Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 27891-27898 [2013-11293]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by any other
state. Accordingly, we propose to
conclude that the existing SIP is
adequate to address the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and that additional
control measures in North Dakota are
not necessary for this purpose.
VI. 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 USC 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve some 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
USC 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
USC 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 USC 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; 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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
In addition, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile Organic
Compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 2, 2013.
Howard M. Cantor,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013–11295 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0724; FRL–9812–9]
Promulgation of State Implementation
Plan Revisions; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards; Montana
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially
approve and partially disapprove the
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from the State of Montana to
demonstrate that the SIP meets the
infrastructure requirements for the 1997
and 2006 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers (mm) in diameter (PM2.5).
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that
each state, after a new or revised
NAAQS is promulgated, review their
SIP to ensure that they meet
infrastructure requirements. The State of
Montana submitted a certification of
their infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, dated February 10,
2010. EPA does not propose to act in
this notice on the State’s submissions to
meet requirements relating to interstate
transport of air pollution for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will act
on those submissions in a separate
action.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27891
Written comments must be
received on or before June 12, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2011–0724, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: ayala.kathy@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–
0724. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA, without going
through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
27892
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to section I,
General Information, of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the 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. 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:
Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6142,
ayala.kathy@epa.gov.
(xii) The initials QAPPs mean or refer to
Quality Assurance Project Plans.
(xiii) The initials QA/QC mean or refer to
quality assurance/quality control.
(xiv) The initials LAER mean or refer to
lowest achievable emission rate.
(xv) The initials MCA mean or refer to
Montana Code Annotated.
(xvi) The initials MT CAA mean or refer to
the Clean Air Act of Montana.
(xvii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to
national ambient air quality standards.
(xviii) The initials NOX mean or refer to
nitrogen oxides.
(xix) The initials NPRM mean or refer to
notice of proposed rulemaking.
(xx) The initials NSR mean or refer to new
source review.
(xxi) The initials PM mean or refer to
particulate matter.
(xxii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine
particulate matter).
(xxiii) The initials ppm mean or refer to
parts per million.
(xxiv) The initials PSD mean or refer to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration.
(xxv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State
Implementation Plan.
(xxvi) The initials SOP mean or refer to
Standard Operating Procedures.
(xxvii) The initials SSM mean or refer to
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction.
Table of Contents
Definitions
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
II. Background
III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
IV. What infrastructure elements are required
under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
V. How did Montana address the
infrastructure elements of Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
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 initials AIRS mean or refer to
national air quality database.
(iii) The initials ARM mean or refer to
Administrative Rules of Montana.
(iv) The initials BACT mean or refer to best
available control technology.
(v) The initials BER mean of refer to Board
of Environmental Review.
(vi) The initials CBI mean or refer to
confidential business information.
(vii) The words or initials Department or
DEQ mean or refer to the Department of
Environmental Quality.
(viii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean
or refer to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
(ix) The initials EEAP mean or refer to
Emergency Episode Avoidance Plan.
(x) The initials FIP mean or refer to a
Federal Implementation Plan.
(xi) The initials GHG mean or refer to
greenhouse gases.
What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to
EPA through https://www.regulations.gov
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register, date, and page number);
Follow directions and organize your
comments;
Explain why you agree or disagree;
Suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes;
Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used;
If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced;
Provide specific examples to illustrate
your concerns, and suggest alternatives;
Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats; and,
Make sure to submit your comments
by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated
new NAAQS for PM2.5. Two new PM2.5
standards were added, set at 15 mg/m3,
based on the 3-year average of annual
arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentration
from single or multiple communityoriented monitors, and 65 mg/m3, based
on the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area. In
addition, the 24-hour PM10 standard
was revised to be based on the 99th
percentile of 24-hour PM10
concentration at each monitor within an
area (62 FR 38652).
On October 17, 2006 EPA
promulgated a new NAAQS for PM2.5,
revising the level of the 24-hour PM2.5
standard to 35 mg/m3 and retaining the
level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15
mg/m3. EPA also retained the 24-hour
PM10 and revoked the annual PM10
standard (71 FR 61144). By statute, SIPs
meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by
states within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised
standard. Section 110(a)(2) provides
basic requirements for SIPs, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling, to assure attainment and
maintenance of the standards. These
requirements are set out in several
‘‘infrastructure elements,’’ listed in
section 110(a)(2).
Section 110(a) imposes the obligation
upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and
the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. In particular, the data
and analytical tools available at the time
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the state develops and submits the SIP
for a new or revised NAAQS affects the
content of the submission. The contents
of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the
state’s existing SIP already contains.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. What is the scope of this
rulemaking?
This rulemaking will not cover four
substantive issues that are not integral
to acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions during
periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction at sources, that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies
addressing such excess emissions
(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related
to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s
discretion’’ that purport to permit
revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or
without requiring further approval by
EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(‘‘director’s discretion’’); (iii) existing
provisions for minor source NSR
programs that may be inconsistent with
the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
regulations that pertain to such
programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’); and,
(iv) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final
NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72
FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR
Reform’’). Instead, EPA has indicated
that it has other authority to address any
such existing SIP defects in other
rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed
rationale for why these four substantive
issues are not part of the scope of
infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be
found in EPA’s July 13, 2011, final rule
entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ in the section entitled,
‘‘What is the scope of this final
rulemaking?’’ (see 76 FR 41075 at
41076–41079).
IV. What infrastructure elements are
required under sections 110(a)(1) and
(2)?
Section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for
SIP submissions after a new or revised
NAAQS is promulgated. Section
110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP
must contain or satisfy. These
infrastructure elements include
requirements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories,
which are designed to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
elements that are the subject of this
action are listed below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and
other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality
monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(E)(i): Adequate resources
and authority.
• 110(a)(2)(E)(ii): Compliance with
CAA section 128 regarding state boards.
• 110(a)(2)(E)(iii): State responsibility
for local government implementation.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source
monitoring and reporting.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
government officials; public
notification; and PSD and visibility
protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/
data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/
participation by affected local entities.
A detailed discussion of each of these
elements is contained in the next
section.
Element 110(a)(2)(D), Interstate
transport of pollutants from Montana,
which contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state will be
acted upon in a separate action.
Two elements identified in section
110(a)(2) are not governed by the 3-year
submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
and are therefore not addressed in this
action. These elements relate to part D
of Title I of the CAA, and submissions
to satisfy them are not due within 3
years after promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, but rather are due at
the same time nonattainment area plan
requirements are due under section 172.
The two elements are: (i) Section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to
permit programs (known as
‘‘nonattainment new source review
(NSR)’’), required under part D; and (ii)
section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the
nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. As a result, this action does not
address infrastructure elements related
to the nonattainment NSR portion of
section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to
110(a)(2)(I).
V. How did Montana address the
infrastructure elements of Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
1. Emission limits and other control
measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
SIPs to include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques (including
economic incentives such as fees,
marketable permits, and auctions of
emissions rights), as well as schedules
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27893
and timetables for compliance as may be
necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of this Act.
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite Lincoln
County Health and Environment
Regulations approved by the BER on
March 23, 2006 and submitted for
inclusion into the SIP on June 26, 2006.
The Libby control plan was effective in
maintaining ambient PM2.5
concentrations at a level below both the
annual and revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. On October 8, 2006, EPA
notified the State of Montana that the
Libby area was in attainment with the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
In addition, to control plan
implementation for the Libby area,
Montana implemented a statewide
program for permitting major and minor
stationary sources of air pollution,
including PM2.5. Montana’s permitting
program(s) require affected sources to
demonstrate that source emissions will
not cause or contribute to a violation of
the NAAQS. Affected sources are
further required to utilize BACT and/or
LAER, as applicable, for emissions of
regulated pollutants.
Montana also regulates major and
minor open burning activities and
subjects those conducting open burning
to BACT requirements.
Except for specific control measures
adopted in BER orders, the emission
limits and other air pollution control
regulations are contained in the
following subchapters of Title 17,
Chapter 8, ARM: Subchapter 1—General
Provisions (60 FR 36715); Subchapter
3—Emission Standards (44 FR 14036);
Subchapter 4—Stack Heights and
Dispersion Techniques (60 FR 36715);
Subchapter 6—Open Burning;
Subchapter (60 FR 36715); Subchapter
7—Permit, Construction and Operation
of Air Contaminant Sources (60 FR
36715); Subchapter 8—Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
(60 FR 36715); Subchapter 9—Permit
Requirements for Major Stationary
Sources or Major Modifications Locating
within Nonattainment Areas (60 FR
36715); Subchapter 10—Preconstruction
Permit Requirements for Major
Stationary Sources or Major
Modifications Locating within
Attainment or Unclassified Areas (60 FR
36715); and Subchapter 16—Emission
Control Requirements for Oil and Gas
Well Facilities Operating Prior to
Issuance of a Montana Air Quality
Permit.
b. EPA analysis: Montana’s SIP meets
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27894
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
NAAQS, subject to the following
clarifications. First, this infrastructure
element does not require the submittal
of regulations or emission limitations
developed specifically for attaining the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In
Montana’s case, we have approved an
attainment plan for Lincoln County,
which was designated nonattainment
for the annual PM2.5 standard. Outside
of the Lincoln County PM2.5 attainment
plan, Montana regulates emissions of
PM2.5 in two ways: (1) Through its SIP
approved open burning program; and (2)
through its SIP approved major and
minor source permitting programs. This
suffices to meet the requirements of
110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Second, in this action, EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state rules with regard to
director’s discretion or variance
provisions. A number of states have
such provisions that are contrary to the
CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR
45109, November 24, 1987), and the
Agency plans to take action in the future
to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state
having a director’s discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to
the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps
to correct the deficiency as soon as
possible.
Finally, in this action, EPA is also not
proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing SIP provisions with regard to
excess emissions during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of
operations at a facility. A number of
states have SSM provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance 1 and the Agency is addressing
such state regulations separately (78 FR
12460).
2. Ambient air quality monitoring/
data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B)
requires SIPs to provide for
establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems,
and procedures necessary to ‘‘(i)
monitor, compile, and analyze data on
ambient air quality, and (ii) upon
request, make such data available to the
Administrator.’’
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite a
statewide air quality monitoring
1 Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation. Memorandum to EPA Air Division
Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs):
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (September
20, 1999).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
network operated by the Department,
including numerous monitoring
activities dedicated specifically to
PM2.5.
On an annual basis, the Department
evaluates trends in industrial and
economic development, meteorology,
and population growth and makes other
scientific, social, and geographic
observations regarding areas of the State
which may be adversely affected by
emissions of air pollutants, including
PM2.5. The Department, with
participation and input by local county
air pollution control agencies and other
interested parties, makes informed
decisions regarding the type, location,
and schedules for monitoring various air
quality parameters, including PM2.5.
The product of this decision-making
process, the Air Monitoring Network
Plan, is made available for public
inspection and the Department annually
submits the final document to EPA.
All of the Department’s ambient air
monitoring operations and resultant
data is subject to strict QA/QC
processes. The Department employs a
variety of QAPPs, and SOPs to maintain
the highest level of data quality. The
Department’s air monitoring and data
handling QAPPs and SOPs are routinely
submitted to EPA for review and
approval. The air monitoring data
resulting from these rigorous QA/QC
processes is uploaded and stored in
EPA’s AIRS for further review and
analysis.
The provisions in State law for the
collection and analysis of ambient air
quality data is contained in the MT
CAA, 75–2–101 et seq., MCA, Powers
and Responsibilities of Department.
b. EPA analysis: Montana’s air
monitoring programs and data systems
meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The 2012 Montana Annual
Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP),
dated July 10, 2012, was approved by
EPA Region 8 on April 8, 2013.
3. Program for enforcement of control
measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires
SIPs to include a program to provide for
the enforcement of the measures
described in subparagraph (A), and
regulation of the modification and
construction of any stationary source
within the areas covered by the plan as
necessary to assure that NAAQS are
achieved, including a permit program as
required in parts C and D.
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite
Montana’s administrative rules which
authorize enforcement activities
sufficient to ensure enforceable
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emission control measures are
implemented to protect the NAAQs.
Congress directed states to develop
and implement measures to prevent
significant deterioration. Pursuant to
ARM 17.8.130 (71 FR 3770), sources
subject to the provisions of Title 17,
Chapter 8, subchapters 8 (60 FR 36715),
9 (60 FR 36715), and 10 (60 FR 36715),
ARM (regulating construction of new or
modified major stationary sources
consistent with PSD and NSR
requirements) shall be subject to
enforcement. The Department is
authorized to issue a notice of violation,
complaint regarding the source
violation, and an order to take corrective
action.
The provisions in state law for the
enforcement of emission limitations and
other control measures, means, or
techniques are contained in the MT
CAA, 75–2–101 et seq., MCA, and
specifically, 75–2–111, MCA, Powers of
the Board and 75–2–112, MCA, Powers
and Responsibilities of Department.
b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the
State is required to have SIP-approved
PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor
NSR permitting programs adequate to
implement the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. As explained above, in this
action EPA is not evaluating
nonattainment related provisions, such
as the nonattainment NSR program
required by part D of the Act. In this
action, EPA is evaluating the State’s
PSD program as required by part C of
the Act, and the State’s minor NSR
program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).
Montana has a SIP-approved PSD
program that generally meets the
requirements of part C of the Act.
However, in order for the State’s SIP
approved PSD program to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
program must meet all requirements of
part C of Title I of the Act, including
proper regulation of ozone precursors.
On November 29, 2005, EPA
promulgated the phase 2
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, which includes requirements
for PSD programs to treat nitrogen
oxides as a precursor for ozone (70 FR
71612). The State’s approved PSD
program does not satisfy the
requirements of the phase 2
implementation rule. Furthermore, the
State has not submitted a revision to the
program to address this deficiency.2 As
2 The State did submit a SIP revision to address
the requirements of the phase 2 ozone
implementation rule for the State’s nonattainment
NSR program. As discussed above, the
nonattainment NSR program is outside the scope of
this infrastructure SIP action. We understand that
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
a result, the SIP does not satisfy, for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
requirement of element 110(a)(2)(C) for
the SIP to include a permit program as
required in part C of Title I of the Act.
EPA therefore proposes to disapprove
the Montana infrastructure SIP for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for this
requirement.
Turning to minor NSR, EPA is
proposing to approve Montana’s
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the
SIP that regulates the modification and
construction of any stationary source as
necessary to assure that the NAAQS are
achieved, specifically the PM2.5
NAAQS. (See ARM Chapter 17.8,
Subchapter 7.) The SIP approved minor
NSR program addresses PM2.5, as any
facility required to obtain a permit must
demonstrate that it will not cause or
contribute to a violation of any NAAQS.
(See ARM 17.8.749(3).) EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove the
State’s existing minor NSR program
itself to the extent that it is inconsistent
with EPA’s regulations governing this
program. A number of states may have
minor NSR provisions that are contrary
to the existing EPA regulations for this
program. EPA intends to work with
states to reconcile state minor NSR
programs with EPA’s regulatory
provisions for the program. The
statutory requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable
flexibility in designing minor NSR
programs, and it may be time to revisit
the regulatory requirements for this
program to give the states an
appropriate level of flexibility to design
a program that meets their particular air
quality concerns, while assuring
reasonable consistency across the
country in protecting the NAAQS with
respect to new and modified minor
sources.
4. Adequate resources and local and
regional government: Section
110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide:
(i) necessary assurances that the State
* * * will have adequate personnel, funding,
and authority under State * * * law to carry
out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any
provision of Federal or State law from
carrying out [the SIP] or portion thereof)
* * *
(iii) necessary assurances that, where the
state has relied upon a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for
the implementation of any plan provision,
the state has responsibility for ensuring
the state has promulgated a rule that may satisfy
this requirement and we will propose action on that
SIP revision when it is submitted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
adequate implementation of such plan
provision.
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: According to the State’s
submissions for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 infrastructure requirements, no
state or federal provisions prohibit the
implementation of any provision of the
Montana SIP. Montana devotes adequate
resources to SIP development and
maintenance sufficient to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS.
The Department receives grant monies
from EPA intended to fund programs to
protect the NAAQS. The Department
allocates a portion of the EPA grant
money to fund SIP activities for
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. In addition, Montana imposes
and collects fees from permitted
sources. Montana allocates a portion of
the permit fee revenue to activities
associated with permitting and
compliance for sources of regulated air
pollutants, including PM2.5 emissions.
Montana also receives state general
funds to conduct state air quality
program activities. Montana allocates a
portion of state general funding to nonpermit air program activities, including
SIP programs for attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
The Air Resources Management
Bureau has 50 fulltime equivalent
positions with an annual budget of $6.3
million for fiscal year 2010. The
program funding is broken down as
follows: $163,536 from state general
funds, $1,643,940 from Federal grants,
and $4,546,047 from stationary source
fees.
The provisions in state law which
describe adequate implementation of
local or regional implementation of any
plan provision are provided in MCA 75–
2–112, Power and Responsibilities of
Department.
The provisions in state law providing
for adequate resources are contained in
the MT CAA, 75–2–101 et seq., MCA.
More specifically, those provisions are
contained in 75–2–102, MCA, Intent—
Policy and Purpose; 75–2–111, MCA,
Powers of the Board and 75–2–112,
MCA, Powers and Responsibilities of
Department.
b. EPA Analysis: The provisions
contained in 75–2–102, MCA, 75–2–
111, MCA, and 75–2–112, MCA, provide
adequate authority for the State of
Montana and the DEQ to carry out its
SIP obligations with respect to the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The State
receives sections 103 and 105 grant
funds through its Performance
Partnership Grant along with required
state matching funds to provide funding
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27895
necessary to carry out Montana’s SIP
requirements. EPA therefore proposes to
approve the Montana infrastructure SIP
with regard to the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
5. State boards: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
requires that ‘‘the State comply with the
requirements respecting State boards
under section 128.’’
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The Montana BER adopts
regulations and the Montana DEQ
implements and enforces those
regulations, including those of the state
air program. The composition and
requirements of the BER are detailed in
2–15–3502, MCA, 2–15–121, MCA, and
2–15–124, MCA. Laws related to
conflict of interest in Montana state
government are found in 2–2–201,
MCA, and 2–2–202, MCA. None of these
Montana statutes are subject to approval
by the federal government.
b. EPA Analysis: The Montana SIP
does not contain provisions that meet
the requirements of CAA section 128.
Section 128 must be implemented
through SIP-approved, federally
enforceable provisions. In particular,
subsection 128(a)(2) requires that all
SIPs must contain provisions for the
adequate disclosure of potential
conflicts of interest. The Montana SIP
does not currently contain any such
provisions and is deficient with respect
to the requirements of subsection
128(a)(2).
Furthermore, section 2–15–3502 of
the Montana Code creates a Board of
Environmental Review (‘‘Board’’). The
Board consists of seven members
appointed by the Governor and meeting
certain statutory criteria. Under 75–2–
211(10), MCA, a person who is directly
and adversely affected by the Montana
DEQ’s approval or denial of a permit to
construct an air pollution source may
(with certain exceptions) request a
hearing before the Board. Similarly,
under section 75–2–218(5) of the
Montana Code, a person who
participated in the comment period on
DEQ’s issuance, renewal, amendment or
modification of a title V operating
permit may request a hearing before the
Board. Finally, under 75–2–201(1),
MCA, a person who receives an
enforcement order from DEQ under
Chapter 2 of Title 75, Air Quality, may
request a hearing before the Board.
Based on these State statutory
provisions and our discussion above of
the text of section 128(a)(1), we propose
to conclude that the Board falls within
the terms of subsection 128(a)(1). The
Board is a multi-member body that has
authority to approve permits and
enforcement orders under the Act. The
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27896
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
term ‘‘permits under the Act’’ includes
PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor
NSR permits. These are all permits
required to construct a new or modified
stationary source, and, under 75–2–
211(1), MCA, are potentially subject to
a hearing before the Board. Permits
under the Act also includes title V
operating permits, which, under 75–2–
218(5), MCA, are potentially subject to
a hearing before the Board. Similarly,
enforcement orders under the Act are,
under Montana Code section 75–2–
201(1), potentially subject to a hearing
before the Board. In short, the Board has
authority to hear appeals of permits and
enforcement orders under the Act.
The Board’s authority to hear appeals
is ‘‘authority to approve’’ within the
meaning of section 128, for two reasons.
First, the Board’s authority falls within
the plain meaning of the word
‘‘approve.’’ To approve means, among
other things, ‘‘to give formal sanction
to.’’ This is precisely what, for example,
an order from the Board upholding a
permit does: It formally sanctions the
permit. Second, the contrary
interpretation, that ‘‘authority to
approve’’ does not include the Board’s
authority to hear appeals, would be
inconsistent with the structure and
purpose of section 128. It would limit
the applicability of subsection 128(a)(1)
to multi-member boards that issue
permits in the first instance. As the
purpose of section 128 is to promote
disinterested decision-making on
permits and enforcement orders, it is
paramount that section 128 should
apply to the entity with authority to
make the final decision, and not merely
to the initial decision maker. In
addition, due to the language ‘‘with
similar powers’’ in subsection 128(a)(2),
the contrary interpretation would lead
to the illogical result that a state director
who issues permits and enforcement
orders that are subject to administrative
appeal would fall under the disclosure
requirement, but a director that was the
final decision maker on permits and
enforcement orders would not.
As the Board has authority to approve
permits and enforcement orders under
the Act, it is subject to subsection
128(a)(1). However, the Montana SIP
does not currently contain any
provisions to meet the requirements of
subsection 128(a)(1) and is therefore
deficient for this requirement.
Based on these deficiencies in the
Montana SIP, we propose to disapprove
Montana’s infrastructure SIP for this
element. We do not consider it
necessary to identify any particular
instances in which the Board’s actual
composition in practice has failed to
meet the compositional requirements of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
subsection 128(a)(1) or in which Board
members in practice have failed to meet
the disclosure requirements of
subsection 128(a)(2). The deficiency is
in the Montana SIP itself, which simply
fails to contain any provisions meeting
the explicit legal requirements of these
subsections. As a result, we propose to
disapprove this element of the State’s
infrastructure SIP.
6. Stationary source monitoring
system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires:
(i) the installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary steps, by
owners or operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions from such sources;
(ii) periodic reports on the nature and
amounts of emissions and emissions-related
data from such sources; and
(iii) correlation of such reports by the State
agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to [the Act],
which reports shall be available at reasonable
times for public inspection.
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite three
State Rules: ARM 17.8.105 (66 FR
42427); ARM 17.8.106 (66 FR 42427);
and ARM 17.8.505 (State only rule).
Montana’s administrative rules
authorize the Department to require
monitoring of emissions from stationary
sources and annual submissions of all
information necessary to complete a
source emissions inventory. Affected
permits require emissions monitoring
from stationary sources of air pollution,
including PM emissions. Further, on an
annual basis, the Department compiles
a state emissions inventory of all
regulated sources for the evaluation of
compliance with applicable standards
and inclusion in EPA databases.
b. EPA Analysis: The provisions cited
by Montana (ARM 17.8.105 and
17.8.106) pertain to testing requirements
and protocols. Montana also
incorporates by reference 40 CFR part
51, appendix P, regarding minimum
monitoring requirements. (See ARM
17.8.103(1)(D)). In addition, Montana
provides for monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for sources
subject to minor and major source
permitting. EPA therefore proposes to
approve Montana’s infrastructure SIP
with regard to the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
7. Emergency powers: Section
110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide
for authority to address activities
causing imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health,
including contingency plans to
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
implement the emergency episode
provisions in their SIPs.
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite EPA
approved Montana’s Emergency Episode
Avoidance Plan (EEAP) in 71 FR 19,
January 3, 2006. Montana’s EEAP made
provision for emergency control of all
criteria pollutants. Under authority
granted by the 75–2–402, MCA, and the
Montana EEAP, the Department may
order sources of pollution to limit or
cease emissions. The MT CAA is not
subject to approval by EPA.
b. EPA analysis: Section 75–2–402 of
the MCA provides the Department with
general emergency authority comparable
to that in section 303 of the Act. EPA
last approved revisions to the EEAP on
January 3, 2006 (71 FR 19). The SIP
therefore meets the requirements of
110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
8. Future SIP revisions: Section
110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide
for revision of such plan:
(i) from time to time as may be necessary
to take account of revisions of such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or
more expeditious methods of attaining such
standard; and
(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C),
whenever the Administrator finds on the
basis of information available to the
Administrator that the [SIP] is substantially
inadequate to attain the [NAAQS] which it
implements or to otherwise comply with any
additional requirements established under
this [Act].
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite
provisions in state law providing for
adoption of rules and regulations
contained in the MT CAA, 75–2–101 et
seq., MCA. More specifically, those
provisions are contained in 75–2–102,
MCA, Intent—Policy and Purpose; 75–
2–111, MCA, Powers of the Board, and
75–2–112, MCA, Powers and
Responsibilities of Department.
The MT CAA invests in the BER the
authority to adopt, amend, and repeal
rules for administering, implementing,
and enforcing rules promulgated to
regulate emissions of air pollutants,
including rules necessary to establish
measures to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. The Governor submits for
inclusion into the SIP rules determined
to be necessary to attain and maintain
the NAAQS.
b. EPA analysis: Montana’s statutory
provisions in the Montana CAA at 75–
2–101 et seq., give the BER sufficient
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
authority to meet the requirements of
110(a)(2)(H).
9. Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD and
visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J)
requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the
applicable requirements of section 121
of this title (relating to consultation),
section 127 of this title (relating to
public notification), and part C of this
subchapter (relating to [PSD] of air
quality and visibility protection).’’
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite the
State Implementation Plan for Columbia
Falls PM10 Nonattainment Area which
was approved by EPA on April 14, 1994
(59 FR 17700). Montana has not
changed or revoked consultation
processes since that time. Montana
holds public meetings and hearings on
all SIP revisions in accordance with 40
CFR 51, appendix V and Montana’s
open meeting laws 2–2–203, MCA.
On January 3, 2006, EPA approved
Montana’s EEAP at 71 FR 19. Montana’s
EEAP provides for all criteria pollutants,
including PM. The EEAP contains
provisions for disseminating
information regarding an exceedance of
the NAAQS to appropriate news media,
health officials, law enforcement, and
others. The Department notice includes
recommendations for actions citizens
may take to reduce the impact of their
activities. Montana also complies with
40 CFR 51.930 during exceptional
events.
Congress directed states to develop
and implement measures to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7471. Montana
adopted permitting requirements for
major sources proposing to modify or
construct, PSD rules in subchapter 8 (60
FR 36715), and nonattainment NSR
rules in subchapter 9 (60 FR 36715) and
10 (60 FR 36715) of Title 17, Chapter 8,
ARM. Montana continues to implement
and enforce these rules. Montana
consults with Federal Land Managers as
needed and/or required.
The EPA promulgated a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP), which
became final on September 18, 2012 (77
FR 57864), to address regional haze
requirements for the State of Montana.
b. EPA Analysis: The State has
demonstrated that it has the authority
and rules in place to provide a process
of consultation with general purpose
local governments, designated
organizations of elected officials of local
governments and any Federal Land
Manager having authority over federal
land to which the SIP applies,
consistent with the requirements of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
CAA section 121. Furthermore,
Montana’s EEAP, approved into the SIP,
meets the general requirements of CAA
section 127.
Turning to the requirement in section
110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the
applicable requirements of part C of title
I of the Act, EPA has evaluated this
requirement in the context of
infrastructure element (C) in section
IV.3 above. As discussed there, EPA
proposes to disapprove Montana’s
infrastructure SIP for the requirement in
110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP include a
permit program as required in part C, on
the basis that Montana’s SIP-approved
PSD program does not properly regulate
nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor.
For the same reason, EPA proposes to
disapprove Montana’s infrastructure SIP
with regard to the requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the
applicable requirements of part C of title
I the Act.
Finally, with regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection,
EPA recognizes that states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the Act. In
the event of the establishment of a new
NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements
under part C do not change. Thus, we
find that there is no new visibility
obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS
becomes effective.
We propose to find that the Montana
SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS with regard to sections 121 and
127 of the Act, and does not meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
regard to meeting the applicable
requirements of part C relating to PSD.
10. Air quality and modeling/data:
Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that each
SIP provide for:
(i) the performance of such air quality
modeling as the Administrator may prescribe
for the purpose of predicting the effect on
ambient air quality of any emissions of any
air pollutant for which the Administrator has
established a [NAAQS]; and
(ii) the submission, upon request, of data
related to such air quality modeling to the
Administrator.
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite Title 17,
Chapter 8, subchapters 7 (60 FR 3615),
8 (60 FR 36715), 9 (60 FR 36715), and
10 (60 FR 36715), ARM (regulating
construction of new or modified major
stationary sources consistent with PSD
and NSR requirements). Sources subject
to these provisions shall demonstrate
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27897
the facility can be expected to operate
in compliance with applicable law and
that it will not cause or contribute to a
violation of any NAAQS.
Absent any privacy restrictions
regarding the release of proprietary
business information, all
preconstruction data and analysis
regarding the results of source
predictive modeling for purposes of
NAAQS compliance is public
information available for anyone,
including EPA, to review upon request.
b. EPA Analysis: Montana’s SIP meets
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. In particular, Montana’s
approved PSD program (see ARM
17.8.821(1)) requires estimates of
ambient air concentrations to be based
on the applicable air quality models,
databases, and other requirements
specified in appendix W of 40 CFR part
51, pertaining to the Guidelines on Air
Quality Models. As a result, the SIP
provides for such air quality modeling
as the Administrator has prescribed
with respect to the SIP outside of the
nonattainment context.
11. Permitting fees: Section
110(a)(2)(L) directs SIPs to:
Require the owner or operator of each
major stationary source to pay to the
permitting authority, as a condition of any
permit required under this act, a fee
sufficient to cover—
(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and
acting upon any application for such a
permit, and
(ii) if the owner or operator receives a
permit for such source, the reasonable costs
of implementing and enforcing the terms and
conditions of any such permit (not including
any court costs or other costs associated with
any enforcement action), until such fee
requirement is superseded with respect to
such sources by the Administrator’s approval
of a fee program under [title] V * * *
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite an
approved Title V permitting program.
Montana requires an applicant
proposing to construct or modify an air
pollution source to pay an application
fee, ARM 17.8.504 (State rule only).
Sources must also pay an annual
operation fee, ARM 17.8.505 (State rule
only).
b. EPA Analysis: Montana’s approved
title V operating permit program meets
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. As discussed in the Direct
Final Rule approving the State’s title V
program (65 FR 37049, June 13, 2000),
the State demonstrated that the fees
collected were sufficient to administer
the program.
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
27898
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
12. Consultation/participation by
affected local entities: Section
110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide
for consultation and participation in SIP
development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
a. Montana’s response to this
requirement: The State’s submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements cite Section
75–2–112(2)(j) of the MT CAA which
requires the Department to ‘‘. . . advise,
consult, contract, and cooperate with
other agencies of the state, local
governments, industries, other states,
interstate and interlocal agencies, the
United States, and any interested
persons or groups; . . .’’
As a matter of practice, the
Department consults with the local
agencies when nec . . . essary to
implement a control plan for a
nonattainment area. The Department
also meets with county/local air
pollution control program staff and
discusses monitoring issues, including
monitoring for PM2.5, prior to making
decisions regarding monitoring needs,
monitor type, locations, and monitoring
schedules.
Parties affected by Department
actions, including local political
subdivisions, may petition the BER for
a hearing and address of their
grievances, see ARM 17.8.140 (66 FR
42427), 17.8.141 (66 FR 42427), and
17.8.142 (66 FR 42427).
b. EPA Analysis: Montana’s submittal
meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. What action is EPA taking?
In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve the following infrastructure
elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS: (A), (C) with respect to the
requirement to have a minor NSR
program that addresses PM2.5; (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to
the requirements of sections 121 and
127, (K), (L), and (M). EPA is proposing
to disapprove the following
infrastructure elements for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (E)(ii) concerning
requirements for state boards under
section 128; and elements (C) and (J)
with respect to the requirement to have
a PSD program that meets the
requirements of part C of Title I of the
Act. Finally, in this action, EPA is
taking no action on infrastructure
element (D) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS as that element will be acted on
separately.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
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,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves some state law
as meeting federal requirements and
disapproves other state law because it
does not meet federal requirements; this
proposed action 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 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 CAA; 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
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations,
Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: May 2, 2013.
Howard M. Cantor,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013–11293 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0726; FRL–9813–1]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards; Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Requirements
for PM2.5 Increments and Major and
Minor Source Baseline Dates; State
Board Requirements; North Dakota
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from the State of North
Dakota to demonstrate that the SIP
meets the infrastructure requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for particulate
matter less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers (mm) in diameter (PM2.5) on
July 18, 1997 and on October 17, 2006.
The CAA requires that each state, after
a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated, review their SIP to ensure
that it meets the requirements of the
‘‘infrastructure elements’’ necessary to
implement the new or revised NAAQS.
On May 25, 2012, North Dakota
submitted a certification of their
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. On August 12, 2010 and May
22, 2012, North Dakota submitted
certifications of their infrastructure SIP
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are also
proposing to approve two submissions
from North Dakota that revise the SIP to
address particular infrastructure
elements. First, the State submitted
revisions to the North Dakota Air
Pollution Control Rules (NDAC) on
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27891-27898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11293]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0724; FRL-9812-9]
Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards; Montana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of
Montana to demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 and 2006 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers ([mu]m) in diameter (PM2.5). The Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires that each state, after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated, review their SIP to ensure that they meet infrastructure
requirements. The State of Montana submitted a certification of their
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, dated
February 10, 2010. EPA does not propose to act in this notice on the
State's submissions to meet requirements relating to interstate
transport of air pollution for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA will act on those submissions in a separate action.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 12, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0724, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: ayala.kathy@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0724. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
[[Page 27892]]
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I,
General Information, of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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. 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: Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6142,
ayala.kathy@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 initials AIRS mean or refer to national air quality
database.
(iii) The initials ARM mean or refer to Administrative Rules of
Montana.
(iv) The initials BACT mean or refer to best available control
technology.
(v) The initials BER mean of refer to Board of Environmental
Review.
(vi) The initials CBI mean or refer to confidential business
information.
(vii) The words or initials Department or DEQ mean or refer to
the Department of Environmental Quality.
(viii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(ix) The initials EEAP mean or refer to Emergency Episode
Avoidance Plan.
(x) The initials FIP mean or refer to a Federal Implementation
Plan.
(xi) The initials GHG mean or refer to greenhouse gases.
(xii) The initials QAPPs mean or refer to Quality Assurance
Project Plans.
(xiii) The initials QA/QC mean or refer to quality assurance/
quality control.
(xiv) The initials LAER mean or refer to lowest achievable
emission rate.
(xv) The initials MCA mean or refer to Montana Code Annotated.
(xvi) The initials MT CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act of
Montana.
(xvii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to national ambient air
quality standards.
(xviii) The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
(xix) The initials NPRM mean or refer to notice of proposed
rulemaking.
(xx) The initials NSR mean or refer to new source review.
(xxi) The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.
(xxii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine
particulate matter).
(xxiii) The initials ppm mean or refer to parts per million.
(xxiv) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration.
(xxv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
(xxvi) The initials SOP mean or refer to Standard Operating
Procedures.
(xxvii) The initials SSM mean or refer to start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
IV. What infrastructure elements are required under sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
V. How did Montana address the infrastructure elements of Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and page number);
Follow directions and organize your comments;
Explain why you agree or disagree;
Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested
changes;
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used;
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives;
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats; and,
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for PM2.5.
Two new PM2.5 standards were added, set at 15 [mu]g/m\3\,
based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5
concentration from single or multiple community-oriented monitors, and
65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented
monitor within an area. In addition, the 24-hour PM10
standard was revised to be based on the 99th percentile of 24-hour
PM10 concentration at each monitor within an area (62 FR
38652).
On October 17, 2006 EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for
PM2.5, revising the level of the 24-hour PM2.5
standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retaining the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA also retained the 24-
hour PM10 and revoked the annual PM10 standard
(71 FR 61144). By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2)
provides basic requirements for SIPs, including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling, to assure attainment and maintenance of the
standards. These requirements are set out in several ``infrastructure
elements,'' listed in section 110(a)(2).
Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time
[[Page 27893]]
the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS
affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP
submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's
existing SIP already contains.
III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
This rulemaking will not cover four substantive issues that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM'');
(ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or
``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); (iii) existing provisions for minor source
NSR programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA
and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (``minor source
NSR''); and, (iv) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526
(June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA has indicated that it
has other authority to address any such existing SIP defects in other
rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed rationale for why these four
substantive issues are not part of the scope of infrastructure SIP
rulemakings can be found in EPA's July 13, 2011, final rule entitled,
``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' in the
section entitled, ``What is the scope of this final rulemaking?'' (see
76 FR 41075 at 41076-41079).
IV. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1)
and (2)?
Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated.
Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or
satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements such as
modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories, which are designed to
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The elements that are
the subject of this action are listed below.
110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
110(a)(2)(E)(i): Adequate resources and authority.
110(a)(2)(E)(ii): Compliance with CAA section 128
regarding state boards.
110(a)(2)(E)(iii): State responsibility for local
government implementation.
110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the
next section.
Element 110(a)(2)(D), Interstate transport of pollutants from
Montana, which contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any other state will be acted upon in a
separate action.
Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore
not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D of Title
I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due within 3
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due
at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements are due under
section 172. The two elements are: (i) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the
extent it refers to permit programs (known as ``nonattainment new
source review (NSR)''), required under part D; and (ii) section
110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure
elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I).
V. How did Montana address the infrastructure elements of Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives
such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
Lincoln County Health and Environment Regulations approved by the BER
on March 23, 2006 and submitted for inclusion into the SIP on June 26,
2006. The Libby control plan was effective in maintaining ambient
PM2.5 concentrations at a level below both the annual and
revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 8, 2006, EPA
notified the State of Montana that the Libby area was in attainment
with the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
In addition, to control plan implementation for the Libby area,
Montana implemented a statewide program for permitting major and minor
stationary sources of air pollution, including PM2.5.
Montana's permitting program(s) require affected sources to demonstrate
that source emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of
the NAAQS. Affected sources are further required to utilize BACT and/or
LAER, as applicable, for emissions of regulated pollutants.
Montana also regulates major and minor open burning activities and
subjects those conducting open burning to BACT requirements.
Except for specific control measures adopted in BER orders, the
emission limits and other air pollution control regulations are
contained in the following subchapters of Title 17, Chapter 8, ARM:
Subchapter 1--General Provisions (60 FR 36715); Subchapter 3--Emission
Standards (44 FR 14036); Subchapter 4--Stack Heights and Dispersion
Techniques (60 FR 36715); Subchapter 6--Open Burning; Subchapter (60 FR
36715); Subchapter 7--Permit, Construction and Operation of Air
Contaminant Sources (60 FR 36715); Subchapter 8--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (60 FR 36715); Subchapter 9--
Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources or Major Modifications
Locating within Nonattainment Areas (60 FR 36715); Subchapter 10--
Preconstruction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources or
Major Modifications Locating within Attainment or Unclassified Areas
(60 FR 36715); and Subchapter 16--Emission Control Requirements for Oil
and Gas Well Facilities Operating Prior to Issuance of a Montana Air
Quality Permit.
b. EPA analysis: Montana's SIP meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
[[Page 27894]]
NAAQS, subject to the following clarifications. First, this
infrastructure element does not require the submittal of regulations or
emission limitations developed specifically for attaining the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In Montana's case, we have approved an
attainment plan for Lincoln County, which was designated nonattainment
for the annual PM2.5 standard. Outside of the Lincoln County
PM2.5 attainment plan, Montana regulates emissions of
PM2.5 in two ways: (1) Through its SIP approved open burning
program; and (2) through its SIP approved major and minor source
permitting programs. This suffices to meet the requirements of
110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Second, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. A number of states have such
provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52
FR 45109, November 24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in
the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance
provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps
to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
Finally, in this action, EPA is also not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing SIP provisions with regard to excess emissions
during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a
facility. A number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to
the CAA and existing EPA guidance \1\ and the Agency is addressing such
state regulations separately (78 FR 12460).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.'' (September
20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B)
requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate
devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to ``(i) monitor,
compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon
request, make such data available to the Administrator.''
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
a statewide air quality monitoring network operated by the Department,
including numerous monitoring activities dedicated specifically to
PM2.5.
On an annual basis, the Department evaluates trends in industrial
and economic development, meteorology, and population growth and makes
other scientific, social, and geographic observations regarding areas
of the State which may be adversely affected by emissions of air
pollutants, including PM2.5. The Department, with
participation and input by local county air pollution control agencies
and other interested parties, makes informed decisions regarding the
type, location, and schedules for monitoring various air quality
parameters, including PM2.5. The product of this decision-
making process, the Air Monitoring Network Plan, is made available for
public inspection and the Department annually submits the final
document to EPA.
All of the Department's ambient air monitoring operations and
resultant data is subject to strict QA/QC processes. The Department
employs a variety of QAPPs, and SOPs to maintain the highest level of
data quality. The Department's air monitoring and data handling QAPPs
and SOPs are routinely submitted to EPA for review and approval. The
air monitoring data resulting from these rigorous QA/QC processes is
uploaded and stored in EPA's AIRS for further review and analysis.
The provisions in State law for the collection and analysis of
ambient air quality data is contained in the MT CAA, 75-2-101 et seq.,
MCA, Powers and Responsibilities of Department.
b. EPA analysis: Montana's air monitoring programs and data systems
meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2012 Montana Annual Monitoring Network Plan
(AMNP), dated July 10, 2012, was approved by EPA Region 8 on April 8,
2013.
3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section
110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a program to provide for the
enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and
regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that
NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C
and D.
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
Montana's administrative rules which authorize enforcement activities
sufficient to ensure enforceable emission control measures are
implemented to protect the NAAQs.
Congress directed states to develop and implement measures to
prevent significant deterioration. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.130 (71 FR
3770), sources subject to the provisions of Title 17, Chapter 8,
subchapters 8 (60 FR 36715), 9 (60 FR 36715), and 10 (60 FR 36715), ARM
(regulating construction of new or modified major stationary sources
consistent with PSD and NSR requirements) shall be subject to
enforcement. The Department is authorized to issue a notice of
violation, complaint regarding the source violation, and an order to
take corrective action.
The provisions in state law for the enforcement of emission
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques are
contained in the MT CAA, 75-2-101 et seq., MCA, and specifically, 75-2-
111, MCA, Powers of the Board and 75-2-112, MCA, Powers and
Responsibilities of Department.
b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C), the State is required to have SIP-approved PSD,
nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to
implement the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained above,
in this action EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions,
such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. In
this action, EPA is evaluating the State's PSD program as required by
part C of the Act, and the State's minor NSR program as required by
110(a)(2)(C).
Montana has a SIP-approved PSD program that generally meets the
requirements of part C of the Act. However, in order for the State's
SIP approved PSD program to satisfy the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the program
must meet all requirements of part C of Title I of the Act, including
proper regulation of ozone precursors. On November 29, 2005, EPA
promulgated the phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
which includes requirements for PSD programs to treat nitrogen oxides
as a precursor for ozone (70 FR 71612). The State's approved PSD
program does not satisfy the requirements of the phase 2 implementation
rule. Furthermore, the State has not submitted a revision to the
program to address this deficiency.\2\ As
[[Page 27895]]
a result, the SIP does not satisfy, for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirement of element 110(a)(2)(C) for the
SIP to include a permit program as required in part C of Title I of the
Act. EPA therefore proposes to disapprove the Montana infrastructure
SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The State did submit a SIP revision to address the
requirements of the phase 2 ozone implementation rule for the
State's nonattainment NSR program. As discussed above, the
nonattainment NSR program is outside the scope of this
infrastructure SIP action. We understand that the state has
promulgated a rule that may satisfy this requirement and we will
propose action on that SIP revision when it is submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to minor NSR, EPA is proposing to approve Montana's
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a
program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of
any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are
achieved, specifically the PM2.5 NAAQS. (See ARM Chapter
17.8, Subchapter 7.) The SIP approved minor NSR program addresses
PM2.5, as any facility required to obtain a permit must
demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS. (See ARM 17.8.749(3).) EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itself to the extent
that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program.
A number of states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to
the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with
states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory
provisions for the program. The statutory requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor
NSR programs, and it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements
for this program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility
to design a program that meets their particular air quality concerns,
while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting
the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor sources.
4. Adequate resources and local and regional government: Section
110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide:
(i) necessary assurances that the State * * * will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under State * * * law to carry out
the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State
law from carrying out [the SIP] or portion thereof) * * *
(iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied upon
a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the
implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility
for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.
a. Montana's response to this requirement: According to the State's
submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure
requirements, no state or federal provisions prohibit the
implementation of any provision of the Montana SIP. Montana devotes
adequate resources to SIP development and maintenance sufficient to
ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
The Department receives grant monies from EPA intended to fund
programs to protect the NAAQS. The Department allocates a portion of
the EPA grant money to fund SIP activities for attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, Montana imposes and collects
fees from permitted sources. Montana allocates a portion of the permit
fee revenue to activities associated with permitting and compliance for
sources of regulated air pollutants, including PM2.5
emissions. Montana also receives state general funds to conduct state
air quality program activities. Montana allocates a portion of state
general funding to non-permit air program activities, including SIP
programs for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
The Air Resources Management Bureau has 50 fulltime equivalent
positions with an annual budget of $6.3 million for fiscal year 2010.
The program funding is broken down as follows: $163,536 from state
general funds, $1,643,940 from Federal grants, and $4,546,047 from
stationary source fees.
The provisions in state law which describe adequate implementation
of local or regional implementation of any plan provision are provided
in MCA 75-2-112, Power and Responsibilities of Department.
The provisions in state law providing for adequate resources are
contained in the MT CAA, 75-2-101 et seq., MCA. More specifically,
those provisions are contained in 75-2-102, MCA, Intent--Policy and
Purpose; 75-2-111, MCA, Powers of the Board and 75-2-112, MCA, Powers
and Responsibilities of Department.
b. EPA Analysis: The provisions contained in 75-2-102, MCA, 75-2-
111, MCA, and 75-2-112, MCA, provide adequate authority for the State
of Montana and the DEQ to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The State receives sections
103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance Partnership Grant along
with required state matching funds to provide funding necessary to
carry out Montana's SIP requirements. EPA therefore proposes to approve
the Montana infrastructure SIP with regard to the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
5. State boards: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that ``the State
comply with the requirements respecting State boards under section
128.''
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The Montana BER adopts
regulations and the Montana DEQ implements and enforces those
regulations, including those of the state air program. The composition
and requirements of the BER are detailed in 2-15-3502, MCA, 2-15-121,
MCA, and 2-15-124, MCA. Laws related to conflict of interest in Montana
state government are found in 2-2-201, MCA, and 2-2-202, MCA. None of
these Montana statutes are subject to approval by the federal
government.
b. EPA Analysis: The Montana SIP does not contain provisions that
meet the requirements of CAA section 128. Section 128 must be
implemented through SIP-approved, federally enforceable provisions. In
particular, subsection 128(a)(2) requires that all SIPs must contain
provisions for the adequate disclosure of potential conflicts of
interest. The Montana SIP does not currently contain any such
provisions and is deficient with respect to the requirements of
subsection 128(a)(2).
Furthermore, section 2-15-3502 of the Montana Code creates a Board
of Environmental Review (``Board''). The Board consists of seven
members appointed by the Governor and meeting certain statutory
criteria. Under 75-2-211(10), MCA, a person who is directly and
adversely affected by the Montana DEQ's approval or denial of a permit
to construct an air pollution source may (with certain exceptions)
request a hearing before the Board. Similarly, under section 75-2-
218(5) of the Montana Code, a person who participated in the comment
period on DEQ's issuance, renewal, amendment or modification of a title
V operating permit may request a hearing before the Board. Finally,
under 75-2-201(1), MCA, a person who receives an enforcement order from
DEQ under Chapter 2 of Title 75, Air Quality, may request a hearing
before the Board.
Based on these State statutory provisions and our discussion above
of the text of section 128(a)(1), we propose to conclude that the Board
falls within the terms of subsection 128(a)(1). The Board is a multi-
member body that has authority to approve permits and enforcement
orders under the Act. The
[[Page 27896]]
term ``permits under the Act'' includes PSD, nonattainment NSR, and
minor NSR permits. These are all permits required to construct a new or
modified stationary source, and, under 75-2-211(1), MCA, are
potentially subject to a hearing before the Board. Permits under the
Act also includes title V operating permits, which, under 75-2-218(5),
MCA, are potentially subject to a hearing before the Board. Similarly,
enforcement orders under the Act are, under Montana Code section 75-2-
201(1), potentially subject to a hearing before the Board. In short,
the Board has authority to hear appeals of permits and enforcement
orders under the Act.
The Board's authority to hear appeals is ``authority to approve''
within the meaning of section 128, for two reasons. First, the Board's
authority falls within the plain meaning of the word ``approve.'' To
approve means, among other things, ``to give formal sanction to.'' This
is precisely what, for example, an order from the Board upholding a
permit does: It formally sanctions the permit. Second, the contrary
interpretation, that ``authority to approve'' does not include the
Board's authority to hear appeals, would be inconsistent with the
structure and purpose of section 128. It would limit the applicability
of subsection 128(a)(1) to multi-member boards that issue permits in
the first instance. As the purpose of section 128 is to promote
disinterested decision-making on permits and enforcement orders, it is
paramount that section 128 should apply to the entity with authority to
make the final decision, and not merely to the initial decision maker.
In addition, due to the language ``with similar powers'' in subsection
128(a)(2), the contrary interpretation would lead to the illogical
result that a state director who issues permits and enforcement orders
that are subject to administrative appeal would fall under the
disclosure requirement, but a director that was the final decision
maker on permits and enforcement orders would not.
As the Board has authority to approve permits and enforcement
orders under the Act, it is subject to subsection 128(a)(1). However,
the Montana SIP does not currently contain any provisions to meet the
requirements of subsection 128(a)(1) and is therefore deficient for
this requirement.
Based on these deficiencies in the Montana SIP, we propose to
disapprove Montana's infrastructure SIP for this element. We do not
consider it necessary to identify any particular instances in which the
Board's actual composition in practice has failed to meet the
compositional requirements of subsection 128(a)(1) or in which Board
members in practice have failed to meet the disclosure requirements of
subsection 128(a)(2). The deficiency is in the Montana SIP itself,
which simply fails to contain any provisions meeting the explicit legal
requirements of these subsections. As a result, we propose to
disapprove this element of the State's infrastructure SIP.
6. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F)
requires:
(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or
operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such
sources;
(ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and
emissions-related data from such sources; and
(iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any
emission limitations or standards established pursuant to [the Act],
which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public
inspection.
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
three State Rules: ARM 17.8.105 (66 FR 42427); ARM 17.8.106 (66 FR
42427); and ARM 17.8.505 (State only rule).
Montana's administrative rules authorize the Department to require
monitoring of emissions from stationary sources and annual submissions
of all information necessary to complete a source emissions inventory.
Affected permits require emissions monitoring from stationary sources
of air pollution, including PM emissions. Further, on an annual basis,
the Department compiles a state emissions inventory of all regulated
sources for the evaluation of compliance with applicable standards and
inclusion in EPA databases.
b. EPA Analysis: The provisions cited by Montana (ARM 17.8.105 and
17.8.106) pertain to testing requirements and protocols. Montana also
incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 51, appendix P, regarding minimum
monitoring requirements. (See ARM 17.8.103(1)(D)). In addition, Montana
provides for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
sources subject to minor and major source permitting. EPA therefore
proposes to approve Montana's infrastructure SIP with regard to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
7. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to
provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans
to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
EPA approved Montana's Emergency Episode Avoidance Plan (EEAP) in 71 FR
19, January 3, 2006. Montana's EEAP made provision for emergency
control of all criteria pollutants. Under authority granted by the 75-
2-402, MCA, and the Montana EEAP, the Department may order sources of
pollution to limit or cease emissions. The MT CAA is not subject to
approval by EPA.
b. EPA analysis: Section 75-2-402 of the MCA provides the
Department with general emergency authority comparable to that in
section 303 of the Act. EPA last approved revisions to the EEAP on
January 3, 2006 (71 FR 19). The SIP therefore meets the requirements of
110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
8. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs
provide for revision of such plan:
(i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods
of attaining such standard; and
(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the
Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the
Administrator that the [SIP] is substantially inadequate to attain
the [NAAQS] which it implements or to otherwise comply with any
additional requirements established under this [Act].
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
provisions in state law providing for adoption of rules and regulations
contained in the MT CAA, 75-2-101 et seq., MCA. More specifically,
those provisions are contained in 75-2-102, MCA, Intent--Policy and
Purpose; 75-2-111, MCA, Powers of the Board, and 75-2-112, MCA, Powers
and Responsibilities of Department.
The MT CAA invests in the BER the authority to adopt, amend, and
repeal rules for administering, implementing, and enforcing rules
promulgated to regulate emissions of air pollutants, including rules
necessary to establish measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The
Governor submits for inclusion into the SIP rules determined to be
necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
b. EPA analysis: Montana's statutory provisions in the Montana CAA
at 75-2-101 et seq., give the BER sufficient
[[Page 27897]]
authority to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(H).
9. Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD
and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each SIP
``meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title
(relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to
public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to [PSD]
of air quality and visibility protection).''
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
the State Implementation Plan for Columbia Falls PM10
Nonattainment Area which was approved by EPA on April 14, 1994 (59 FR
17700). Montana has not changed or revoked consultation processes since
that time. Montana holds public meetings and hearings on all SIP
revisions in accordance with 40 CFR 51, appendix V and Montana's open
meeting laws 2-2-203, MCA.
On January 3, 2006, EPA approved Montana's EEAP at 71 FR 19.
Montana's EEAP provides for all criteria pollutants, including PM. The
EEAP contains provisions for disseminating information regarding an
exceedance of the NAAQS to appropriate news media, health officials,
law enforcement, and others. The Department notice includes
recommendations for actions citizens may take to reduce the impact of
their activities. Montana also complies with 40 CFR 51.930 during
exceptional events.
Congress directed states to develop and implement measures to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7471. Montana adopted permitting requirements for major sources
proposing to modify or construct, PSD rules in subchapter 8 (60 FR
36715), and nonattainment NSR rules in subchapter 9 (60 FR 36715) and
10 (60 FR 36715) of Title 17, Chapter 8, ARM. Montana continues to
implement and enforce these rules. Montana consults with Federal Land
Managers as needed and/or required.
The EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which
became final on September 18, 2012 (77 FR 57864), to address regional
haze requirements for the State of Montana.
b. EPA Analysis: The State has demonstrated that it has the
authority and rules in place to provide a process of consultation with
general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected
officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having
authority over federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with
the requirements of CAA section 121. Furthermore, Montana's EEAP,
approved into the SIP, meets the general requirements of CAA section
127.
Turning to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the Act, EPA
has evaluated this requirement in the context of infrastructure element
(C) in section IV.3 above. As discussed there, EPA proposes to
disapprove Montana's infrastructure SIP for the requirement in
110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP include a permit program as required in part
C, on the basis that Montana's SIP-approved PSD program does not
properly regulate nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor. For the same
reason, EPA proposes to disapprove Montana's infrastructure SIP with
regard to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the
applicable requirements of part C of title I the Act.
Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we
find that there is no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under
section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
We propose to find that the Montana SIP meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
regard to sections 121 and 127 of the Act, and does not meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to meeting the applicable
requirements of part C relating to PSD.
10. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires
that each SIP provide for:
(i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the
Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect
on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for
which the Administrator has established a [NAAQS]; and
(ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
Title 17, Chapter 8, subchapters 7 (60 FR 3615), 8 (60 FR 36715), 9 (60
FR 36715), and 10 (60 FR 36715), ARM (regulating construction of new or
modified major stationary sources consistent with PSD and NSR
requirements). Sources subject to these provisions shall demonstrate
the facility can be expected to operate in compliance with applicable
law and that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS.
Absent any privacy restrictions regarding the release of
proprietary business information, all preconstruction data and analysis
regarding the results of source predictive modeling for purposes of
NAAQS compliance is public information available for anyone, including
EPA, to review upon request.
b. EPA Analysis: Montana's SIP meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In
particular, Montana's approved PSD program (see ARM 17.8.821(1))
requires estimates of ambient air concentrations to be based on the
applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements
specified in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, pertaining to the Guidelines
on Air Quality Models. As a result, the SIP provides for such air
quality modeling as the Administrator has prescribed with respect to
the SIP outside of the nonattainment context.
11. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) directs SIPs to:
Require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to
pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit
required under this act, a fee sufficient to cover--
(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any
application for such a permit, and
(ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source,
the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and
conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or
other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee
requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the
Administrator's approval of a fee program under [title] V * * *
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
an approved Title V permitting program. Montana requires an applicant
proposing to construct or modify an air pollution source to pay an
application fee, ARM 17.8.504 (State rule only). Sources must also pay
an annual operation fee, ARM 17.8.505 (State rule only).
b. EPA Analysis: Montana's approved title V operating permit
program meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed in the Direct Final Rule
approving the State's title V program (65 FR 37049, June 13, 2000), the
State demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to
administer the program.
[[Page 27898]]
12. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section
110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP.
a. Montana's response to this requirement: The State's submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
Section 75-2-112(2)(j) of the MT CAA which requires the Department to
``. . . advise, consult, contract, and cooperate with other agencies of
the state, local governments, industries, other states, interstate and
interlocal agencies, the United States, and any interested persons or
groups; . . .''
As a matter of practice, the Department consults with the local
agencies when nec . . . essary to implement a control plan for a
nonattainment area. The Department also meets with county/local air
pollution control program staff and discusses monitoring issues,
including monitoring for PM2.5, prior to making decisions
regarding monitoring needs, monitor type, locations, and monitoring
schedules.
Parties affected by Department actions, including local political
subdivisions, may petition the BER for a hearing and address of their
grievances, see ARM 17.8.140 (66 FR 42427), 17.8.141 (66 FR 42427), and
17.8.142 (66 FR 42427).
b. EPA Analysis: Montana's submittal meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
VI. What action is EPA taking?
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the following
infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(A), (C) with respect to the requirement to have a minor NSR program
that addresses PM2.5; (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
with respect to the requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L), and
(M). EPA is proposing to disapprove the following infrastructure
elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (E)(ii)
concerning requirements for state boards under section 128; and
elements (C) and (J) with respect to the requirement to have a PSD
program that meets the requirements of part C of Title I of the Act.
Finally, in this action, EPA is taking no action on infrastructure
element (D) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as that
element will be acted on separately.
VII. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
federal requirements; this proposed action 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 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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 2, 2013.
Howard M. Cantor,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-11293 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P