Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana-Air Quality, Subchapter 7, Exclusion for De Minimis Changes, 7531-7534 [2012-3245]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
XI. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
38. This Final Rule is effective March
14, 2012. The Commission has
determined, with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined in section 351 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40
Applicability, Mandatory reliability
standards, Availability of reliability
standards.
By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–3272 Filed 2–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0100; FRL–9495–9]
Disapproval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Revisions to the
Administrative Rules of Montana—Air
Quality, Subchapter 7, Exclusion for
De Minimis Changes
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking final action to
partially approve and partially
disapprove State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions and new rules as
submitted by the State of Montana on
June 25, 2010 and May 28, 2003. The
revisions contain new rules in
Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction, and
Operation of Air Contaminant Sources)
that pertain to the issuance of Montana
air quality permits, in addition to other
minor administrative changes to other
subchapters of the Administrative Rules
of Montana (ARM). In this action, EPA
is approving those portions of the rules
that are approvable and disapproving
those portions of the rules that are
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act
(CAA). This action is being taken under
section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective March 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0100. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Feb 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
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. EPA
requests 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:
Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode
8P–AR, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129,
(303) 312–6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA
mean or refer to the 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 words State or Montana
mean the State of Montana, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA taking?
A. Summary of Final Action
B. Other Relevant Actions Related to the
Montana SIP Revision Submittals
II. What is the background?
A. Brief Discussion of Statutory and
Regulatory Requirements
B. Summary of the Submittals Addressed
in This Final Action
III. Response to Comments
IV. What are the grounds for this approval
action?
V. What are the grounds for this disapproval
action?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
A. Summary of Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve
new rule ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by
the State of Montana on June 25, 2010.
Montana adopted this rule on May 14,
2010 and it became State effective on
May 28, 2010. We are also taking final
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7531
action to approve all references to ARM
17.8.745, submitted by Montana on May
28, 2003. Specifically, the following
phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c),
respectively, (1) ‘‘except when a permit
is not required under ARM 17.8.745’’
and (2) ‘‘except as provided in ARM
17.8.745,’’ the phrase ‘‘and 17.8.745’’ in
ARM 17.8.743(1) and the phrase ‘‘the
emission increase meets the criteria in
ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change
not requiring a permit in ARM
17.8.864(1)(b). These references were
adopted on December 6, 2002, and
became State effective on December 27,
2002. EPA is also taking final action to
disapprove the phrase ‘‘asphalt concrete
plants, mineral crushers’’ in new rule
ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) as submitted by the
State of Montana on May 28, 2003. This
rule was adopted on December 6, 2002,
and became State effective on December
27, 2002.
ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the
State of Montana on June 25, 2010, and
all references to ARM 17.8.745, as
submitted by the State of Montana on
May 28, 2003, meet the requirements of
the Act and EPA’s minor New Source
Review (NSR) regulations. ARM
17.8.743(1)(b), as submitted by the State
of Montana on May 28, 2003, does not
meet the requirements of the Act and
EPA’s minor NSR regulations.
EPA proposed an action for the above
SIP revision submittals on September
26, 2011 (76 FR 59338). We accepted
comments from the public on this
proposal from September 27, 2011, until
October 26, 2011. A summary of the
comments received and our evaluation
thereof is discussed in section III below.
In the proposed rule, we described our
basis for the actions identified above.
The reader should refer to the proposed
rule, and sections III and IV of this
preamble, for additional information
regarding this final action.
EPA reviews a SIP revision
submission for its compliance with the
Act and EPA regulations. CAA
110(k)(3). We evaluated the submitted
Program based upon the regulations and
associated record that have been
submitted and are currently before EPA.
In order for EPA to ensure that Montana
has a Program that meets the
requirements of the CAA, the State must
demonstrate the Program is as stringent
as the Act and the implementing
regulations discussed in this notice. For
example, EPA must have sufficient
information to make a finding that the
new Program will ensure protection of
the NAAQS, and noninterference with
the Montana SIP control strategies, as
required by section 110(l) of the Act.
The provisions in these submittals
were not submitted to meet a mandatory
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
7532
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
requirement of the Act. Therefore, the
final action to disapprove these
submittals does not trigger a sanctions
or Federal Implementation Plan clock.
See CAA section 179(a).
B. Other Relevant Actions Related to the
Montana SIP Revision Submittals
The Amended Consent Decree in
WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No.
09–cv–02148 (D. Col.), as amended,
currently provides that EPA will take
final action on the State’s SIP revision
submittals by October 31, 2011. See
Stipulation to Extend the Deadline for
EPA’s Final Action of Item Number 11
on Exhibit A to the Consent Decree,
filed with the Court on March 30, 2011
(Doc. 33).
II. What is the background?
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Brief Discussion of Statutory and
Regulatory Requirements
The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40
CFR 51.160 requires states to have
legally enforceable procedures to
prevent construction or modification of
a source if it would violate any SIP
control strategies or interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Such minor NSR programs
are for pollutants from stationary
sources that do not require Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) or
nonattainment NSR permits. States may
customize the requirements of the minor
NSR program as long as their program
meets minimum requirements.
Section 110(l) of the CAA states:
‘‘[e]ach revision to an implementation
plan submitted by a State under this Act
shall be adopted by such State after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
The Administrator shall not approve a
revision to a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.’’
The States’ obligation to comply with
each of the NAAQS is considered as
‘‘any applicable requirement(s)
concerning attainment.’’ A
demonstration is necessary to show that
this SIP revision will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, including those for ozone,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide
(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead,
nitrogen oxides (NOX) or any other
requirement of the Act. Montana’s
demonstration of noninterference (see
docket), as submitted to EPA on June 25,
2010, and our Technical Support
Document (see docket) provide
sufficient basis that new section ARM
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Feb 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
17.8.745 submitted by Montana on June
25, 2010, will not interfere with
attainment, reasonable further progress
(RFP), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Further details
are provided in sections IV and V of this
action.
B. Summary of the Submittals
Addressed in This Final Action
The State’s May 28, 2003 submittal
included ARM 17.8.743, which was a
new rule. ARM 17.8.743(1) describes
those sources that are required to obtain
a Montana air quality permit. ARM
17.8.743(1) provides that any new or
modified facility or emitting unit that
has the potential to emit more than 25
tons per year of any airborne pollutant,
except lead,1 must obtain a Montana air
quality permit except as provided in
ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 17.8.745 before
constructing, installing, modifying or
operating. ARM 17.8.431(1)(b) also
requires asphalt concrete plants,
mineral crushers, and mineral screens
that have the potential to emit more
than 15 tons per year of any airborne
pollutant, other than lead, to obtain a
Montana air quality permit.
This notice contains EPA’s final
action on Montana rules relating to the
permitting threshold for asphalt
concrete plants and mineral crushers in
ARM 17.8.743(1)(b). In our July 8, 2011
rulemaking, EPA approved of all of new
section ARM 17.8.743(1), except for the
phrase ‘‘asphalt concrete plants and
mineral crushers’’ where the de minimis
permitting threshold for those sources
was changed from five tons per year to
15 tons per year. During the State’s
rulemaking process we expressed
concerns with the new permit threshold
for asphalt concrete plants and mineral
crushers. (See October 9, 2002, letter
from EPA to the State of Montana in the
docket.) Since for asphalt concrete
plants and mineral crushers this
revision (ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)) reduces
the stringency of the current SIP
approved regulations, which has a
threshold of five tons, we stated that
Montana must provide an analysis
showing that this new rule will not
interfere with compliance with the
NAAQS or PSD increments. Section
110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot
approve a SIP revision that would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or
RFP, as defined in Section 171 of the
1 Facilities or emitting units that emit airborne
lead must obtain a Montana air quality permit if
they are new and emit greater than five tons per
year of airborne lead, or if they are an existing
facility or emitting unit and a modification results
in an increase of airborne lead by an amount greater
than 0.6 tons per year.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
CAA, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Montana did
not provide any analysis or
demonstration that the increased permit
threshold, from five tons per year to 15
tons per year, for asphalt concrete plants
and mineral crushers meets these
criteria. At the request of the State, we
took no action on the phrase ‘‘asphalt
concrete plants, mineral crushers’’ in
ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) in 76 FR 40237.
EPA is taking final action to disapprove
the May 28, 2003, SIP revision request
for 17.8.743(1)(b) in this action. If the
State submits a new SIP with the
appropriate 110(l) analysis, we would
evaluate such a new SIP and analysis.
The State’s June 25, 2010 submittal
included new rule ARM 17.8.745. This
revision request for ARM 17.8.745,
which supercedes the State’s May 28,
2003 submittal for ARM 17.8.745,
creates an exemption from the
requirement to obtain an air quality
permit or permit modification for
certain changes at a permitted facility
that did not increase the facility’s
potential emissions of an air pollutant
by more than five tons per year, when
conditions specified in the rule were
met.
During the State’s 1996 and 1999
rulemaking process we expressed
concerns with the de minimis level
specified in the earlier versions of the
regulation we are proposing action on
today (see letters from EPA to the State
of Montana dated July 25, 1996, April 1,
1999 and October 9, 2002 in the docket.)
ARM 17.8.745 created an exemption
from the requirement to obtain an air
quality permit or permit modification
for certain changes at a permitted
facility that did not increase the
facility’s potential emissions of an air
pollutant by more than 15 tons per year,
when conditions specified in the rule
were met. Since this new rule reduced
the stringency of the current SIP
approved regulations, EPA indicated
that the State must provide an analysis
showing that the new rule will not
interfere with compliance with the
NAAQS or PSD increments. Section
110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot
approve a SIP revision that would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or
RFP, as defined in section 171 of the
CAA, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Montana’s May
28, 2003 submittal did not provide any
analysis or demonstration that the new
rule (ARM 17.8.745) meets these
requirements. In EPA’s final July 8, 2011
rulemaking (76 FR 40237), which
approved revisions to ARM 17.8.7, no
action was taken on Montana’s de
minimis provision in ARM 17.8.745.
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Since EPA took no action on ARM
17.8.745 in our 76 FR 40237 notice, we
took no action on all references to ARM
17.8.745 in ARM 17.8.7.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Response to Comments
EPA did not receive comments on our
September 26, 2011 Federal Register
proposed action regarding the partial
approval and partial disapproval of
Montana’s SIP revisions to ARM
17.8.745 as submitted by the State of
Montana on June 25, 2010, all references
to ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by the
State of Montana on May 28, 2003 and
ARM 17.8.743(1)(B) as submitted by the
State of Montana on May 28, 2003.
IV. What are the grounds for this
approval action?
We evaluated ARM 17.8.745 using the
following: (1) The statutory
requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(c), which requires states to
include a minor New Source Review
(NSR) program in their SIP to regulate
modifications and new construction of
stationary sources within the area as
necessary to assure the NAAQS are
achieved; (2) the regulatory
requirements under 40 CFR 51.160,
including section 51.160(b), which
requires states to have legally
enforceable procedures to prevent
construction or modification of a source
if it would violate any SIP control
strategies or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS; and (3) the
statutory requirements under CAA
section 110(l), which provides that EPA
cannot approve a SIP revision if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA will approve a SIP
revision only after a state has
demonstrated that such a revision will
not interfere (‘‘noninterference’’) with
attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of
Progress (ROP), RFP or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
EPA retains the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis to
determine what the appropriate
demonstration of noninterference with
attainment of the NAAQS, rate of
progress, RFP or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA should entail.
In this instance, EPA asked the State to
submit an analysis showing that the
approval of new section ARM 17.8.745
would not violate section 110(l) of the
CAA (see docket number EPA–R08–
OAR–2011–0100); this is also referred to
as a ‘‘demonstration of noninterference’’
with attainment and maintenance under
CAA section 110(l). In addition to the
State’s demonstration submitted on June
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Feb 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
25, 2010, EPA conducted its own
analysis utilizing SIP-approved
attainment plans, past rulemakings,
stipulations, consent decrees, air
modeling data and air monitoring data.
In EPA’s proposed notice (76 FR 59338),
we considered the State’s demonstration
of noninterference, our own analysis,
the nature of the permitting
requirement, its potential impact on the
air quality in the area and the air quality
of the area in which the permitting
requirements apply. We analyzed this
information pollutant by pollutant in
order to make a determination that new
rule 17.8.745 is consistent with CAA
requirements; in particular, it’s impact
on compliance with NAAQS standards.
The scope and rigor of the
demonstration of noninterference
conducted in this notice is appropriate
given the air quality status of the State,
and the potential impact of the revision
on air quality and the pollutants
affected.
The State’s technical support
document (TSD) (see docket) contains
the State’s regulatory history of the de
minimis rule, effects of the de minimis
rule on attainment and reasonable
further progress of the NAAQS and
assesses air quality trends, current air
quality conditions and future projected
air quality conditions. The
demonstration analyses the effects of the
new rule pollutant by pollutant in past
and current nonattainment areas
utilizing monitoring data, maintenance
plans, modeling data, emission
inventories, federal implementation
plan requirements and past and future
projected permits.
V. What are the grounds for this
disapproval action?
EPA is disapproving the phrase
‘‘asphalt concrete plants and mineral
crushers’’ in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)
submitted by the State of Montana on
May 28, 2003. 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 Act,
as necessary to assure that the NAAQS
are achieved. Parts C and D, which
pertain to PSD and nonattainment,
respectively, address major NSR
programs for stationary sources, and the
permitting program for ‘‘nonmajor’’ (or
‘‘minor’’) stationary sources is
addressed by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the
Act. We generally 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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7533
for a particular pollutant defined in the
applicable major NSR program.
Therefore, we evaluated the submitted
revisions and new rules using the
federal regulations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(C), which require each state to
include a minor NSR program in its SIP.
In addition, we reviewed the State’s
regulations for compliance with the Act.
Generally, SIPs must be enforceable (see
section 110(a) of the Act) and must not
relax existing SIP requirements (see
section 110(l) and 193 of the Act).
EPA is disapproving the revision to
ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), which contains a
modification size cutoff (15 tons per
year) that the State proposes as de
minimis for asphalt concrete plants and
mineral crushers. Fifteen tons per year
represents the major modification
significance level for one criteria
pollutant (PM10) and exceeds the
significance level for another criteria
pollutant (PM2.5) as well as for several
non-criteria pollutants. It also exceeds
the major source threshold for
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
Because of these reasons, EPA
determines that the revision to ARM
17.8.743(1)(b) is not de minimis in the
sense of having a trivial environmental
effect. EPA has agreed in several
rulemaking actions that certain
activities with emissions of five tons per
year or less may be considered
‘‘insignificant.’’ However, EPA never
before denoted emissions increases as
high as 15 tons per year as de minimis.
Since the State did not provide an
analysis as to why emission increases as
high as 15 tons per year should be
considered as having a trivial
environmental effect, EPA finds no basis
for approving this revision. Therefore,
EPA lacks sufficient available
information to determine that the
requested revision to increase the de
minimis permitting threshold for
asphalt concrete plants and mineral
crushers from five tons per year to 15
tons per year would not interfere with
attainment and RFP of the NAAQS as
required by CAA Section 110(l), or any
other requirement of the Act.
VI. Final Action
Based on the above discussion, EPA
finds that the addition of new rule ARM
17.8.745 would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of any of the
NAAQS in the State of Montana and
would not interfere with any other
applicable requirement of the Act (see
proposed notice for this action and TSD
for basis); and thus, are approvable
under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we
are taking final action to approve ARM
17.8.745 as submitted on June 25, 2010
by the State of Montana.
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
7534
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
We are approving new section ARM
17.8.745; and thus, we are also
approving all references to ARM
17.8.745. This includes: The phrases in
17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1)
‘‘except when a permit is not required
under ARM 17.8.745’’ and (2) ‘‘except as
provided in ARM 17.8.745’’ and the
phrase ‘‘and 17.8.745’’ in 17.8.743(1),
submitted on May 28, 2003; and the
phrase ‘‘the emission increase meets the
criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a de
minimis change not requiring a permit’’
in 17.8.764(1)(b) and (4), submitted on
May 28, 2003.
Based on the above discussion, EPA is
finds no basis to determine that the
addition of new rule ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)
would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any of the NAAQS in
the State of Montana and would not
interfere with any other applicable
requirement of the Act; and thus, is not
approvable under CAA section 110(l).
Therefore, we are taking final action to
disapprove the phrase ‘‘asphalt concrete
plants and mineral crushers’’ in ARM
17.8.743(1)(b) submitted on May 28,
2003.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 final 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 action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Feb 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 13, 2012.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: October 28, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart BB—Montana
2. Section 52.1370 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(72) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1370
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(72) On May 28, 2003 the State of
Montana submitted revisions to the
Administrative Rules of Montana
(ARM), 17.8.740, Definitions; 17.8.743,
Montana Air Quality Permits—When
Required; and 17.8.764, Administrative
Amendment to Permit. On June 25,
2010, the State of Montana submitted
revisions to the ARM, 17.8.745,
Montana Air Quality Permits—
Exclusion for De Minimis Changes.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Administrative Rules of Montana,
17.8.740, Definitions; 17.8.743, Montana
Air Quality Permits—When Required,
except for the phrase in 17.8.743(1)(b),
‘‘asphalt concrete plants, mineral
crushers, and’’; and 17.8.764,
Administrative Amendment to Permit,
effective 12/27/2002.
(B) Administrative Rules of Montana,
17.8.745, Montana Air Quality
Permits—Exclusion for De Minimis
Changes, effective 5/28/2010.
[FR Doc. 2012–3245 Filed 2–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7531-7534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3245]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100; FRL-9495-9]
Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana--Air Quality,
Subchapter 7, Exclusion for De Minimis Changes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially
disapprove State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions and new rules as
submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010 and May 28, 2003.
The revisions contain new rules in Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction,
and Operation of Air Contaminant Sources) that pertain to the issuance
of Montana air quality permits, in addition to other minor
administrative changes to other subchapters of the Administrative Rules
of Montana (ARM). In this action, EPA is approving those portions of
the rules that are approvable and disapproving those portions of the
rules that are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action
is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective March 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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. EPA requests 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: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the 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 words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA taking?
A. Summary of Final Action
B. Other Relevant Actions Related to the Montana SIP Revision
Submittals
II. What is the background?
A. Brief Discussion of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
B. Summary of the Submittals Addressed in This Final Action
III. Response to Comments
IV. What are the grounds for this approval action?
V. What are the grounds for this disapproval action?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
A. Summary of Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve new rule ARM 17.8.745 as
submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010. Montana adopted
this rule on May 14, 2010 and it became State effective on May 28,
2010. We are also taking final action to approve all references to ARM
17.8.745, submitted by Montana on May 28, 2003. Specifically, the
following phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) ``except
when a permit is not required under ARM 17.8.745'' and (2) ``except as
provided in ARM 17.8.745,'' the phrase ``and 17.8.745'' in ARM
17.8.743(1) and the phrase ``the emission increase meets the criteria
in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change not requiring a permit in ARM
17.8.864(1)(b). These references were adopted on December 6, 2002, and
became State effective on December 27, 2002. EPA is also taking final
action to disapprove the phrase ``asphalt concrete plants, mineral
crushers'' in new rule ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) as submitted by the State of
Montana on May 28, 2003. This rule was adopted on December 6, 2002, and
became State effective on December 27, 2002.
ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the State of Montana on June 25,
2010, and all references to ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the State of
Montana on May 28, 2003, meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's
minor New Source Review (NSR) regulations. ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), as
submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003, does not meet the
requirements of the Act and EPA's minor NSR regulations.
EPA proposed an action for the above SIP revision submittals on
September 26, 2011 (76 FR 59338). We accepted comments from the public
on this proposal from September 27, 2011, until October 26, 2011. A
summary of the comments received and our evaluation thereof is
discussed in section III below. In the proposed rule, we described our
basis for the actions identified above. The reader should refer to the
proposed rule, and sections III and IV of this preamble, for additional
information regarding this final action.
EPA reviews a SIP revision submission for its compliance with the
Act and EPA regulations. CAA 110(k)(3). We evaluated the submitted
Program based upon the regulations and associated record that have been
submitted and are currently before EPA. In order for EPA to ensure that
Montana has a Program that meets the requirements of the CAA, the State
must demonstrate the Program is as stringent as the Act and the
implementing regulations discussed in this notice. For example, EPA
must have sufficient information to make a finding that the new Program
will ensure protection of the NAAQS, and noninterference with the
Montana SIP control strategies, as required by section 110(l) of the
Act.
The provisions in these submittals were not submitted to meet a
mandatory
[[Page 7532]]
requirement of the Act. Therefore, the final action to disapprove these
submittals does not trigger a sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan
clock. See CAA section 179(a).
B. Other Relevant Actions Related to the Montana SIP Revision
Submittals
The Amended Consent Decree in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No.
09-cv-02148 (D. Col.), as amended, currently provides that EPA will
take final action on the State's SIP revision submittals by October 31,
2011. See Stipulation to Extend the Deadline for EPA's Final Action of
Item Number 11 on Exhibit A to the Consent Decree, filed with the Court
on March 30, 2011 (Doc. 33).
II. What is the background?
A. Brief Discussion of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 requires states to
have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or
modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies
or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Such minor NSR programs are for pollutants
from stationary sources that do not require Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment NSR permits. States may customize
the requirements of the minor NSR program as long as their program
meets minimum requirements.
Section 110(l) of the CAA states: ``[e]ach revision to an
implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be
adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The
Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.''
The States' obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is
considered as ``any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.''
A demonstration is necessary to show that this SIP revision will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those
for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), lead, nitrogen oxides (NOX) or any other
requirement of the Act. Montana's demonstration of noninterference (see
docket), as submitted to EPA on June 25, 2010, and our Technical
Support Document (see docket) provide sufficient basis that new section
ARM 17.8.745 submitted by Montana on June 25, 2010, will not interfere
with attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. Further details are provided in
sections IV and V of this action.
B. Summary of the Submittals Addressed in This Final Action
The State's May 28, 2003 submittal included ARM 17.8.743, which was
a new rule. ARM 17.8.743(1) describes those sources that are required
to obtain a Montana air quality permit. ARM 17.8.743(1) provides that
any new or modified facility or emitting unit that has the potential to
emit more than 25 tons per year of any airborne pollutant, except
lead,\1\ must obtain a Montana air quality permit except as provided in
ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 17.8.745 before constructing, installing,
modifying or operating. ARM 17.8.431(1)(b) also requires asphalt
concrete plants, mineral crushers, and mineral screens that have the
potential to emit more than 15 tons per year of any airborne pollutant,
other than lead, to obtain a Montana air quality permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Facilities or emitting units that emit airborne lead must
obtain a Montana air quality permit if they are new and emit greater
than five tons per year of airborne lead, or if they are an existing
facility or emitting unit and a modification results in an increase
of airborne lead by an amount greater than 0.6 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice contains EPA's final action on Montana rules relating
to the permitting threshold for asphalt concrete plants and mineral
crushers in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b). In our July 8, 2011 rulemaking, EPA
approved of all of new section ARM 17.8.743(1), except for the phrase
``asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers'' where the de minimis
permitting threshold for those sources was changed from five tons per
year to 15 tons per year. During the State's rulemaking process we
expressed concerns with the new permit threshold for asphalt concrete
plants and mineral crushers. (See October 9, 2002, letter from EPA to
the State of Montana in the docket.) Since for asphalt concrete plants
and mineral crushers this revision (ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)) reduces the
stringency of the current SIP approved regulations, which has a
threshold of five tons, we stated that Montana must provide an analysis
showing that this new rule will not interfere with compliance with the
NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA
cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or RFP, as defined in Section 171 of
the CAA, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Montana did
not provide any analysis or demonstration that the increased permit
threshold, from five tons per year to 15 tons per year, for asphalt
concrete plants and mineral crushers meets these criteria. At the
request of the State, we took no action on the phrase ``asphalt
concrete plants, mineral crushers'' in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) in 76 FR
40237. EPA is taking final action to disapprove the May 28, 2003, SIP
revision request for 17.8.743(1)(b) in this action. If the State
submits a new SIP with the appropriate 110(l) analysis, we would
evaluate such a new SIP and analysis.
The State's June 25, 2010 submittal included new rule ARM 17.8.745.
This revision request for ARM 17.8.745, which supercedes the State's
May 28, 2003 submittal for ARM 17.8.745, creates an exemption from the
requirement to obtain an air quality permit or permit modification for
certain changes at a permitted facility that did not increase the
facility's potential emissions of an air pollutant by more than five
tons per year, when conditions specified in the rule were met.
During the State's 1996 and 1999 rulemaking process we expressed
concerns with the de minimis level specified in the earlier versions of
the regulation we are proposing action on today (see letters from EPA
to the State of Montana dated July 25, 1996, April 1, 1999 and October
9, 2002 in the docket.) ARM 17.8.745 created an exemption from the
requirement to obtain an air quality permit or permit modification for
certain changes at a permitted facility that did not increase the
facility's potential emissions of an air pollutant by more than 15 tons
per year, when conditions specified in the rule were met. Since this
new rule reduced the stringency of the current SIP approved
regulations, EPA indicated that the State must provide an analysis
showing that the new rule will not interfere with compliance with the
NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA
cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or RFP, as defined in section 171 of
the CAA, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Montana's May
28, 2003 submittal did not provide any analysis or demonstration that
the new rule (ARM 17.8.745) meets these requirements. In EPA's final
July 8, 2011 rulemaking (76 FR 40237), which approved revisions to ARM
17.8.7, no action was taken on Montana's de minimis provision in ARM
17.8.745.
[[Page 7533]]
Since EPA took no action on ARM 17.8.745 in our 76 FR 40237 notice, we
took no action on all references to ARM 17.8.745 in ARM 17.8.7.
III. Response to Comments
EPA did not receive comments on our September 26, 2011 Federal
Register proposed action regarding the partial approval and partial
disapproval of Montana's SIP revisions to ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by
the State of Montana on June 25, 2010, all references to ARM 17.8.745
as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003 and ARM
17.8.743(1)(B) as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003.
IV. What are the grounds for this approval action?
We evaluated ARM 17.8.745 using the following: (1) The statutory
requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(c), which requires states to
include a minor New Source Review (NSR) program in their SIP to
regulate modifications and new construction of stationary sources
within the area as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved; (2) the
regulatory requirements under 40 CFR 51.160, including section
51.160(b), which requires states to have legally enforceable procedures
to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate
any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS; and (3) the statutory requirements under CAA section
110(l), which provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA will approve a SIP revision only after a state has
demonstrated that such a revision will not interfere
(``noninterference'') with attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of Progress
(ROP), RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
EPA retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case
basis to determine what the appropriate demonstration of
noninterference with attainment of the NAAQS, rate of progress, RFP or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA should entail. In this
instance, EPA asked the State to submit an analysis showing that the
approval of new section ARM 17.8.745 would not violate section 110(l)
of the CAA (see docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100); this is also
referred to as a ``demonstration of noninterference'' with attainment
and maintenance under CAA section 110(l). In addition to the State's
demonstration submitted on June 25, 2010, EPA conducted its own
analysis utilizing SIP-approved attainment plans, past rulemakings,
stipulations, consent decrees, air modeling data and air monitoring
data. In EPA's proposed notice (76 FR 59338), we considered the State's
demonstration of noninterference, our own analysis, the nature of the
permitting requirement, its potential impact on the air quality in the
area and the air quality of the area in which the permitting
requirements apply. We analyzed this information pollutant by pollutant
in order to make a determination that new rule 17.8.745 is consistent
with CAA requirements; in particular, it's impact on compliance with
NAAQS standards. The scope and rigor of the demonstration of
noninterference conducted in this notice is appropriate given the air
quality status of the State, and the potential impact of the revision
on air quality and the pollutants affected.
The State's technical support document (TSD) (see docket) contains
the State's regulatory history of the de minimis rule, effects of the
de minimis rule on attainment and reasonable further progress of the
NAAQS and assesses air quality trends, current air quality conditions
and future projected air quality conditions. The demonstration analyses
the effects of the new rule pollutant by pollutant in past and current
nonattainment areas utilizing monitoring data, maintenance plans,
modeling data, emission inventories, federal implementation plan
requirements and past and future projected permits.
V. What are the grounds for this disapproval action?
EPA is disapproving the phrase ``asphalt concrete plants and
mineral crushers'' in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) submitted by the State of
Montana on May 28, 2003. 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 Act, as necessary to assure
that the NAAQS are achieved. Parts C and D, which pertain to PSD and
nonattainment, respectively, address major NSR programs for stationary
sources, and the permitting program for ``nonmajor'' (or ``minor'')
stationary sources is addressed by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. We
generally 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 defined in the applicable major NSR program.
Therefore, we evaluated the submitted revisions and new rules using
the federal regulations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which require
each state to include a minor NSR program in its SIP.
In addition, we reviewed the State's regulations for compliance
with the Act. Generally, SIPs must be enforceable (see section 110(a)
of the Act) and must not relax existing SIP requirements (see section
110(l) and 193 of the Act).
EPA is disapproving the revision to ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), which
contains a modification size cutoff (15 tons per year) that the State
proposes as de minimis for asphalt concrete plants and mineral
crushers. Fifteen tons per year represents the major modification
significance level for one criteria pollutant (PM10) and
exceeds the significance level for another criteria pollutant
(PM2.5) as well as for several non-criteria pollutants. It
also exceeds the major source threshold for hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs). Because of these reasons, EPA determines that the revision to
ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) is not de minimis in the sense of having a trivial
environmental effect. EPA has agreed in several rulemaking actions that
certain activities with emissions of five tons per year or less may be
considered ``insignificant.'' However, EPA never before denoted
emissions increases as high as 15 tons per year as de minimis. Since
the State did not provide an analysis as to why emission increases as
high as 15 tons per year should be considered as having a trivial
environmental effect, EPA finds no basis for approving this revision.
Therefore, EPA lacks sufficient available information to determine that
the requested revision to increase the de minimis permitting threshold
for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers from five tons per
year to 15 tons per year would not interfere with attainment and RFP of
the NAAQS as required by CAA Section 110(l), or any other requirement
of the Act.
VI. Final Action
Based on the above discussion, EPA finds that the addition of new
rule ARM 17.8.745 would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of
any of the NAAQS in the State of Montana and would not interfere with
any other applicable requirement of the Act (see proposed notice for
this action and TSD for basis); and thus, are approvable under CAA
section 110(l). Therefore, we are taking final action to approve ARM
17.8.745 as submitted on June 25, 2010 by the State of Montana.
[[Page 7534]]
We are approving new section ARM 17.8.745; and thus, we are also
approving all references to ARM 17.8.745. This includes: The phrases in
17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) ``except when a permit is not
required under ARM 17.8.745'' and (2) ``except as provided in ARM
17.8.745'' and the phrase ``and 17.8.745'' in 17.8.743(1), submitted on
May 28, 2003; and the phrase ``the emission increase meets the criteria
in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change not requiring a permit'' in
17.8.764(1)(b) and (4), submitted on May 28, 2003.
Based on the above discussion, EPA is finds no basis to determine
that the addition of new rule ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) would not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of
Montana and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement
of the Act; and thus, is not approvable under CAA section 110(l).
Therefore, we are taking final action to disapprove the phrase
``asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers'' in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)
submitted on May 28, 2003.
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 final 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 action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: October 28, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart BB--Montana
0
2. Section 52.1370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(72) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1370 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(72) On May 28, 2003 the State of Montana submitted revisions to
the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), 17.8.740, Definitions;
17.8.743, Montana Air Quality Permits--When Required; and 17.8.764,
Administrative Amendment to Permit. On June 25, 2010, the State of
Montana submitted revisions to the ARM, 17.8.745, Montana Air Quality
Permits--Exclusion for De Minimis Changes.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Administrative Rules of Montana, 17.8.740, Definitions;
17.8.743, Montana Air Quality Permits--When Required, except for the
phrase in 17.8.743(1)(b), ``asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers,
and''; and 17.8.764, Administrative Amendment to Permit, effective 12/
27/2002.
(B) Administrative Rules of Montana, 17.8.745, Montana Air Quality
Permits--Exclusion for De Minimis Changes, effective 5/28/2010.
[FR Doc. 2012-3245 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
