### 43918 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

1 Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (Oct. 2, 2007). Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or non-attainment

area State submittal date/adopted date EPA approval data and citation 5 Explanations

*******XI. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 1997 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS. Statewide 2/1/08 ..................................... 6/30/11, 7/22/11 [insert page

number where the document begins].

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2011–18425 Filed 7–21–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0298; FRL–9440–6]**

**Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;**  **Infrastructure Requirements for the**
**1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Montana** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
from the State of Montana to
demonstrate that the SIP meets the requirements of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that each state, after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIPs to ensure that they meet the requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure elements’’ of section 110(a)(2). The State of Montana submitted two certifications, dated November 28, 2007 and December 22, 2009, that its SIP met these requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The November 28, 2007
certification was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205).

**DATES :**  Effective Date: This final rule is effective August 22, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0298. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,

e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://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 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, dolan.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 words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

Table of Contents

I. Background II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 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 a state develops and submits its 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 a state’s existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP
submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. In a guidance issued on October 2, 2007, EPA noted that, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the section 110(a)(2) requirements, states need only to certify that fact via
a letter to EPA. 1

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rule entitled, ‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS’’ (73 FR 16205). In the rule, EPA made a finding for each state
that it had submitted or had failed to submit a complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In particular, EPA found that Montana had submitted a complete SIP (‘‘Infrastructure SIP’’) to meet these requirements.

On May 19, 2011, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Montana (76 FR 28934) to


### 43919 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

2 See the NPR (76 FR 28934) for further explanation regarding the omission of elements 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(I) from the proposal.

3 See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA– R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate rulemaking action to which they apply. act on the State’s Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, in the NPR EPA proposed approval of Montana’s SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) elements (A), (B), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (K), (L) and (M) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposed to disapprove 110(a)(2) elements (C) and(J) on the basis that Montana’s SIPapproved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program does not properly regulate nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor. EPA did not propose action on elements (D)(i), (I), and the visibility protection requirement of element (J). 2 EPA received a comment on section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and EPA is not finalizing today its proposed approval for this sub-element in order to fully respond to that comment.

Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. Commenters on EPA’s recent proposals for some
states raised concerns about EPA statements that it was not addressing
certain substantive issues in the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submissions. 3 The commenters specifically raised concerns involving provisions in existing SIPs and with
EPA’s statements that it would address two issues separately and not as part of
actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (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’’); and (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’’).
EPA notes that there are two other
substantive issues for which EPA
likewise stated that it would address the issues separately: (i) Existing provisions
for minor source new source review programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s regulations that pertain to such programs (‘‘minor source new source review (NSR)’’); and (ii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may
be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80,186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32,526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). In light of the comments, EPA
now believes that its statements in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with respect to these
four individual issues should be explained in greater depth with respect
to these issues.

EPA intended the statements in the proposals concerning these four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under the misconception that the Agency’s approval of the infrastructure SIP submission of a given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.’’ EPA further explained, for informational purposes, that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State regulations in the future.’’ EPA made similar statements, for similar reasons, with respect to the director’s discretion, minor source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA’s objective was to make clear that approval of an infrastructure
SIP for these ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing provisions that relate to these four
substantive issues.

Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently interpreted these
statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM provisions and the
other three substantive issues to be integral parts of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA was merely postponing taking final action on the
issue in the context of the infrastructure
SIPs. This was not EPA’s intention. To the contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions. EPA’s intention was to convey its position that the statute does not require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with separately, outside the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIP submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it was not taking a full final agency
action on the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to any
substantive issue that EPA considers to be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k) or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from EPA’s statements, however, we want to explain more fully the Agency’s reasons for concluding that these four potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed separately.

The requirement for the SIP
submissions at issue arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP submission ‘‘within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)’’ and that these SIPS are to provide for the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’
submission must meet. EPA has historically referred to these particular
submissions that states must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This specific term does not appear in the statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other different requirements,
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ submissions required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific matters.

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory


### 43920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

4 For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a substantive program to address certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event of such an emergency.

5 For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure that each SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states. This provision contains numerous terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic points as what constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25,162 (May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase ‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’).

6 See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25–162, at 63–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 7 EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet-Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006.

8 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS. 9 See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour

Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions I—X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 Guidance’’). EPA issued comparable guidance for

the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ from William T, Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I—X, dated September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’).

10 Id., at page 2.

11 Id., at attachment A, page 1.

12 Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to

some substantive issues indicates that the statute is not so ‘‘self-explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive provisions. 4 Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2) are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS. 5

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2)
states that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1). 6 This
illustrates that EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be applicable for a given
infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA has previously decided
that it could take action on different parts of the larger, general ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS
without concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency
bifurcated the action on these latter ‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive administrative actions proceeding on
different tracks with different schedules. 7 This illustrates that EPA may conclude that subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere submission addressing basic structural aspects of the SIP. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the
attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus,
the content of an infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element from a state might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to an existing NAAQS. 8

Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2), and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by part D
likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast,
it is clear that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirement applicable

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would
not be limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not
others.

Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA to interpret that language in the context of acting on the infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In other words, EPA assumes that Congress
could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS.

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 9 Within this guidance document, EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what the Agency characterized
as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for SIPs, which it further described as the ‘‘basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the standards.’’ 10 As
further identification of these basic structural SIP requirements, ‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance document included a short description
of the various elements of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of issues that EPA considered germane in the context of
such infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic requirements listed on attachment
A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an interpretation of’’ the requirements, and was merely a ‘‘brief description of the required elements.’’ 11 EPA also stated its belief that with one exception, theserequirements were ‘‘relatively selfexplanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 12 For the


### 43921 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order to explain why these substantive issues do not need
to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed at other times and by other

means. 13 EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 74 FR 21,639 (April 18, 2011).

14 EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See, ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant DeteriorationProvisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 82,536 (Dec. 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34,641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67,062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 15 EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director’s discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42,342 at 42,344 (July 21,2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4,540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). one exception to that general assumption, however, i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for
the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, and
for certain elements of the submittals for
the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed
that each state would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine the scope of a state’s submittal
based on an assessment of how the requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic structure of the SIP for the NAAQS in question.

Significantly, the 2007 Guidance did not explicitly refer to the SSM, director’s discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among specific substantive issues EPA expected states
to address in the context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues even if they elected to do so.
The SSM and director’s discretion issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A),
and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to address these specific
issues in the context of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 Guidance merely
indicated its belief that the states should make submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA
believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s proposals
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues that must
be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because
EPA wanted to be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as separate from the pending infrastructure

SIP actions.

EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has
the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS because of the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in existing SIPs.

Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency determines that a SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA. 13 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions. 14 Significantly, EPA’s determination that
an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency’s subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of
the basis for action at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director’s discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a subsequent

action. 15

II. Response to Comments

EPA received one letter on June 20, 2011 containing comments from WildEarth Guardians (WG), an environmental organization. The significant comments made in WG’s June 20, 2011 letter and EPA’s responses to those comments are given below.

Comment No. 1: The commenter
states that Montana’s SIP fails to meet the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) due to a lack of ozone impact analysis for new or modified major sources. The commenter alleges a number of specific inadequacies, which EPA discusses separately below.

Comment 1.a: The commenter states that the SIP does not require the State PSD permitting authority to ensure that
a new or modified source does not cause
or contribute to violations of the ozone NAAQS prior to issuance. The commenter cites section 165(a)(3) of the Act and quotes the language of 40 CFR 51.166(k)(1). The commenter later states that nothing in the SIP explicitly requires that ozone impacts be
addressed.

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. ARM 17.8.820, part of the Montana SIP, specifically requires PSD permit applicants to perform a source impact analysis. The language of section ARM 17.8.820 mirrors the language in 40 CFR 51.166(k)(1) quoted by the commenter. In addition, there is nothing in this section or any other section of the SIP that exempts sources from carrying out the source impact analysis for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Nor does the commenter cite any provision in the SIP that creates such an exemption. The


### 43922 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

16 For an explanation and discussion of SILs, in

the context of PM 2.5 , see 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). commenter is therefore in error in stating that the Montana SIP does not require the source impact analysis set out in 40 CFR 51.166(k)(1). Furthermore, ARM 17.8.820 requires the owner or operator of the proposed
source or modification to demonstrate
that the construction or modification of
the source will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. Such language includes the 1997 ozone NAAQS; thus the commenter is also in error in stating that the SIP does not specifically require ozone impacts to be
addressed.

Comment 1.b: The commenter states that the SIP does not identify any significant impact levels for ozone.

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with
the thrust of this comment. EPA has not identified significant impact levels (SILs) for ozone. 16 The comment, therefore, does not provide any basis for EPA to change its proposed approval of
the Montana infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(C) or (J) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Comment 1.c: The commenter states, citing ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(v), that the SIP indicates ‘‘an ozone analysis may only be required if VOC emissions exceed 100 tons/year.’’ The commenter alleges that there is no support for a 100 tpy significant emission rate and that the provision seems at odds with the

Act.

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, the commenter misunderstands the scope and application of the cited provision. ARM 17.8.818(7)(a), which mirrors the provision at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5), provides only for exemptions from the monitoring requirements in ARM
17.8.822 based on concentration
thresholds. These thresholds are known as significant monitoring concentrations (SMCs) and are unrelated to the significant emission rates (SERs) in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i). Furthermore,
sources below the SMCs in ARM 17.8.818(7)(a) (and the parallel provision at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)) are not exempt from the source impact analysis discussed in the response to comment
2.a above. The commenter is therefore in error in stating that an ozone analysis would not be required for sources emitting less than 100 tpy of VOCs. Finally, the exemption in 17.8.818(7)(a)(v) is specifically provided for in 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5).

Comment 1.d: The commenter states that ARM 17.8.822(7) ‘‘explicitly allows the owner or operator of a proposed major source or major modification to forego a pre-construction ozone analysis altogether,’’ instead allowing the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to ‘‘provide post-approval monitoring data for ozone.’’

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, EPA notes that section 17.8.822(7), which parallels the provision in 40 CFR 51.166(m)(1)(v), applies only if a proposed major stationary source or major modification of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) meets the requirements of subchapter 9, Montana’s nonattainment NSR program, including, in particular, the requirement to satisfy the lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER) for VOCs. Second, the commenter appears to misunderstand the scope of this provision. The provision does not exempt sources subject to PSD from the requirement to perform the source impact analysis in ARM 17.8.820 (discussed in the response to comment 1.a above); instead it allows sources that meet certain requirements, includingemploying LAER for VOCs, to use postconstruction monitoring to replace the pre-application air quality analysis requirements of section 17.8.822.

Comment 1.e: The commenter states
that the Montana SIP does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(l) regarding the use of air quality models.

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. ARM 17.8.821, part of Montana’s SIP-approved PSD program, mirrors the language of 40 CFR 51.166(l).

Comment No. 2: The commenter states that Montana’s permitting fees for its Title V program are ‘‘inadequate to ensure the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon permit applications
and the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of permits are covered.’’
The commenter attributes Montana’s lack of adequate resources to the State charging Title V permit applicants ‘‘below the minimum requirements
under Title V.’’ The commenter discusses the fees charged by the State
and cites an EPA memorandum discussing the presumptive minimum fee for part 70 (title V) programs. The commenter argues that there is no indication that the fees charged by the State, in aggregate, meet the presumptive minimum fee.

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with
this comment. As stated in the text of the section, 110(a)(2)(L) is no longer applicable to Title V operating permit programs after approval of such programs. As noted in the NPR, the Administrator’s final approval of Montana’s Title V operating permit program, including the Title V fee program, became effective on June 13, 2000 (65 FR 37049). Therefore, EPA
concludes that the Montana
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the Title V program.

III. Final Action

In this action, EPA is approving the following section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for Montana for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is taking no action today on section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA will address
this sub-element in a later action.

In this action, EPA is disapproving section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements (C) and (J) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposed to disapprove these
elements in its 5/19/11 NPR.

IV. 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 approves some state law as meeting Federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet Federal requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

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

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);


### 43923 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

• 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).
In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register

. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 20, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: June 30, 2011.

James B. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

**PART 52—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:

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

**Subpart BB—Montana**

■ 2. Section 52.1394 is added to read as
follows:

**§ 52.1394 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.** 

On December 22, 2009, David L. Klemp, Bureau Chief, Air Resources Management Bureau, of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
submitted a certification letter which provides the State of Montana’s SIP provisions which meet the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(1) and (2) relevant to the 1997 Ozone NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2011–18419 Filed 7–21–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND**
**SECURITY**

**Federal Emergency Management Agency** 

**44 CFR Part 67**

**[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002]**

**Final Flood Elevation Determinations**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the
communities listed below. The BFEs
and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

**DATES :**  The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing
BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated
in the table below. **ADDRESSES :**  The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection
at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the
table below.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (e-mail) luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations
listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from
this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance
with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM
available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are made final in the
communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community
are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood
elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,

58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order

12988.