ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

40 CFR Part 52
 

EPA-R08-0AR-2006-0601; FRL-


Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana - Air Quality, Subchapter 7 

and Other Subchapters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 

ACTION: Proposcd rule.
 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove State
 

Implemcntation Plan revisions submittcd by the State of Montana on August 26. 1999, May 28.
 

2003, March 9. 2004. October 25.2005. and October 16.2006. The revisions contain new.
 

amended, and repealed rules in Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction. and Operation of Air
 

Contaminant Sources) that pertain to thc issuance of Montana air quality permits. in addition to
 

other minor administrative changes to other subchapters of the Administrative Rules of Montana.
 

The intended effect of this action is to propose to approve those portions of the rules that are
 

approvable and to propose to disapprove those portions of the rules that are inconsistent wi th the
 

Clean Air Act. This action is being taken under section I 10 of the Clean Air Act.
 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days after publication in the
 

Fed~ral Registcr]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-0AR-2006­

0601. by one of the f()llowing methods: 

• ~\:YYV.regulatiolb".gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting commcnts. 
•	 Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). 

•	 Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mai1code 8P-AR. 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202­

1129. 

•	 Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 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. 

Ins/rue/ions: Direct your comments to Docket 10 No. EPA-R08-0AR-2006-0601. 

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.J5~.mll.!!i.9JJs.gov. including any personal inlormation 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (C81) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through wwvv.reg:~.lLations.gO\~or 

e-mail. The ~:~~~i.Yi.rs:g\il,-itLuD~.i..',~)_~: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 e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through 

www.r~.l.llatiQ.lJ..:'?:ZQ..v~,your e-mail 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 

2
 
infom1ation in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical diHiculties 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 viruses. For additional 

information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://wwv''.epa.gOv/~D9h!:)me/docke!s.llt!.lJ..For additional instructions on submitting comments, 

go to Section I. General Information ofthe SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the V}~~y~.~g~~l..''}ti~)rl.~.~(~~index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., cm 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 arc 

available either electronically in www.reQ.ulations.f2ov 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 ofthe docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER lNFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8PAR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202-1129. (303) 312-6227. or leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table ofContents 

.., 

.J 
I. General Information 

II. Summary of SIP Revisions 

III. EPA Review and Proposed Action on SIP Revisions 

IV. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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 othenvise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

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

(iv) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

I. Generallnformation 

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

1. Suhmitting eBl. Do not submit this information to EPA through Y3:~)Y.J'Cgl~latji~-,-~:1£':2.v.:

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBl. For cm 

information in 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 eRI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as em must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so 

4
 
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR pal1 2. 

2. Tips/c)r Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: 

a.	 Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information 

(subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

b.	 Follow directions - The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or 

section number. 

c.	 Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language 

for your requested changes. 

d.	 Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that 

you used. 

e.	 If you estimate potential costs or burdens. explain how you alTived at your 

. estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

f Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 

g.	 Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the usc of profanity or 

personal threats. 

h.	 Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 

II. Summary of SIP Revisions 

A. August 26, 1999 Submittal 

On August 26, 1999. the Governor of Montana submitted a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision request. The revision contains amended and repealed rules to various subchapters 

in the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) that were adopted by the Montana Board of 

Environmental Review (Board) on May 14, 1999. Specific to Subchapter 7 (Permit, 

5 
Construction. and Operation of Air Contaminant Sources). the submittal revised ARM 17.8.705 

and 17.8.733 and repealed ARM 17.8.708. However. as indicated below. a May 28.2003 

submittal rescinded the August 26, 1999 revisions to ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733. 

B. May 28, 2003 Submittal 

On May 28; 2003, the Governor of Montana submitted a SIP revision request. The 

revision contains new, amended, and repealed rules adopted by the Board on December 6, 2002. 

The new and repealed rules pertain to the issuance of Montana air quality permits and are in 

Subchapter 7 of the ARM. The amended rules contain references to the new and repealed rules. 

The new rules include: ARM 17.8.740. 17.8.743. 17.8.744. 17.8.745, 17.8.748. 17.8.749. 

17.8.752, 17.8.755. 17.8.756, 17.8.759, 17.8.760, 17.8.762, 17.8.763. 17.8.764. 17.8.765, 

17.8.767, and 17.8.770. 

The repealed SIP-approved rules include: ARM 17.8.701, 17.8.702. 17.8.704. 17.8.705, 

17.8.706,17.8.707.17.8.710,17.8.715.17.8.716,17.8.717.17.8.720.17.8.730,17.8.731, 

17.8.732, 17.8.733, and 17.8.734. 

The amended SIP-approved rules include: ARM 17.8.101. 17.8.110. 17.8.309, 17.8.310. 

17.8.316.17.8.818.17.8.825,17.8.826, 17.8.901, 17.8.904. 17.8.905. 17.8.906. 17.8.1004. 

17.8.1005.17.8.1106, and 17.8.1109. 

The May 28. 2003 submittal also rescinded outstanding SIP submissions for rules that 

amended the following: ARM 17.8.702, adopted July 20, 2001 and submitted on December 20, 

2001;1 ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733, adopted on May 14, 1999 and submitted on August 26. 

I Note that tht:: May 28, 2003 submittal requt::sted rescinding rt::visions to ARM 17.8.702. adopted on July 20. 200 I 

and submitted on December 20,200 I. EPA had already approved the revisions to ARM 17.8.702 (see 67 FR 55125, 

8/28/02, and 40 eFR 52. I370(c)(55» by the time we had received the May 28, 2003 letter. However. the May 28. 

2003 submittal also rt::quests that all of ARM 17.8.702 be repealed. We are proposing to remove ARM 17.8.702 

6
 
1999. 

EPA provided written comments to the State during the rulemaking process for the 

revisions submitted to EPA on May 28,2003. To review these comments please see the October 

9,2002 letter from Richard R. Long. EPA. to the Board included in the docket for this action. 

All future references in this notice to EPA's comments during the State rulemaking process refer 

to this letter. In addition. the State provided a response to all comments received during their 

rulemaking. To review these responses please see Public Hearing Notice and Final Notices on 

amendments of air quality rules letter dated December 26,2002 included as part ofthe May 28, 

2003 submittal. All future references in this notice to the State's response to EPA's comments 

refer to this letter. 

C. March 9, 2004 Submittal 

On March 9. 2004, the Governor of Montana submitted a SIP revision request. The 

revision contains amended rules adopted by the Board on September 26. 2003. The amended 

rules pertain to the issuance of Montana air quality permits. The following rules were amended: 

ARM 17.8.749. 17.8.759, 17.8.763, and 17.8.764. 

D. October 25, 2005 Submittal 

On October 25,2005, the Governor of Montana submitted a SIP revision request. The 

revision contains amended rules adopted by the Board on June 3, 2005. EPA approved all of the 

October 25,2005 submittal on July 19,2006 (71 FR 40922). except for ARM 17.8.767. We are 

addressing ARM 17.8.767 in this document. 

E. October 16,2006 SubmittaJ 

On October 16. 2006, the Governor of Montana submitted a SIP revision request. The 

from the federally-approved SIP. 

7 
revision contains an amended rule for ARM 17.8.743(1) and new rules codified as ARM 

17.8.1601,17.8.1602.17.8.1603,17.8.1604,17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606, and ARM 17.8.759 

adopted by the Board on December 2, 2005. The submittal also requested to withdraw ARM 

17.8.743( I)(c) from being incorporated into the SIP. We are addressing ARM 17.8.759 in this 

document. The revision to ARM 17.8.743(1) and the new rules pertain to the regulation of oil 

and gas well facilities, and we will address this revision request in a separate action. 

III. EPA Review and Proposed Action on SIP Revisions 

A. Repealed Rules 

The State has completely rewritten its pennitting rules in Subchapter 7 of the ARM. The 

State has repealed the existing SIP-approved rules and adopted new rules. We are proposing to 

approve the State's May 28. 2003 request to repeal the following rules from the SIP: ARM 

17.8.701, 17.8.702, 17.8.704, 17.8.705.17.8.706, 17.8.707, 17.8.710, 17.8.715, 17.8.716, 

17.8.717.17.8.720.17.8.730,17.8.731. 17.8.732, 17.8.733, and 17.8.734. Our review and 

proposed action on the new rules submitted on May 28. 2003, with revisions submitted on March 

9, 2004 and October 25, 2005, are discussed below. 

The August 26. 1999 SIP revision requested that ARM 17.8.708 be repealed from the 

SIP. On September 19. 1997. the Governor of Montana submitted a SIP revision that completely 

recoditied the State's air quality rules. ARM 17.8.708 was one of the rules recodified. In our 

August 13, 2001 final notice (66 FR 42427) on the recodification, we indicated that we would act 

on several provisions, including ARM 17.8.708, at a later date. Therefore, ARM 17.8.708 was 

never approved into the SIP. (See page 42434 of the August 13,2001 notice). At this point 

there is no ARM 17.8.708 to repeal as requested by the August 26, 1999 submittal letter. 

8
 
B. New Subchapter 7 Rules 

I. ARM 17.8.740 Definitions 

On May 28, 2003. the State submitted new section ARM 17,8,740, ARM 17.8.740 

contains the definitions applicable to Subchapter 7. Previously the definitions were in ARM 

17.8,70 I, which was repealed with the May 2003 submittal. ARM 17.8.740 contains definitions 

for some terms not contained in ARM 7.8.701, as well as makes minor modifications to some of 

the definitions that were contained in ARM 17.8.701. Also, two terms in ARM 17.8.701, 

"lowest achievable emission rate" and "major emitting facility," are not contained in ARM 

17.8.740. 

It is acceptable that the ARM 17,8.740 does not contain definitions for "lowest 

achievable emission rate" and "'major emitting facility." "Lowest achievable emission rate" is 

defined at ARM 17.8.901 (1 0) and the State's rules also contain a definition of "major stationary 

source" at ARM 17.8.801 (22) and 17.8.901 (12). 

Definitions for the following terms are being added to ARM 17.8.740, which were not 

previously in ARM 17.8.701: day; emitting unit; facility; install or installation; modify, Montana 

air quality permit; and routine maintenance, repair. or replacement. 

We are proposing to approve the definitions in section ARM 17.8.740, with the exception 

of the definitions of "routine maintenance, repair. or replacement" (RMRR), "modify," 

"negligible risk to the public health, safety, and welfare and to the environment" and "construct 

or construction." We are proposing to disapprove the definition of "'routine maintenance, repair. 

or replacement" and "negligible risk to the public health. safety, and welfare and to the 

environment," and portions of the definition of "construct or construction" and we are not taking 

action on portions of the definition of "modify" for the following reasons. 

9
 
a. "RMRR:' EPA has determined that the definition for RMRR at ARM 17.8.740(14) 

would be applicable to major sources, since this definition does not explicitly limit its application 

to true minor sources. The term RMRR is used in Montana's Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and non-attainment New Source Review (NSR) regulations (ARM 

17.8.80 I(20)(b)(i) and 17.8.90 I(II )(b)(i», but RMRR is not detined in these subchapters. 

During the State's rulemaking process we provided comments that expressed our concerns with 

the definition of RMRR. 2 In response to our comments, the State indicated that the definitions 

section (that includes the RMRR definition) in Subchapter 7 (Permit. Construction and Operation 

of Air Contaminant Sources) explicitly states that the definitions contained in that rule are "for 

the purposes of this subchapter," and therefore, the definition of "routine maintenance, repair. or 

replacement" would not apply to Subchapters 8, 9, and 10.3 However, EPA interprets ARM 

17.8.743 (Montana Air Quality Permits -When Required) as requiring all Montana sources (both 

major and minor) to comply with the requirements in Subchapter 7, and that major sources 

would also comply with the requirements in Subchapters 8, 9, or 10 as applicable. Theref()fe. 

major sources and the public may believe the definition of RMRR in Subchapter 7 is applicable 

to the major sources since there is nothing in subchapters 8, 9, or 10 prohibiting a major source 

from using this definition. 

Montana's definition of RMRR allows associated fixed capital costs less than S()(Yo of the 

fixed capital cost necessary to construct a comparable new emitting unit to be considered 

RMRR. Montana's definition ofRMRR is inconsistent with EPA's current policy concerning 

2 See October 9,2002 letter from Richard R. Long, EPA, to the Montana Board of Environmental Review - all 

future references in this notice to EPA's comments during the State rulemaking process refer to this letter. 

3 See Public Hearing Notice and Final Notices on alTlendments of air guality rules letter dated December 26,2002 

10
 
RMRR at PSD sources. EPA's position is that a determination ofroutine maintenance. repair. or 

replacement is a case specific process that cannot be generally defined. and takes into 

consideration the nature, extent, purpose, frequency and cost ofthe work. as well as any other 

relevant factors. 4 Furthermore, the State's rule is less stringent than EPA's vacated Routine 

Equipment Replacement Provision rule for PSI) sources (68 FR 61248). which had specified that 

the capital cost threshold for routine equipment replacement shall not cxceed 20 percent of the 

replacement value of the process (rule vacated by the Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit. NeHi 

York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C.Cir.2006». Based on the above analysis. we haw determined 

that Montana's definition for RMRR at ARM 17.8.740(14) is inconsistent with the Clcan Air Act 

(CAA) and is not approvable. 

b. "Modify." We are not taking action on part orthe definition of "modify:' The new 

definition for "modify" at ARM 17.8.740(8) refers to the "Exclusion of De Minimis Changes" 

provision codified at ARM 17.8.745, which EPA is not taking action on (sec discussion 

regarding ARM 17.8.745 below). Since we are not taking action on ARM 17.8.745. we are 

proposing to approve ARM] 7.8.740(8) with the exception of the following phrases: (I) "cxcept 

when a permit is not required under ARM 17.8.745" in ARM 17.8.740(8)(a); and (2) "except as 

provided in ARM 17.8.745" in ARM 17.8.740(8)(c). 

c. "Ncgligible risk to thc public health. safety. and welfare and to the environment." We 

are proposing to disapprove the definition of "negligible risk to the public health, safety, and 

welfare and to the environment" in ARM 17.8.740(10) because. in a March 30. 2006 Ictter to 

included as parl oflhc May 28. 2003 submittal all future references in this notice to the State's response to EPA's 

comments refer to this letter. 

.j See September 9, 1988 Memorandum from Don R. Clay. Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. to 

David A. Kee, Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region Y, titled "Applicability of Prevention of Significant 

11 
EPA, the State rescinded its May 28, 2003 request for provision ARM 17.8.770 (Additional 

Requirements for Incinerators) to be included in the federally-approved SfP. ARM 17.8.770 is 

the only provision in Subchapter 7 that utilizes this definition; and therefore. it is not necessary 

for it to be incorporated into the SIP. 

d. "Construct or construction." During the State's mlemaking process we expressed 

concerns with the definition of "constmct or construction" in ARM 17.8.740(2). We were 

concerned because this definition includes the phrase "reasonable period of time for startup and 

shakedown:' Subchapters 8, 9 and 10 contain their own definitions addressing construction in 

ARM 17.8.801(5) and (10) and ARM 17.8.901(3) and (6) for m~jor source permitting: however, 

the addition of the phrase "reasonable period of time for startup and shakedown" makes the 

definition of"construct or construction" in ARM 17.8.740(2) inconsistent \vith the same term 

llsed in major souree permitting. Since this phrase also reduces the stringency of the current SIP 

approved regulations, an analysis should be provided by the State showing that this new rule will 

not interfere with compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or 

PSD increments. Section 110(1) ofthe CAA states that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that 

would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further 

progress, as defined in Section 171 of the CAA, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Montana did not provide any analysis or demonstration that the definition of "construct or 

construction" in ARM 17.8.740(2) meets these criteria. Therefore, we arc proposing to approve 

the definition of "construct or construction" in ARM 17.8.740(2) with the exception of the 

phrase "reasonable period of time for startup and shakedown:' 

Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Requirements to the Wisconsin Power 

Company (WEPCO) Port Washington Life Extension Project." 

12 
2. ARM 17.8.743 Montana Air Quality Permits - When Required 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.743. ARM 17.8.743( 1) 

describes those sources that are required to obtain a Montana air quality permit and ARM 

17.8.743(2) - (5) adds new provisions pertaining to seasonal construction activities that can 

occur prior to receiving a Montana air quality permit. 

ARM 17.8.743( 1) provides that any new or modified facility or emitting unit that has the 

potential to emit more than 25 tons per year of any airborne po]Jutant except lead,s must obtain a 

Montana air quality permit except as provided in ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 17.8.745 bcl~)re

constructing. installing, modifying or operating. ARM 17.8.431 (1 )(b) also requires asphalt 

concrete plants, mineral crushers, and mineral screens that have the potential to emit more than 

15 tons per year of any airborne pollutant. other than lead, to obtain a Montana air quality permit. 

Sources excluded from the above requirements are those that are identitied in ARM 17.8.744 and 

ARM 17.8.745. 

ARM l7.8.743(!) is similar to what was previously required in sections ARM 

17.8.705( 1)(1), (m), (n), and (0). ARM 17.8.705, which was repealed with the May 28. 2003 

submittal, identified those sources that were not required to obtain a pennit. ARM 17.8.705(1) 

listed those sources that were not required to obtain a permit and included: (\) sources and stacks 

which do not have the potential to emit more than 25 tons per years, other than lead: (m) a new 

stack or source of airborne lead whose potential to emit is less than 5 tons per year; (n) an 

alteration or moditication of an already constructed stack or other source of lead contamination 

which results in an increase in maximum potential of the source or stack to emit airborne lead by 

5 Facilities or emitting units that emit airborne lead must obtain a Montana air quality permit if they an~ new and 

emit greater than five tons per year of airborne lead. or if they are an existing facility or em itting unit and a 

13 
an amount less than 0.6 tons per year; and (0) asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers \vhich 

do not have the potential to emit more than 5 tons per year of any pollutant. other than lead. 

For the most part, the provisions that were in ARM 17.8.705( I)(1), (m), (n) and (0) are 

contained in the ARM 17.8.743(1), except that the permitting threshold for asphalt concrete 

plants and mineral crushers has been changed from 5 tons per year to 15 tons per year. During 

the State's rulemaking process we expressed concerns with the new permit threshold for asphalt 

concrete plants and mineral crushers. In its response to our comments, the State indicated that it 

was making the permit level for this source category consistent with other permitting thresholds 

in the subchapter. Also, the State indicated that for mineral screen operations the rule was more 

stringent since previously only mineral screens greater than 25 tons per year had to get permits. 

Since for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers this revision (ARM 

17.8.743( I)(b») reduces the stringency ofthe current SIP approved regulations, an analysis 

should be provided by the State showing that this new rule will not interfere with compliance 

with the NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(1) of the CAA states that EPA cannot approve 

a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or 

reasonable further progress, as defined in Section 171 of the CAA or any other appl icablc 

requirement of the CAA Montana did not provide any analysis or demonstration that the 

increased permit threshold, from 5 tons per year to IS tons per year, for asphalt concrete plants 

and mineral crushers meets these criteria. Montana plans on providing a 110(1) analysis at a later 

date. At the request of the State, we are taking no action on the phrase "asphalt concrete plants, 

mineral crushers" from ARM 17.8.743( 1)(b). We arc proposing to approve the remainder of 

ARrv1 17.8.743(1 )(b), which is "mineral screens that have the potential to emit more than 15 tons 

modification results in an increase of airborne lead by an amount greater than 0.6 tons per year. 

14 
per year of any airborne pollutant, other than lead, that is regulated under this chapter." 

ARM 17.8.743(1) also refers to ARM 17.8.745. As indicated below, we are taking no 

action on ARM 17.8.745. Consequently, we are taking no action on the phrase "and 17.8.745" 

that is contained in ARM 17.8.743(1). 

As part of the October 16,2006 submittal, Montana requested to withdraw the request to 

include ARM 17.8.743(1)(c) into the SIP as part of the May 28, 2003 submission. This 

provision requires any incinerator to obtain a Montana air quality permit. This incinerator 

specific provision is not in the currently approved SIP. The approved SIP treats incinerator 

sources under the provision for "all other sources and stacks not specifically excluded, which do 

not have the potential to emit more than 25 tons per year of any pollutant, other than lead" 

(codified at ARM 17.8.743(e)). We also note that any incinerators in Montana that are not 

permitted must meet the SIP approved provisions in ARM 17.8.316. Therefore, we are taking no 

action on ARM 17.8.743(1)(c) and this section will not be incorporated into Montana's SIP. In 

addition, the October 16, 2006 submittal requested a revision to ARM 17.8.743(1) to add a 

reference to a new rule codified at ARM 17.8.1602. This revision and the new rule pertain to the 

regulation of oil and gas well facilities. and we will address this revision request in a separate 

action. 

With the exceptions noted above, we are proposing to approve the remaining language in 

ARM 17.8.743(1). 

During the State's rulemaking process we expressed concerns with the provisions in 

ARM 17.8.743(2) - (5). However, after further analysis and for the reasons stated below, we are 

proposing to approve ARM 17.8.743(2) - (5). These provisions, for minor sources, allow only 

limited site preparation and construction that can be stopped by the State at any time, require a 

15
 
permit application completeness determination from the State before this type of work can occur, 

and exclude sources subject to federal requirements (i.e., PSD and synthetic minors). EPA's 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 do not require the issuance of a permit for the construction or 

modification of minor sources, but only that the SIP include a procedure to prevent the 

construction of a source or modification that would violate the SIP control strategy or interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Provision (2) of the State's regulation limits site 

work prior to permit issuance to only installing concrete foundation work, bclow-ground 

plumbing, installing ductwork, and other infrastructure and/or excavation work involving the 

same. No construction or installation of emission units will be allowed under this provision. 

Provision (3) indicates that "Notwithstanding the ability to undertake the construction activities 

described above, the department may issue a letter instructing the owner or operator to 

immedi'ately cease such activities pending a final determination on an application if it finds that 

the proposed project would result in a violation of the State Implementation Plan or would 

interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any federal or state ambient air quality standard." 

Provision (4) indicates that the State is not obligated to issue an air quality permit and that an 

"owner or operator who has received a completeness determination and who elects to engage in 

initial construction activities accepts the regulatory risks of engaging in such activities." 

Provision (5) indicates that "the provisions of (2) do not supersede any other local, state, or 

federal requirements." The State has interpreted ARM 17.8.743(5), in its formal response to 

EPA's comments, to mean that ARM 17.8.743(2) "does not allow pre-permit construction if 

some other permit or rule prohibits such activities. For example, if a source needs a Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit, both federal and state regulations require that the 

applicant secure the permit before undertaking any construction." The State's formal response to 

16
 
comments on this provision also statcd that "nothing in this rule would supersede these existing 

restrictions in other rules. The applicant would only be able to undertake limited pre-permit 

construction if it did not need a PSD permit as well:' 

EPA approved minor NSR programs in several states do not require pem1its prior to 

construction, but instead require sources to submit a notice and authorization tor sources to begin 

construction after a spccitled time if the permitting authority does not issue an order preventing 

construction. Howevcr, all minor NSR projects above the permitting thresholds (25 tons per year 

for new sources and 15 tons per year for modifications (not approved into the SIP)) in Montana 

will receive a permit. These projects go through the required air quality impact analysis before 

the project is approved. Additionally, all minor NSR permits go through a public notice and 

comment period hefon: being issued. 

EPA had commented to the State that we had concerns that ARM 17.8.743(2) does not 

require some type of administrative approval from the State prior to allowing pre-permit 

construction activities. EPA did not initially take into account the pennit application 

completeness determination from the Montana Department of Environment Quality (DEQ). 

Atler reviewing the procedure for permit application completeness detennination, EPA has 

concluded that it is an administrative approval which must be issued by the State prior to the start 

of pre-permit construction activities. ensuring that sources that are subject to federal 

requirements (i.e., PSD and synthetic minors) do not begin any construction prior to permit 

issuance. Also. the State clarified in its response to EPA's comments that this pre-permit 

construction provision is limited to true minor sources. A true minor source is not subject to 

PSD requirements and is not subject to other federal requirement~.

As part of our analysis of Montana's pre-permit construction provision we also reviewed 

17 
recent EPA actions approving pre-permit construction rules into other State SIPs. EPA's July 

10,2006 (71 FR 38773) approval of Mississippi's minor source permit regulations included a 

new provision entitled "Optional Pre-Permit Construction," which allows construction to 

commence on certain non-major sources and non-major modifications prior to receiving a final 

pennit to construct, provided certain conditions are met. EPA also approved pre-permit 

construction rules for the State of Idaho's permit to construct regulations, which were approved 

into the Idaho SIP on January 16,2003 (68 FR 2217). Both of these State provisions allow 

complete construction of the source, including the emission lmits, prior to issuance of the permit. 

However. these provisions preclude any actual operation of the new or modified source before 

issuance of the tinal construction pennit. EPA has approved these provisions because they 

require the prior written approval ofthe State and have safeguards to ensure that new m,~ior

stationary sources and major modifications do not commence construction prior to permit 

issuance. Montana's pre-permit construction provision differs from these other States' rules in 

that it allows only limited site preparation and construction, which does not include the emission 

units, and does not require the prior written approval of the State. 

As discussed above, Montana's ARM 17.8.743(2) -- (5) is consistent with the 

requirements of section 11 0(a)(2)(C) of the CAA and federal regulations found at 40 CFR 

51.160 through 51.164, including 40 CFR 51.160(b), which requires states to have legally 

enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any 

SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Furthermore, 

Montana's rule is consistent with 40 CFR 51.160(e), which requires states to identify the basis 

for determining which facilities will be subject to review. Sources in Montana subject to ARM 

17.8.743 must have an air quality permit prior to construction or modification of the emission 

18
 
units und prior to operation. Only limited site preparation and construction, which docs. not 

include the emission units, would be allowed at minor sources prior to issuance of an air quality 

permit. A permit application completeness determination from the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (Department) must be made before this type of work can occur. 

Additionally, the Department can require the owner or operator to immediately cease any prepermit construction activities if it finds that the proposed project would result in a violation of 

the SIP or would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any federal or state ambient air 

quality standard. Finally, this proposal is consistent with prior EPA statcments.il Therefore, we 

are proposing approval for ARM 17.8.743(2) - (5). 

3..ARM 17.8.744 Montana Air Qualitv Permits - General Exclusions 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.744. This section 

describes those sources that are not required to obtain a Montana air quality permit. This section 

is similar to what previously existed in ARM 17.8.705(1), except that: (a) several of the 

provisions that were in ARM 17.8.705(1) were deleted or incorporated into ARM 17.8.743( 1), 

and (b) two provisions were added (ARM 17.8.744(1)(t) and (k)). 

During the State's rulemaking process we expressed concerns with the provisions in 

ARM 17.8.744( I )(1). However. after further review, we are proposing to approve all of ARM 

17.8.744 including ARM 17.8.744(l)(f). ARM 17.8.744(1)(1) is acceptable since this exclusion 

is limited to emergency equipment used only to alleviate adverse effects on public health or 

facility safety. In addition, this exclusion is limited to only minor sources, since ARM 

6 EPA's October 10. 1978, memorandum from Edward E. Reich. Director Division of Stationary Source 

Enforcement, to Thomas W. Devine. Chief Air Branch, Region I, titled "Source Construction Prior to Issuance of 

PSD Permit," discusses preconstrLlction activities allowed at a site with both PSD and non-PSD sources. This memo 

states that construction may begin on PSD-exempt projects before the permit is issued. 

19 
17.8.818(I) states that "a m,~or stationary source or major modification exempted from the 

requirements of Subchapter 7 under ARM 17.8.744 or 17.8.745 shall, if applicable, still be 

rcquired to obtain a Montana air quality pennit and comply with all applicablc requiremcnts of 

this subchapter." Likewise. ARM 17.8.904(1) and 17.8.1 004( I) both indicate "a major 

stationary source or major modification exempted from the requirements of Subchapter 7 under 

ARM 17.8.744 or 17.8.745 ...., shall, prior to construction. still be required to obtain a Montana 

air quality permit... " 

4. ARM 17.8.745 Montana Air Qualitv Permits - Exclusion for De Minimis Changes 

On May 28.2003. the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.745. This section 

describes those situations where a source is not required to obtain a Montana air quality permit 

under ARM 17.8.743 for de minimis changes. With this provision. Montana has adopted a 15 

tons per year potential to emit increase as a de minimis limit for any pollutant below which no 

permit is required for changes. 

During the State's rulemaking process we expressed concerns with the de minimis level 

specified in this provision. Since this new section (ARM 17.8.745) reduces the stringency of the 

current SIP approved regulations. an analysis should be provided by the State showing that this 

new rule will not interfere ",·ith compliance with the NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(1) 

of the CAA states that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress, as defined in 

Section 171 of the CAA or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Montana did not 

provide any analysis or demonstration that the new section (ARM 17.8.745) meets these criteria. 

Montana plans on providing a 110(1) analysis at a later date, as well as. a revision to its 15 tons 

per year de minimus limit. At the request ofthe State, we are taking no action on Montana's de 

20
 
minimis provision in ARM 17.8.745. 

5. ARM 17.8.748 New or Modified Emitting Units - Permit Application Requirements 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.748. This section 

describes the permit application requirements and for the most part is the same as what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.706 with some minor changes. The last sentence contained in 

ARM 17.8.748( I) was originally contained in ARM 17.8.707(1 )(b) and ARM 17.8.748(7) was 

originally contained in ARM 17.8.720(2)(a). 

We are proposing to approve all of ARM 17.8.748. 

6. ARM 17.8.749 Conditions for Issuance or Denial of Permit 

On May 28,200], the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.749. This section 

describes the conditions for issuance or denial of a Montana air quality permit. The provisions in 

ARM 17.8.749(1), (3), (4), and (7) are similar to what previously existed in ARM 17.8.710(1), 

(2), (4), and ARM 17.7.730. The provisions in ARM 17.8.749(2), (5) and (6) are new 

provIsIons. 

On March 9, 2004, the State submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.749(7) pertaining to how 

the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Department) notifies an applicant when it 

denies a pennit and advises the applicant of the right to appeal. The revisions allow the 

Department to provide such notice through the mai 1. 

During the State's rulemaking process, we expressed concerns with provisions ARM 

17.8.749(2) - that allow the department to extend the deadlines specified in a permit and ARM 

17.8.749(5) - that requires "state-only" conditions be identified in the permit. and specifics these 

conditions "arc not intended by the department to be enforceable under federal law." For ARM 

17.8.749(2) we were concerned that extended deadlines may conflict with requirements for 

21 
sources subject to PSD. In response to our concerns, the State indicated that the provisions of 

their PSD rules (ARM 17.8.819) meet the requirements of 40 eFR 52.2 I(r) and 5 I.166(j)(4). 

After further analysis we are have determined that ARM 17.8.749(2) allows a director's 

discretion, in that it states that "the department may extend a deadline specified in the schedule" 

for permit conditions to become effective. Based on this director's discretion we are proposing 

to disapprove ARM 17.8.749(2). 

For ARM 17.8.749(5) we asked for a justification as to why certain permit provisions 

would not warrant federal (and citizen) review and enforceability. In response to our concerns, 

the State noted that they "have adopted certain requirements that are more stringent than federal 

requirements:' "these rules are not intended to be part of the SIP:' and "during the permitting 

process, EPA and other concerned persons will have the opportunity to ensure that the 

Department correctly applies the state-only designation." After further analysis we have 

determined that ARM 17.8.749(5) will be used to identify state-only provisions in permits that 

are more stringent than federal requirements. Therefore. we are proposing to approve ARM 

17.8.749(5). 

We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.749( I), (3), (4). (5). (6) and (8) submitted on 

May 28,2003; and ARM 17.8.749(7) submitted on March 9,2004. 

7. ARM 17.8.752 Emission Control Requirements 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.752. This section 

describes the emission control requirements for a new or modified facility or emission unit. The 

provisions in ARM 17.8.752 are similar to what previously existed in ARM 17.8.7 I5, except that 

the provisions in ARM I7.8.752( 1)(a)(i) are new. This new provision states that Montana's 

minor source Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement is only triggered for the 

22
 
modified unit at an existing source (not the entire source). Federal NSR regulations do not 

require BACT for minor sources. Therefore, we are proposing to approve all of ARM 17.8.752. 

8. ARM 17.8.755 Inspection of Permit 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.755. This section indicates 

that the current Montana air quality permit must be made available at the facility or emitting unit 

unless the permittee and Department agree on a different location. This section is similar to what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.716. except that a new phrase was added indicating that a 

different location may be acceptable if mutually agreeable between the permittee and 

department. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.755. 

9. ARM 17.8.756 Compliance with other requirements 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.756. This section 

describes the pennittee responsibilities in complying with other requirements. ARM 17.8.756(1) 

is similar to what previously existed in ARM 17.8.717, and ARM 17.8.756(2) and (3) is similar 

to what previously existed in ARM 17.8.710(6) and (3), respectively. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.756. 

1n. ARM 17.8.759 Reviev,: of Permit Applications 

On May 28. 2003. the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.759. This section 

describes the Department's responsibilities for determining completeness of the pennit 

application. for issuing a preliminary completeness determination, for public notification and 

. providing the opportunity for comment, and tor issuing a final decision. Most of this new 

section is similar to what previously existed in ARM 17.8.720(2) and (3). 

During the State's rulemaking process we expressed concerns with the timeframe 
allowed for the public and EPA to comment on preliminary permit determinations. On March 9. 

2004. the State submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.759(4). The revisions extend the date by which 

comments can be submitted on the preliminary determination for certain permit actions and the 

timeline for the Department to notify the applicant of approval or denial of the application. On 

October 16.2006, the State submitted additional revisions to ARM 17.8.759(4). added a new 

17.8.759(5). and renumbered the existing paragraph 17.8.759(5) to (6). The new 17.8.759(5) 

specifies, in part, that "the department may, on its own action, or at the request of the applicant 

or member of the public, extend by 15 days the period within which public comments may be 

submitted as described in (4)(b)(ii) and the date for issuing a final decision on a permit 

application."" After further analysis. we no longer have concerns with this provision because the 

Department now has an opportunity to extend by 15 days the period in which public comments 

may be submitted either on its own. or at the request of an external party. This would minimize 

the time crunch for reviewing draft: permits. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.759(1) through (3). submitted on May 28, 2003; 

and ARM 17.8.759(4). (5). and (6) submitted on October 16.2006. 

11. ARM 17.8.760 Additional Review of Permit Applications 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.760. This section 

describes additional review requirements for applications subject to the Montana Environmental 

Policy Act and the Major Facility Siting Act. This section is similar to what previously existed 

in ARM 17.8.720( 1) and (4). 

We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.760. 

12. ARM 17.8.762 Duration of Permit 

On May 28, 2003, that State submitted new section ARM 17.8.762. This section 

24 
describes the conditions that atTect the duration of a permit. This section is similar to what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.731. Provision ARM 17.8.762(2) specifies that a permit will 

expire unless construction or installation is commenced within the time specified in the pnmit. 

which may not be less than one year or more than three years after the permit is issued. The 

current SIP-approved provision in ARM 17.8.731 does not specify a maximum time period for 

permit expiration. 

During the State's rulemaking process. \ve expressed concerns with the permit expiration 

timdines in ARM 17.8.762(2). We were concerned that extended deadlines may conflict with 

requirements for sources subject to PSO. In response to our concerns. the State indicated that a 

provision in their PSO rules (ARM 17.8.819) met the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 (r) and 

51.166(j )(4). The State further indicated that this rule "will not replace the PSD requirements for 

PSD sources (i.e.. the 18-month limit applies to PSD sources, but not to non-PSD sources):' 

Despite the State's assertion. we note that ARM 17.8.819 does not meet the federal PSD 

requirements of 40 eFR 52.21 (r)(2). which specifies that "approval to construct shall become 

invalid if construction is not commenced within 18 months after receipt of such approval." 40 

eFR 52.21 specifies the PSO requirements for areas that are not covered by a federally approved 

PSD SIP. 

However. the PSD requirements for SIP-approved states, such as Montana. contained 

in 40 eFR 51.166 do not have an "18-month" provision analogous to 40 CFR 52.21 (r)(2). ARM 

17.8.819 is consistent with the .,18-month phased construction proj ect" provision in 51 .166(j)(4).
 

Therefore, ARM 17.8.762(2) is consistent with the federal PSO rules for SIP-approved states.
 

We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.762.
 

13.	 ARM 17.8.763 Revocation of Permit
 

25
 
On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.763. This section 

describes the reasons why the Department may revoke a Montana air quality permit, the process 

the Department must f~)lIow \vhen revoking a permit, and the ability of the permittee to request a 

hearing before the Board. This section is similar to what previously existed in ARM 17.8.732. 

During the State's rulemaking process, we expressed concerns with the provisions in 

ARM 17.8.763(1) in that applicable provisions or the permit (e.g., major source requirements) 

may be inadvertently revoked at the request of the permittee. In response to our concerns, the 

State indicated that while some portions of a permit may be revoked, the permit as a whole must 

still meet any underlying applicable regulations. After further analysis, we no longer have 

concerns with these provisions because the State does not intend to revoke any applicable 

regulations, only minor administrative changes. 

On March 9, 2004, the State submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.763(2) and (3) pertaining 

to how the Department notifies an applicant when it revokes a permit or a portion of a permit. 

The revisions allow the Department to provide such notice through the mail. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.763 (1) and (4). submitted on May 28.2003: and 

ARM 17.8.763(2) and (3), submitted on March 9, 2004. 

14. ARM 17.8.764 Administrative Amendment to Permit 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section AMR 17.8.764. This section 

describes how the Department may make administrative amendments to a Montana air quality 

permit. the process the Department must follow when making administrative amendments to a 

permit, and the ability of the permittee to request a hearing before the Board. This section is 

similar to what previously existed in ARM 17.8.733, except that ARM] 7.8.764( 1)(c) is a new 

provIsion. 

26 
On March 9, 2004, the State submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.764(2) and (3) pertaining 

to how the Department notifies an applicant when it proposes administrative amendments to a 

permit. The revisions allow the Department to provide such notice through the mail. 

During the State's rulemaking process we raised concerns that some administrative 

amendments should receive public review even though there might not be an increase in 

emissions. In response to our concerns, the State indicated that the cunent SIP-approved rule 

contains the same provision. After further analysis, we have determined that new section ARM 

17.8.764 is consistent with the existing SIP-approved ARM 17.8.733. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.764(1) (except as noted below) and (4), 

submitted on May 28, 2003; and ARM 17.8.764(2) and (3) submitted on March 9, 2004. As 

indicated earlier. we are taking no action on ARM 17.8.745. Consequently, we arc taking no 

action on the phrase "the emission increase meets the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis 

change not requiring a permit," that is contained in ARM 17.8.764( I)(b). 

15. AI\M 17.8.765 TransferofPem1it 

On May 28, 2003. the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.765. This section 

describes the requirements for transfening a Montana air quality permit from one location to 

another, and from one owner or operator to another. This section is similar to what previously 

existed in ARM 17.8.734, except that ARM 17.8.765(3) revises what was in ARM 17.8.734(3). 

The main difTerence is that the prior rule required action hy the Department to approve or 

disapprove the permit transtCr and the new rule indicates that the transfer is deemed approved if 

the Department docs not act within 30 days ofreceipt of the notice. 

During the State's rulemaking process we expressed concerns with the provisions in 

ARM 17.8.765(3) in that a source may inappropriately locate in an area and jeopardize 

27 
attainment of the NAAQS and the permit transfer would be deemed approved if the Department 

does not act within 30 days. In its response to our concerns, the State indicated that permits for 

portable sources are written in such a manner as to comply with applicable requirements 

regardless of location of the source. Consequently, we are proposing to approve all of ARM 

17.8.765. 

16. ARM 17.8.767 Incorporation by Reference 

On May 28,2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.767. This section adopts 

and incorporates by reference various documents and indicates where these documents are 

available. This section is similar to what previously existed in ARM 17.8.702. 

On October 25,2005, the State submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.767. This revision 

deletes the incorporation by reference (IBR) of 40 CFR 52.21 (Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality) in ARM 17.8.767(1 )(d) and modifies the addresses where various 

documents can be obtained in ARM 17.8.767(2), (3) and (4). 40 CFR 52.21 specifies the PSD 

requirements for areas that are not covered by a federally approved PSD SIP. Since Subchapter 

7 contains the requirements for the permitting, construction, and operation of all air contaminant 

sources and not just PSD sources. this IBR 01'40 eFR 52.21 is not necessary. Subchapter 8 

contains Montana's SIP approved PSD rules. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.767(1 )(a) through (c), submitted on May 28. 

2003; and ARM 17.8.767(1 )(d) through (g) and 17.8.767(2), (3) and (4) submitted on October 

25,2005. 

17. ARM 17.8.770 Additional Requirements for Incinerators 

On May 28, 2003. the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.770. 'This section 

discusses additional requirements an incineration facility must meet for a Montana air quality 

28
 
permit. In the prior codification of Subchapter 7, this section had not been incorporated into the 

SIP. On March 30. 2006, the Montana DRQ requested to withdraw the request to include ARM 

17.8.770 into the SIP as part of the May 28, 2003 submission. Consequently, we are taking no 

action on ARM 17.8.770, and this section win not be incorporated into Montana's SIP. 

e. Revisions to Other Subchapters 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted revisions to other subchapters of the ARM. 

Because the State repealed, in Subchapter 7, various rules and added new rules in their place. the 

cross-references in other subchapters are being revised. In addition, the previous Subchapter 7 

referred to "air quality prcconstruction pennits" whereas the new Subchapter 7 refers to 

"Montana air quality permits." In other subchapters, the phrase "air quality preconstruction 

pennits" is being replaced with "Montana air quality permits." Finally, new rules are being 

added and minor administrative changes are occurring in other subchapters. 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the following sections submitted on May 28, 

2003: ARM 17.8.101(4); 7.8.110(7),(8).and (9); 17.8.818(1); 17.8.825(3); 17.8.826(1) and (2); 

17.8.904(1) and (2); 17.8.905(l) and (4); 17.8.906; 17.8.1004; 17.8.1005(1),(2),and(5); 

17.8.1106; and 17.8.1109. 

On May 28,2003, the State submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.309(5)(b) and 

17.8.310(3)(e). We previously disapproved the provisions in ARM 17.8.309(5)(b) and 

17.8.31O(3)(e) (see January 24, 2006 (71 FR 3776) action). Therefore. we are proposing to not 

act on the revisions to these same sections submitted on May 28, 2003. 

On May 28. 2003, the State submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.316(6). This rule pertains 

to the regulation of incinerators and we will address this revision in a separate action with other 

revisions to ARM 17.8.316 submitted previously. 

29 
We have previously approved changes to ARM 17.8.901(14) that incorporate the changes 

to ARM 17.8.901(14)(e)(iii) submitted on May 28, 2003 (see January 24, 2006 (71 FR 3776) 

action). Since we have already approved these revisions into the SIP we are not taking action on 

them in this document. 

On October 16,2006, the State submitted a revision to ARM 17.8.743(1) and new rules 

codified at ARM 17.8.1601, 17.8.1602, 17.8.1603, 17.8.1604, 17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606. These 

rules pertain to the regulation of oil and gas well facilities, and we will address this revision 

request in a separate action. 

IV. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the removal of the following provisions from the federallyapproved SIP: ARM 17.8.701, 17.8.702, 17.8.704, 17.8.705, 17.8.706, 17.8.707, 17.8.710, 

17.8.715, 17.8.716, 17.8.717, 17.8.720, 17.8.730, 17.8.731, 17.8.732, 17.8.733, and 17.8.734. 

We are proposing to approve the following new Subchapter 7 provisions into the 

federally-approved SIP: ARM 17.8.740 (except 17.8.740(10) and (14) and the following phrases 

in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) "except when a permit is not required under ARM 

17.8.745" and (2) "except as provided in ARM 17.8.745," and the phrase "reasonable period of 

time for startup and shakedown" in ARM 17.8.740(2)), submitted on May 28, 2003; 17.8.743 

(except the phrases "asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers" in 17.8.743 (1 )(b) "and 17.8.745" 

in 17.8.743(1), and 17.8.743(1)(c)), submitted on May 28, 2003; 17.8.744 and 17.8.748, 

submitted on May 28,2003; 17.8.749(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (8), submitted on May 28, 2003; 

17.8.749(7), submitted on March 9, 2004; 17.8.752, 17.8.755, and 17.8.756, submitted on May 

28,2003; 17.8.759(1) through (3), submitted on May 28, 2003; 17.8.759(4) through (6), 

submitted on October 16,2006; 17.8.760 and 17.8.762, submitted on May 28, 2003; 17.8.763(1) 

30
 
and (4), submitted on May 28, 2003; 17.8.763(2) and (3), submitted on March 9. 2004; 

17.8.764( 1) (except the phrase "the emission increase meets the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a 

de minimis change not requiring a permit" in 17.8. 764( I)(b» and (4). submitted on May 28. 

2003; 17.8.764(2) and (3). submitted on March 9.2004; 17.8.765. submitted on May 28, 2003; 

17.8.767(1 )(a) through (c), submitted on May 28, 2003; and 17.8.767( 1)(d) through (g). (2), (3), 

and (4), submitted on October 25. 2005. 

We are proposing to disapprove the following new Subchapter 7 provisions submitted on 

May 28.2003: the phrase "reasonable period of time for startup and shakedown" in ARM 

17.8.740(2); 17.8.740(10) and (14); and 17.8.749(2). 

We are proposing to approve revisions to the following sections of other subchapters 

submitted on May 28. 2003: ARM 17.8.101(4); 17.8.110(7).(8). and (9); 17.8.818(1); 

17.8.825(3); 17.8.826( 1) and (2): 17.8.904( 1) and (2): 17.8.905(1) and (4); 17.8.906; 17.8.1004: 

17.8.1005(1). (2). and (5): 17.8.1106:and 17.8.1109. 

We arc not acting, at the request of the State. on the following provisions in Subchapter 

7: ARM 17.8.743(1 )(c); 17.8.770: the phrase "asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers" in 

17.8.743( 1)(b): and 17.8.745. submitted on May 28, 2003. 

We are not acting on the following provisions of other subchapters: the following 

phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c). respectively. (1) "except when a permit is not required under 

ARM 17.8.745" and (2) "except as provided in ARM 17.8.745," submitted on May 28. 2003: 

ARM 17.8.309(5 )(b), 17.8.31 0(3)(e). 17.8.316(6), and 17.8.90 1(14)(3)(iii), submitted on May 

28,2003: the phrase "and 17.8.745" in ARM 17.8.743( 1), submitted on May 28. 2003; ARM 

17.8.749(2) submitted on May 28,2003; and the phrase "the emission increase meets the criteria 

in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change not requiring a permit," in ARM 17.8.764(1 )(b), 

31
 
submitted on May28,2003;andARM 17.8.743(1), 17.8.1601, 17.8.1602.17.8.1603, 17.8.1604. 

17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606. submitted on October 16,2006. 

V.	 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act. the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that 

complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.c. 741 O(k); 40 

CFR 52.02(a). Thus. in reviewing SIP submissions. EPA's role is to approve state choices. 

provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly. this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: 

•	 is not a "signi ticant regulatory action" subject to review by the Otlice of Management 

and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4. 1(93); 

•	 docs 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 (Public [,aw 

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. 1(97); 

32 
,
 

•	 is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order J 3211 (66 FR 28355. 

May 22, 200 I ); 

•	 is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (J 5 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose 

requircments would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and 

•	 does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, 

disprop0l1ionate 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 Executivc 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 

governmcnts or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air pollution controL Carbon monoxide. Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide. Ozone. Particulate matter. Reporting and recordkccping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds, Incorporation by reference. 

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

33
 
-,
 

IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT: Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of 

Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of 

Montana - Air Quality, Subchapter 7 and Other Subchapters (Page 34 of 34) 

Dated:	 Carol Rushin 

Acting Regional Administrator 

Region 8 

34
 
.......
 

IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT: Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of 

Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of 

Montana - Air Quality, Subchapter 7 and Other Subchapters (Page 34 of 34) 

Dated:	 Carol Campbell 

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator 

Region 8 

34