relatively few operations that are similar in nature, case-by-case
permitting may not be the most administratively efficient approach to
establishing federally enforceable restrictions. One approach that has
been used is to establish a general permit, which creates enforceable
restrictions at one time that can then be used for many similar
sources. A general permit contains all of the emissions limitations,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that a source in a
given source category would be subject. Thus, the purpose of a general
permit is to provide for protection of air quality while simplifying
the permit process for similar minor sources. If the general permit
rule is approved by the EPA into the SIP, then the permits are
federally enforceable.
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that each implementation
plan include a program to regulate the construction and modification of
stationary sources, including a permit program as required by parts C
and D of title I of the CAA, as necessary to assure that the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are achieved. Parts C and D,
which pertain to PSD and nonattainment, respectively, address the major
new source review (NSR) programs for major stationary sources, and the
permitting program for ``nonmajor'' (or ``minor'') stationary sources
is addressed by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. We commonly refer to
the latter program as the ``minor NSR'' program. A minor stationary
source is a source whose ``potential to emit'' is lower than the major
source applicability threshold for a particular pollutant as defined in
the applicable major NSR program.
    To evaluate the approvability of a state minor source SIP permit
revision, the changes must meet all applicable requirements (procedural
and substantive) of 40 CFR part 51 and the CAA. The EPA's requirements
for SIP approval applicable to minor NSR permitting programs are
established in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I--Review of New Sources and
Modifications, Sec. Sec.  51.160 through 51.164. Additionally, since
the State interprets this general permit rule to apply to synthetic
minor sources, the EPA applies the criteria in the EPA's 1989
rulemaking, and in the EPA's January 25, 1995 memorandum ``Guidance on
Enforceability Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP
and Sec.  112 and General Permits'' (EPA's 1995 guidance).\3\ Finally,
we consider Section 110(l) of the CAA to evaluate whether the SIP
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment, reasonable progress, or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Guidance an Enforceability Requirements for Limiting
Potential to Emit through SIP and Sec.  112 Rules and General
Permits. January 25, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Evaluation of General Permit To Construct Provisions
    As stated previously, the EPA has the authority to approve these
types of general permits if they are incorporated into the SIP. In
order for North Dakota's general permit to construct rule to be
incorporated into the SIP, the rule must meet certain legal and
practical federal requirements.
    The EPA's regulatory requirements for SIP approval applicable to
minor NSR permitting programs are established in 40 CFR part 51,
subpart I--Review of New Sources and Modifications, Sec. Sec.  51.160
through 51.164. The EPA approved North Dakota's minor NSR permitting
program on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43396). That approval covered permits
issued on an individual basis. North Dakota's May 3, 2018 letter to the
EPA, explains that the State interprets their general permit rule 33-
15-14-02.1.c. to require the same minor NSR permitting program elements
the EPA previously approved.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter from Terry O'Clair, Director, Division of Air
Quality, North Dakota Department of Health to Monica Morales,
Director, EPA Region 8 Air Program, May 3, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's 1989 rulemaking describes five criteria that must be met
in order for emissions controls and limitation to be federally
enforceable and thereby approvable into the SIP. The EPA's 1989
rulemaking criteria are as follows:
    (1) The State operating permit program (i.e., the regulations or
other administrative framework describing how such permits are issued)
is submitted to and approved by the EPA into the SIP.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ States are not required to include operating permit programs
in their SIP. Participation is voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The SIP imposes a legal obligation that operating permit
holders adhere to the terms and limitations of such permits (or
subsequent revisions of the permit made in accordance with the approved
operating permit program) and provides that permits which do not
conform to the operating permit program requirements and the
requirements of the EPA's underlying regulations may be deemed not
``federally enforceable'' by the EPA.
    (3) The State operating permit program requires that all emissions
limitations, controls, and other requirements imposed by such permits
will be at least as stringent as any other applicable limitations and
requirements contained in the SIP or enforceable under the SIP, and
that the program may not issue permits that waive, or make less
stringent, any limitation or requirements contained in or issued
pursuant to the SIP, or that are otherwise ``federally enforceable''
(e.g., standards established under sections 111 and 112 of the Act).
    (4) The limitations, controls, and requirements in the operating
permits are permanent, quantifiable, and otherwise enforceable as a
practical matter.
    (5) The permits are issued subject to public participation, which
we analyze in section II.B.2. This means that the State agrees, as part
of its program to provide the EPA and the public with timely notice of
the proposal and issuance of such permits, and to provide

the EPA, on a timely basis, with a copy of each proposed (or draft) and
final permit intended to be federally enforceable. This process must
also provide for an opportunity for public comment on the permit
applications prior to issuance of the final permit.
    When the EPA approved North Dakota's minor source permitting
program, the EPA determined that the State's program met the criteria
in the EPA's 1989 rulemaking as applied to individual sources.\6\
Therefore, in this notice we apply the five criteria from that
rulemaking to the general permit regulation and the provisions in the
State's current SIP and proposed amendments to other State rules that
are also part of the general permit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 60 FR 43399 (August 21, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to fulfilling the requirements of the first criteria
that requires the permit program regulations and administrative
framework to be approved by the EPA into the SIP, the general permit
rule requires that general permits comply with all existing permit
regulations. The existing permit regulations in the SIP currently
include 33-15-01, General Provisions, 33-15-14-02, Permit to Construct,
33-15-14-03, Minor Source Permit to Operate, and 33-15-23, Fees
including construction and operating fees, which provide the
regulations and administrative framework to describe how such permits
are issued. Furthermore, North Dakota's general permit rule requires
that the ``general permit shall comply with all requirements applicable
to other permits to construct.'' We interpret these requirements for
minor sources to include the following SIP requirements: The
application and submission of plans (33-15-14-02.2 and 33-15-14-02.15,
respectively); denial and issuance of permits (33-15-14-02.7 and 33-15-
14-02.8, respectively); scope and transfer of permits (33-15-14-02.10
and 33-15-14-02.11, respectively), as well as performance and emission
testing (33-15-14-02.14); responsibility to comply (33-15-14-02.15);
and permit amendments (33-15-14-02.19), among others. The SIP
requirements also include the State's existing minor source permit
rules that specify the terms and conditions for a permit application
(33-15-14-02.9).
    For the second criteria, North Dakota's SIP regulations impose a
legal obligation that permit holders adhere to the terms and
limitations of the permits, which would include a general permit, so
that violation of any conditions of the general permit may result in
the revocation or suspension of the permit or other appropriate
enforcement action (33-15-14-02.9 and 33-15-14-03.7). Furthermore, 33-
15-14-02.7 states ``no permit to construct or modify may be granted if
such construction, modification, or installation, will result in a
violation of this article'' and 33-15-14-03.1.b states ``no person may
operate or cause the operation of an installation or source in
violation of any permit to operate or any condition imposed upon a
permit to operate or in violation of this article.'' North Dakota's May
3, 2018 letter confirms the State interprets the general permit
regulation to include these legal obligations. Together, these rules
satisfy the second criteria that the permittee must comply with the
permit conditions.
    For the third criteria, which requires that all emission
limitations, controls, and other requirements be at least as stringent
as any other requirements in the SIP, North Dakota's permit to operate
rules (33-15-14-03.6) require ``all emission limitations, controls, and
other requirements imposed by conditions on the permit to operate must
be at least as stringent as any applicable limitation or requirement
contained in this article.'' In addition, if the proposed construction
project will cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable air
quality standard, the State's May 3, 2018 letter explains that the
State will deny approval of the proposed project to be covered under a
general permit to construct (33-15-14-02.5.a and 33-15-14-02.7).
    North Dakota's construction and operating permitting rules require
a 30-day public comment period (33-15-14-03.5 and 33-15-14-02.6,
respectively) in addition to providing the EPA with a copy of the
proposed permit and all information considered in the development of
the permit in order to provide an opportunity to review the permit and
ensure that the limitations, controls, and requirements in the permits
are permanent, quantifiable, and otherwise enforceable as a practical
matter and thereby meet the fourth criteria that the permit conditions
be enforceable as a practical matter. Although the January 28, 2013 SIP
submittal does not include an explanation of, or requirements for, the
public participation requirements North Dakota is required to provide
prior to issuing a general permit, the State subsequently adopted
revisions to the general permit rule in 33-15-14-02.1.c that provide
for public participation prior to issuance and renewal of general
permits. These provisions for public participation are in the SIP
submittal the EPA received from the State on November 11, 2016, and are
discussed in section II.B.2 of this notice. The November 11, 2016
revisions require that ``a proposed general permit, any changes to a
general permit, and any renewal of a general permit shall be subject to
public comment'' and that the public comment procedures under
subsection 6 of section 33-15-14-02 shall be used.\7\ The EPA
determined that with respect to general permits, the EPA and the public
do not need to be involved in the review of individual applicants
requesting coverage under a general permit ``since the rule
establishing the program does not provide the specific standards to be
met by the source, each general permit, but not each application under
each general permit, must be issued pursuant to public and EPA notice
and comment.'' \8\ As discussed previously, North Dakota must also
provide the EPA with a copy of the proposed general permit for review.
Together, these rules meet the fifth criteria that permits issued are
subject to public participation. In summary, we propose to conclude
that the State's general permit to construct rule meets the
aforementioned five criteria for emissions controls and limitation to
be federally enforceable as described by the EPA's 1989 rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Guidance an Enforceability Requirements for Limiting
Potential to Emit through SIP and Sec.  112 Rules and General
Permits. January 25, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the EPA's 1989 rulemaking, the general permit to
construct rule must also be in accordance with six enforceability
criteria, which are described in the EPA's 1995 guidance, that a rule
or a general permit must meet to make limits enforceable as a practical
matter:
    (1) Specific applicability: The general permit must apply to a
specific and narrow category.
    (2) Reporting or notice to permitting authority: Sources electing
coverage under general permits where coverage is not mandatory, provide
notice or reporting to the permitting authority.
    (3) Specific technically accurate limits: General permits provide
specific and technically accurate (verifiable) limits that restrict the
potential to emit.
    (4) Specific compliance monitoring: General permits contain
specific compliance requirements.
    (5) Practicably enforceable averaging times: Limits in general
permits are based on practicably enforceable averaging times.
    (6) Clearly recognized enforcement: Violations of limits by
synthetic minor sources are considered violations of the state and
federal requirements and

result in the source being subject to major source requirements.
    When the EPA approved North Dakota's minor source permitting
program, the EPA determined that the State's program met the criteria
described in the EPA's 1995 guidance as applied to individual
sources.\9\ Therefore, in this notice we review how the general permit
to construct program satisfies the enforceability requirements
described in the EPA's 1995 guidance in the context of the general
permit program. First, with respect to requirement (1), the general
permit to construct provision (33-15-14-02.1.c.) covers similar sources
and ``shall identify criteria by which sources may qualify for the
general permit.'' Therefore, each general permit is required to include
the criteria that will be used as the basis for determining whether a
source is eligible for the general permit. These criteria serve to
describe and narrow the sources for which general permits may be
established. In order to comply with the second enforceability criteria
(2) that all sources provide notice or reporting to the permitting
authority, all sources that qualify for a general permit must apply to
the state for coverage under the terms of the general permit, and
provide ongoing reports to the State, including monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting. Regarding compliance with requirements
(3) through (5) with respect to emission limits, compliance
requirements, and averaging times under both the general permit to
construct and the general permit to operate, sources shall comply with
all permit requirements to construct and operate, respectively.
Thereby, sources operating under a general permit to operate must
follow the emission limits and all other requirements subject to the
source under 33-15-14-03.6, Permit to Operate--Conditions. Likewise,
sources are also subject to similar conditions, including emission
limits, averaging times, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and
other requirements, under 33-15-14-02.9, Permit to Construct--
Conditions. Likewise, with respect to the final enforceability
requirement (6), violations of any conditions found in 33-15-14-02.9,
Permit to Construct--Conditions may result in revocation or suspension
of the permit or other appropriate action. Thus, violations of the rule
or general permit or violations of the specific conditions of the rule
or general permit subjects the source to potential enforcement under
the CAA and state law. In summary, we propose to conclude that North
Dakota's general permit to construct rule meets the aforementioned
criteria for enforceability as described in the EPA's 1995 guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 60 FR 43399 (August 21, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. 110(l) Analysis
    Finally, the EPA's evaluation of the general permit to construct
rule must consider Section 110(l) of the CAA, which states that the EPA
shall not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment, reasonable progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The provisions in 33-15-
14-02.1.c establish a general permit to construct program that allows
the State to develop and issue general permits to construct. Sources
may seek authorization under the general permit to construct program in
lieu of individual construction permits. Thus, under 110(l) of the CAA,
the addition of a general permit to construct program and resulting
authorizations allowing sources to construct must not interfere with
attainment, reasonable progress, or any other applicable requirements
of the CAA.
    We evaluated the addition of a general permit to construct program
for its impact on attainment, reasonable progress, and other applicable
requirements of the CAA. First, under the general permit to construct
revision, any general permit shall comply with all of the requirements
applicable to other permits, including a determination of whether
issuance of a permit to a specific category of proposed construction
projects will cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable
ambient air standard (33-15-14-02.5.a). Thus, as the State explained in
their May 3, 2018 letter, consistent with 33-15-14-02.5.a and 33-15-14-
02.7, if the State makes the determination that the proposed category
will cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable air standard,
the State would not propose a general permit. Ambient air monitoring,
modeling, or other assessment techniques will be used to ensure that
sources granted authority to construct under the general permit will
not violate applicable ambient air quality standards. In addition, the
State will consider any air quality concerns unique to specific areas
that arise after issuance of the general permit and when determining
whether an individual proposed project is eligible for coverage under
the general permit. For example, if a source wants to locate in an area
with air quality levels approaching or violating the NAAQS, North
Dakota may request that a source apply for a site-specific permit so
that the potential for greater control than that afforded by the
general permit can be evaluated.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Letter from Terry O'Clair, Director, Division of Air
Quality, North Dakota Department of Health to Monica Morales,
Director, EPA Region 8 Air Program, May 3, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Dakota is bound by State rules to grant the conditions and
terms of the general permit to sources that qualify or deny a source's
request if the source does not qualify. As the State explains in detail
in their May 3, 2018 letter, the SIP rules provide that the State's
decision for denying a source's request is based on 33-15-14-02.5.a and
33-15-14-02.7. Therefore, in addition to assuring that sources granted
authority to construct under a general permit will not violate
applicable standards, in the event the State determines (33-15-14-02.5)
that an individual source will violate the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national standard in the
State or in a neighboring state, North Dakota will have the ability to
require a proposed source to apply for and obtain an individual air
emission permit under 33-15-14-02, Permit to Construct, and perform an
ambient air quality analysis before the source begins actual
construction. Any sources that may be subject to modeling to determine
if they will cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable air
ambient air standard will not be eligible for a general permit.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, under the general permit to construct rule, a proposed
general permit, any changes to a general permit, and any renewal of a
general permit shall be subject to the public comment procedures at 33-
15-14-02.6 which allow 30 days for public comment. Based on the reasons
discussed previously, we propose to find that the addition of the
general permit to construct rule found at 33-15-14-02.1.c and the other
rules implemented in concert with the general permit rule are
equivalent to the permit to construct rules and will not interfere with
attainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA, and thereby, demonstrates compliance with
section 110(l) of the CAA providing further basis for proposed approval
of this SIP revision. There should be no impact on air quality as a
result of North Dakota's general permit rule because the sources
eligible for coverage under the general permit regulation will be
subject to terms and conditions in general permits, and those terms and
conditions are

equivalent to those applicable to source-specific minor permits to
construct, which includes the air quality SIP permitting requirements.
    Based on our evaluation of North Dakota's new general permit to
construct rule and SIP submittal, we propose to find that the general
permit rule meets the requirements of EPA rules, the EPA's 1989
rulemaking, criteria described in the EPA's 1995 guidance, and does not
interfere with attainment, reasonable progress, or any other applicable
requirements of the CAA. Therefore we propose to approve 33-15-14-
02.1.c., as amended with North Dakota's January 28, 2103 and November
11, 2016 SIP submittals, into the SIP.

B. November 11, 2016 Submittal

1. Chapter 33-15-01, General Provisions
    The CAA requires the regulation of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) for various purposes which the EPA defines at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
In its November 11, 2016 submittal, the State updates 33-15-01-04,
Definitions, to update the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR
51.100(s) at 33-15-01-04.52 for ``volatile organic compounds'' as it
exists on July 1, 2015. We are proposing to approve this revision
because it incorporates by reference the EPA's rule provisions.
2. Chapter 33-15-14, Designated Air Contaminant Sources, Permit To
Construct, Minor Source Permit To Operate, Title V Permit To Operate
    In the January 28, 2013 submittal, North Dakota amended chapter 33-
15-14-02, Permit to Construct, to include a general permit provision.
Refer to II.A.1 for further discussion. In the November 11, 2016
submittal, the State amended the general permit section to include
language pertaining to public participation as required by the EPA's
regulations.\12\ Specifically, ``a proposed general permit, any changes
to a general permit, and any renewal of a general permit shall be
subject to public comment'' following the public comment procedures
found in subsection 6, Public participation--Final action on
application, of section 33-15-14-02. However, portions of subsection
6(a) contain provisions related to ``director's discretion'' that
purport to permit revisions to SIP-approved emission limits with
limited public process or without requiring further approval by the
EPA. Thus, North Dakota committed to revise the reference for
``subsection 6 of 33-15-14-02'' to ``subdivision 6.b of 33-15-14-02''
in a future submittal.\13\ With the State's commitment to revise the
reference to ``subdivision 6.b of 33-15-14-02'', we propose to approve
the revisions to the general permit section in the November 11, 2016
submittal because they allow for public participation. For reasons
discussed in the following paragraph, we also propose to approve the
revision in subsection 33-15-14-02.6.b(2) that allows North Dakota to
post the application, proposed permit and analysis on the State's
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 40 CFR 51.161.
    \13\ Letter from Terry O'Clair, Director, Division of Air
Quality, North Dakota Department of Health to Monica Morales,
Director, EPA Region 8 Air Program, May 3, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Dakota added language in 33-15-14-03.5.a(1)(b) allowing a
copy of the proposed permit and copies of or a summary of the
information considered in developing the permit to be made available on
the State's website for public participation. This addition aligns with
40 CFR 51.161(b)(1) which allows States to post information submitted
by owners and operators along with the State's analysis of the effect
on air quality on a public website. As a result of having the option to
make information about proposed permits available on the State's
website instead of delivering paper copies of the information, North
Dakota also revised 33-15-14-03.5.a(1)(d) to reflect this change by
allowing the State to ``provide notice'' of the proposed permit and
public notice instead of ``delivering a copy'' of the permit and
notice. We propose to approve both of these revisions.
    North Dakota also modified the renewal terms of the permit to
operate in 33-15-14-03.9.a by revising the term of the permit from a
fixed 5-year period to a maximum term of 5 years. In addition,
applications for renewal must be submitted 90 days prior to the
expiration date stated in the permit instead of 90 days prior to the
5th anniversary of its issuance. These revisions strengthen the SIP by
allowing the State to issue operating permits for a term of less than 5
years, thus we propose to approve these revisions. Finally, North
Dakota removed language in 33-15-14-03.9.b referencing the State's
ability to amend permits issued prior to February 9, 1976, because that
language is no longer necessary. We agree with North Dakota and propose
to approve this revision.
3. Chapter 33-15-15, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality
    North Dakota makes several revisions in their November 2016
submittal to their PSD rules found in chapter 33-15-15.
    First, the State updated the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR
52.21 paragraphs (a)(2) through (e), (h) through (r), (v), (w), (aa)
and (bb) at 33-15-15-01.2 as they exist on July 1, 2015. The EPA
promulgated revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 since July 1, 2015, in response
to a court vacatur. Specifically, on June 23, 2014, the United States
Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, issued a
decision addressing the application of PSD permitting to greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions.\14\ The Supreme Court said the EPA may not treat GHGs
as air pollutants for purposes of determining whether a source is a
major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit.
The Court also said the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs,
contain limits on GHG emissions based on the application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT). In response to the UARG decision,
and the subsequent Amended Judgement issued by the DC Circuit (Amended
Judgement),\15\ the EPA revised the federal PSD rules to remove the
regulatory provisions that were specifically vacated by the Amended
Judgement removing 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v),
among other provisions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air Regulatory
Group v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).
    \15\ April 10, 2015, Amended Judgment by the D.C. Circuit in
Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-073,
10-1092 and 10-1167 (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015).
    \16\ 80 FR 50199 (August 19, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Dakota's adoption by reference of 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1,
2015, did not include the EPA's August 19, 2015 revisions to the
federal PSD program removing the PSD provisions vacated by the Amended
Judgement. The North Dakota SIP currently contains the vacated GHG
provisions (through the incorporation by reference of a previous
version of 40 CFR 52.21), so the EPA's proposed approval of the CFR
incorporation by reference update to July 1, 2015, does not change the
North Dakota SIP with respect to the vacated provisions. However, the
now-vacated portions of 40 CFR 52.21 incorporated into the North Dakota
SIP-approved PSD program are no longer enforceable. This portion of the
North Dakota SIP should

be revised in light of the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgement, but the
EPA also notes that these provisions may not be implemented even prior
to their removal from the North Dakota SIP because the court decisions
described above have determined these parts of the EPA's regulations
are unlawful. Further, North Dakota has advised the EPA that it is not
currently enforcing these provisions in light of the Supreme Court
decision and that North Dakota will update its incorporation by
reference of the CFR, including the August 19, 2015 revisions to 40 CFR
52.21 in a future submittal.\17\ We are therefore proposing to approve
the State's revision of the incorporation by reference date with the
understanding that the GHG provisions vacated by the court decisions
cannot by implemented and are not being enforced by North Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Letter from Terry O'Clair, Director, Division of Air
Quality, North Dakota Department of Health to Monica Morales,
Director, EPA Region 8 Air Program, May 3, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we evaluate the State's revisions to their incorporation by
reference of the EPA's PSD regulations to evaluate whether the
revisions are consistent with our regulations in effect at this time.
The State revised language in their incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2) exempting greenhouse gases, as defined in 40 CFR
86.1818-12(a), from the definition of a New Source Review (NSR)
pollutant for the purposes of defining a ``major source'' and ``major
modification,'' respectively. Specifically, the State's regulation
indicates for both definitions that ``[f]or purposes of this
definition, regulated NSR pollutant does not include greenhouse gases
as defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a).'' \18\ Thus, North Dakota
eliminated greenhouse gases from consideration when determining whether
a source is a ``major source'' or whether a change to major stationary
source is a ``major modification.'' The EPA amended its rules in a
different manner. The EPA's revisions that amended the rules after the
Court's holding that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for
purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to
obtain a PSD or title V permit, deleted 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v), which
required that ``[b]eginning July 1, 2011, in addition to the provisions
in paragraph (b)(49)(iv) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also
be subject to regulation, (a) At a new stationary source that will emit
or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy of a carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e); or (b) At an existing stationary source
that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO2e,
when such stationary source undertakes a physical change or change in
the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase of
75,000 tpy CO2e or more.'' 19 20 21 As discussed
previously, North Dakota acknowledges that their July 1, 2015
incorporation by reference date of some of the provisions in 40 CFR
52.21 included the provision at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) that was later
removed on August 19, 2015, and the State is not currently enforcing
this provision in light of the Court decision. Thus, we propose to
approve this revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ We note that the definition of GHGs in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a)
is a part of the definition of GHGs in the PSD rules 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(i), however, for purposes of analyzing approvability of
the State's SIP there is no practical effect in this difference.
    \19\ 80 FR 50199 (August 19, 2015).
    \20\ April 10, 2015, Amended Judgment by the D.C. Circuit in
Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-073,
10-1092 and 10-1167 (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015).
    \21\ To clarify potential questions regarding the difference
between the State and the EPA rules, we note that consistent with
our 2015 rulemaking, ``[i]n the case of sources that trigger PSD
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHG (``anyway sources'')
the PSD BACT requirement continues to apply to GHG emissions from
such sources . . . and that ``[w]hen an anyway source is modified,
under these provisions, the BACT requirement applies to GHGs if (1)
the modification is otherwise subject to PSD for a pollutant other
than GHG; and (2) the modification results in a GHG emissions
increase and a net GHG emission increase equal to or greater than
75,000 tpy or more on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)
basis and greater than zero on a mass basis.'' 80 FR 50199, 50201-
50202 (August 19, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, in the June 23, 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Court
upheld application of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
requirement for greenhouse gas emissions from new and modified sources
that trigger PSD permitting obligations on the basis of their emissions
of air pollutants other than greenhouse gases. Thus, if a source is
subject to PSD BACT requirements for a pollutant other than greenhouse
gases, the source remains subject to PSD BACT requirements for
greenhouse gases.
    North Dakota revised their incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i)
\22\ to include a significant pollutant and emission rate of 75,000
tons per year (tpy) or more of greenhouse gases on a carbon dioxide
equivalent basis. Although the North Dakota SIP submittal is structured
differently than the EPA's federal rules at 40 CFR 52.21, the primary
practical effect of both is the same: The PSD BACT requirement does not
apply to GHG emissions from an ``anyway source'' unless the source
emits GHGs at or above the 75,000 tpy threshold, which the State
confirmed in their letter.\23\ We propose to approve this revision
because it is consistent with the relevant provisions of 40 CFR 52.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The State recognizes their revised regulation inadvertently
does not include (b) after 40 CFR 52.21 and before (23)(i) and will
revise the language to read 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) in a future
submittal. Refer to letter from Terry O'Clair, Director, Division of
Air Quality, North Dakota Department of Health to Monica Morales,
Director, EPA Region 8 Air Program, May 3, 2018.
    \23\ Letter from Terry O'Clair, Director, Division of Air
Quality, North Dakota Department of Health to Monica Morales,
Director, EPA Region 8 Air Program, May 3, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note, however, that the EPA's proposed approval
is not based on determination by either the EPA or the state that
75,000 tpy CO2e is an appropriate de minimis level for GHGs.
The EPA's proposed approval of the significant emissions rate for GHGs
in North Dakota's rule is based only on the recognition that North
Dakota's rule applies the same applicability level for GHG BACT
requirement that is presently reflected in the EPA's regulations.
    In establishing the significance level, the State rulemaking does
not establish that 75,000 is a de minimis amount of GHG. Nothing in
North Dakota's rulemaking and nothing in this EPA action provide
support to substantiate 75,000 tpy significance level as a de minimis
level. See UARG, 134 S.Ct. 2427, at 2449 (noting that the EPA had not
established the 75,000 tpy level in the Tailoring Rule as a de minis
threshold below which BACT is not required for a source's GHG
emissions).
    Given the deficiencies in the justification for the GHG BACT
applicability level in the existing EPA regulations, the EPA is
planning to move forward in a separate, national rulemaking to propose
a GHG Significant Emission Rate (SER) that would be justified as a de
minis threshold level for applying the BACT requirement to GHG
emissions under PSD. In the event that the EPA ultimately promulgates a
final GHG SER, North Dakota, like all other SIP-approved states, may be
obligated to undertake rulemaking to demonstrate consistency with
federal requirements.
    Fourth, the State eliminated the exemption for greenhouse gases
from biogenic sources found at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a)(July 1,
2015). The State explained in the November 2016 submittal that the
basis for eliminating the exemption was because the exemption
expired.\24\ We agree with the State's reason for deleting this
provision as it is consistent with the EPA's expired regulation and
therefore

propose to approve the deletion of the exemption in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a).
    Finally, the State added language in 40 CFR 52.21(q) to allow
copies of: (1) All materials submitted by an applicant; (2) the State's
preliminary determination; and (3) a summary of other materials, if
any, considered in making a preliminary determination regarding a
proposed source or modification to be posted on the State's website.
This addition aligns with 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(iii)(B) which allows
states to post information related to applications to construct or
modify a source on a public website in lieu of publishing in a daily or
weekly newspaper. Therefore, we propose to approve this language.
4. Chapter 33-15-20, Control of Emissions From Oil and Gas Well
Production Facilities
    North Dakota broadened the applicability of this chapter in 33-15-
20-01.1, Applicability, from applying to ``any oil and gas well
production facility which emits sulfur or sulfur compounds'' to
applying to ``any oil and gas well facility which emits air
contaminants.'' In doing so, North Dakota strengthens the SIP because
the chapter now applies to all facilities (an expansion from an oil and
gas well ``production facility'') and any air contaminant (an expansion
from emissions of ``sulfur or sulfur compounds''), therefore, we
propose to approve these revisions.
    In section 33-15-20-01.2, Definitions, North Dakota added the
definition of ``actively producing'' to mean that a well has been
producing for 30 days or more from initial production through the
wellhead equipment. In conjunction, North Dakota also revised section
33-15-20-02.1, Registration and reporting requirements, so that only
actively producing oil or gas wells, as opposed to any oil and gas
well, shall submit an oil and gas well registration form. Revisions to
this paragraph also include the requirement that the owner or operator
must submit the registration form, along with a gas analysis, within 90
days of the well achieving production status instead of within 90 days
of the completion or recompletion of the well. Since completed wells
can remain idle for extended periods of time prior to producing, this
revision clarifies that only actively producing wells are subject to
the registration and reporting requirements thereby reducing the burden
on oil and gas well owners and operators. Furthermore, these revisions
do not alter the emission control requirements for oil and gas wells
found in Chapter 7, Control of Organic Compounds Emissions, and as
explained in the State's response to comments contained in the November
2016 submittal, this revision allows the producer to obtain better data
for inclusion in the registration form and does not change any of the
emission control requirements of the chapter. Thus, we propose to
approve these revisions.
    Additionally, in 33-15-20-02, North Dakota removed paragraph 33-15-
20-02.2 because it was no longer relevant. Paragraph 33-15-20-02.1
contains identical language to 33-15-20-02.2 describing the
registration and reporting requirements except for paragraph 33-15-20-
02.1 does not cite the applicability emission threshold of 10 tons per
year or more of sulfur compounds and instead contains the new revisions
to add ``actively producing'' and ``well achieving active production
status'' to describe the applicability of the registration and
reporting requirements (as discussed and proposed for approval
elsewhere in this notice). Thus, these differences between 33-15-20-
02.1 and 33-15-20-02.2 are the result of the revisions in 33-15-20-02.1
contained in the November 2016 submittal that we are proposing to
approve as previously discussed. By deleting 33-15-20-02.2, North
Dakota also removed language: (1) Pertaining to the original date of
January 1, 1988, when the registration form and gas analysis must be
submitted to North Dakota for all oil and gas wells completed or
recompleted prior to July 1, 1987; and (2) requiring modifications and
changes to wells occurring after July 1, 1987, to submit a registration
form and gas analysis. With respect to requirement (1), the January 1,
1988 deadline to submit a registration form is over 30 years ago and
new regulations have been added to 33-15-20-02.1 for oil and gas wells
completed after July 1, 1987, thus as a practical matter, the
references to oil and gas wells completed prior to July 1, 1987, and
the associated January 1, 1988 deadline are no longer meaningful in the
SIP. With respect to requirement (2), the same requirements to inform
the State of changes to information contained on the registration form
and gas analysis are now required in 33-15-20-02.3. We agree that the
language found in 33-15-20-02.2 is no longer relevant because the
regulations are either contained in 33-15-20-02.1 or 33-15-20-02.3, and
removing the reporting requirements for oil and gas wells completed
prior to July 1, 1987, does not impact any emission control
requirements and will not lead to a change in emissions or ambient
concentrations of a pollutant or its precursors. Thus, we propose to
approve this amendment.
    We also propose to approve revisions to paragraph 33-15-20-03.1
that determine the applicability of Chapter 33-15-15 to oil and gas
well production facilities. North Dakota replaces the applicability
threshold of an oil and gas well production facility that ``emits or
has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air
contaminant regulated under North Dakota Century Code (N.D.C.C.)
chapter 23-25, as determined by the department'' with an oil and gas
well production facility that ``is a major stationary source or a major
modification as defined in Chapter 33-15-15.'' N.D.C.C. 23-25 contains
the Department's statutory authority for air pollution control. Chapter
33-15-15 of North Dakota's regulations reference 40 CFR 52.21, which
define a ``major stationary source'' and ``major modification at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(1) and 52.21(b)(2). Therefore, rather than Chapter 33-15-15,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, applying to oil
and gas well production facilities that emit 250 tons per year or more
of any air contaminant regulated under chapter 23-25 of N.D.C.C., the
State's amendments mean that Chapter 15-15-20 applies to oil and gas
well production facilities that meet either of the definitions under 40
CFR 52.21(b)(1) or 52.21(b)(2). Specifically, this would include ``any
stationary source which emits, or has the potential to emit, 250 tons
per year or more of a regulated NSR pollutant'' and modifications to
stationary sources. This revision is equivalent to the current SIP
because the State interprets the language in the current SIP (33-15-20-
03.1), as applying to all oil and gas well production facilities
subject to the PSD rules. Because this revision is equivalent to the
current SIP and federal regulations, we propose to approve this
revision.
    Finally, North Dakota makes minor revisions in 33-15-20-01.2 and
33-15-20-03.2 to renumber definitions and add non-substantive
clarifying changes to the equation for PSD applicability for sulfur
dioxide, respectively. We propose to approve both of these revisions.
5. Chapter 33-15-23, Fees
    We also propose to approve in the November 2016 submittal revisions
to chapter 33-15-23, Fees, to: (1) Increase the permit to construct
application fee from $150.00 to $325.00 (33-15-23-02.1); (2) increase
the threshold of processing costs incurred by the State (e.g.,
applications requiring a major engineering analysis and/or computer

dispersion modeling) that would trigger a processing fee due by the
applicant from $150.00 to $325.00 (33-15-23-02.2); and (3) remove the
option for an applicant to withdraw an application without paying any
processing fees (33-15-23-02.2.b). CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires
that a state implementation plan provide assurances that the state will
have, among other items, adequate funding to carry out the
implementation plan. As explained in a memo to interested parties,
increasing the application fee and the processing fee threshold as well
as removing the option for an applicant to withdraw an application
without paying processing fees reflect both inflation and the increased
complexity of permit to construct applications, thereby ensuring the
State has adequate funding to carry out the implementation
plan.25 26 Therefore, we propose to approve these revisions.

III. The EPA's Proposed Action

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve SIP amendments to
North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules, shown in Table 1, submitted
by the State of North Dakota on January 28, 2013 and November 11, 2016.

  Table 1--List of North Dakota Amendments That the EPA Is Proposing To
                                 Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Amended Section in the January 28, 2013 Submittal Proposed for Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33-15-14-02.1.c.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amended Sections in the November 11, 2016 Submittal Proposed for
                                Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33-15-01-04.52, 33-15-14-02.1.c, 33-15-14-02.6.b(2), 33-15-14-
 03.5.a(1)(b), 33-15-14-03.5.a(1)(d), 33-15-14-03.9.a, 33-15-14-03.9.b,
 33-15-15-01.2, 33-15-20-01.1, 33-15-20-01.2, 33-15-20-02.1, 33-15-20-
 02.2, 33-15-20-03.1, 33-15-20-03.2, 33-15-23-02.1, 33-15-23-02.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the amendments described in section III. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov 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).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve 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 subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 the 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, the SIP is not proposed to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 9, 2018.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-10208 Filed 5-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P