### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 EPA-R08-0AR-2006-0601; FRL- Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules ofMontana- AirQuality, Subchapter

### 7 and OtherSubchapters

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 ofMontana on August 26. 1999, May 28. 2003, March 9. 2004. October25.2005. and October 16.2006. The revisions contain new. amended, and repealed rules in Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction. and Operation ofAir Contaminant Sources) that pertain to thc issuance ofMontanaair quality permits. in addition to other minor administrative changes to other subchapters ofthe Administrative Rules ofMontana. The intended effect ofthis action is to propose to approve those portions ofthe rules that are approvable and to propose to disapprove those portions ofthe rules that are inconsistent with the Clean AirAct. This action is being taken under section I 10 ofthe Clean Air Act. 

### DATES: Commentsmust be received onorbefore [insert date 30 days afterpublication in the**Fed~ral** Registcr]. 

### ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket 

### ID No. EPA-R08-0AR-2006­ 0601. by one ofthe f()llowing methods:

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

### FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ifyou are faxing comments).

• Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, AirProgram, 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. Suchdeliveries are only accepted Mondaythrough Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information. 

### Ins/rue/ions: Direct your commentsto Docket 10No. 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.** includingany personal inlormation provided, 

### unless the comment includes informationclaimedto be Confidential Business Information (C81) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you considerto be CBI orotherwise protectedthrough**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 knowyour identity orcontact information unless you provide it in the body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an e-mail commentdirectly to EPA, without goingthrough**www.r~.l.llatiQ.lJ..:'?:ZQ..v~,** youre-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the commentthat is placed in the public docket and made available onthe Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and othercontact 2infom1ation in the body ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA cannot read yourcommentdue to technical diHiculties and cannot contactyou for clarification. EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form ofencryption, and be free ofany defects orviruses. 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 othermaterial, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials arc available eitherelectronically in www.reQ.ulations.f2ov or in hard copy at the AirProgram, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that ifat all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT sectionto viewthe hard copy ofthe docket. You may viewthe hard copy ofthe docket Mondaythrough 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



### .., .JI. General Information II. Summary ofSIP Revisions III. EPA Review and ProposedAction on SIP Revisions IV. Summary ofEPA's Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews 

### Definitions For thepurpose ofthis document. we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows: (i) The words or initials

### Act or CAA mean orrefer to the Clean Air Act. unless the context indicates othenvise. (ii) The words EPA, we, us or ourmean orrefer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (iii) The initials SIP mean orreferto State Implementation Plan. (iv) The words State or Montana mean the State ofMontana, unless the context indicates otherwise. 

### I. Generallnformation A. What Should IConsider as IPrepare My Comments for EPA? 

### 1. Suhmitting eBl. Do not submitthis information to EPAthrough**Y3:~)Y.J'Cgl~latji~-,-~:1£':2.v.:** ore-mail. Clearly mark the part orall ofthe information that youclaim to be CBl. For

## cm information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside ofthe disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk orCD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version ofthe commentthat includes information claimed as eRI, a copy ofthecommentthat does not contain the information claimed as 

## em mustbe submitted for inclusion in thepublic docket. Information so 

### 4marked 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 ofFederal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

c. Explain why you agree ordisagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for yourrequested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or datathat you used.

e. Ifyou estimate potential costs or burdens. explain howyou alTived at your

. estimatein sufficient detail to allowfor it to be reproduced. 

### f Provide specific examples to illustrate yourconcerns, and suggest alternatives. g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoidingthe usc ofprofanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submit yourcomments by the commentperiod deadline identified. 

### II. Summary ofSIP Revisions A. August 26, 1999 Submittal On August 26, 1999. the GovernorofMontanasubmitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request. The revision contains amended and repealed rules to various subchapters in the Administrative Rules ofMontana(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 ofAir 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 GovernorofMontana 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 ofMontana air quality permits and are in Subchapter7 ofthe 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. 200I and submitted on December20,200I. 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 ofARM 17.8.702 be repealed. We are proposingto remove ARM 17.8.702 

### 61999. EPAprovided written commentsto the State during the rulemaking process for the revisions submitted to EPA on May 28,2003. To reviewthese 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 ofair quality rules letterdated December 26,2002 included as part ofthe May 28, 2003 submittal. All future references in this notice to the State'sresponse to EPA's comments refer to this letter. 

### C. March 9, 2004 Submittal On March 9. 2004, the GovernorofMontana submitted a SIP revision request. The revision contains amended rules adopted bythe Board on September26. 2003. The amended rules pertain to the issuance ofMontanaair 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 ofMontana submitted a SIP revision request. The revision contains amended rules adopted by the Board on June 3, 2005. EPA approved all ofthe October 25,2005 submittal onJuly 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 GovernorofMontana submitted a SIP revision request. The

from the federally-approved SIP. 

### 7revision 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 ofoil 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 Subchapter7 ofthe 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. Ourreview 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 ofMontana submitted a SIP revisionthat completely recoditied the State'sair quality rules. ARM 17.8.708 was one ofthe rules recodified. In our August 13, 2001 final notice (66 FR42427) on therecodification, 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 ofthe August 13,2001 notice). Atthis point there is no ARM 17.8.708 to repeal as requested by the August 26, 1999 submittal letter.



### 8B. 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 Subchapter7. Previously the definitions were in ARM 17.8,70I, 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 emissionrate" and "majoremitting 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 "'majoremitting facility." "Lowestachievableemission rate" is defined at ARM 17.8.901(1 0) and the State's rules also contain a definition of"majorstationary 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 ofthe definitions of"routine maintenance, repair. orreplacement" (RMRR), "modify," "negligible risk to the public health, safety, and welfare and to the environment" and "construct

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

orreplacement" and "negligible risk to the public health. safety, and welfare and to the environment," and portions ofthe definition of"construct orconstruction" and we are not taking action on portions ofthe definition of"modify" for the following reasons. 

### 9a. "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 ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) and non-attainment New Source Review (NSR) regulations (ARM 17.8.80I(20)(b)(i) and 17.8.90I(II)(b)(i»,but RMRR is not detined in these subchapters. During the State's rulemaking process weprovided commentsthat expressed ourconcerns with the definition ofRMRR.2 In response to ourcomments, the State indicated that the definitions section (that includes the RMRR definition) in Subchapter 7 (Permit. Construction and Operation ofAir Contaminant Sources) explicitly states that the definitions contained in that rule are "for the purposes ofthis 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 (MontanaAir 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 ofRMRR 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 ofRMRR allows associated fixed capital costs less than S()(Yo ofthe fixed capital cost necessary to construct a comparable new emitting unit to be considered 

### RMRR. Montana's definition ofRMRRis inconsistent with EPA's current policy concerning

2 See October9,2002 letter from Richard R. Long, EPA, to the Montana Board ofEnvironmental Review

- all future references in this notice to EPA's comments duringthe State rulemakingprocess refer to this letter.

3 See Public Hearing Notice and Final Notices on alTlendments ofair guality rules letter dated December26,2002 10RMRR 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 specifiedthat the capital cost threshold for routine equipment replacement shall not cxceed 20 percent ofthe replacement value ofthe 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 onthe 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 orthedefinition of"modify:' The new definition for "modify" at ARM 17.8.740(8)refers to the "Exclusion ofDe Minimis Changes" provision codified at ARM 17.8.745, which EPA is nottaking action on (sec discussion regarding ARM 17.8.745 below). Since we are nottaking action on ARM 17.8.745. we are proposing to approve ARM]7.8.740(8) with the exception ofthe following phrases: (I) "cxcept when 

### a permit is not required underARM 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 definitionof"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 commentsreferto this letter. .j See September9, 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 ofPrevention ofSignificant 11EPA, 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 Subchapter7 that utilizes this definition; and therefore. it is not necessary for it to be incorporated into the SIP. d. "Constructorconstruction." During the State's mlemaking process we expressed

concerns with the definition of"constmctor construction" in ARM 17.8.740(2). We were concerned because this definition includes the phrase "reasonableperiod oftime 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 ofthe phrase "reasonable period oftime 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 ofthe current SIP approved regulations, an analysis should be provided by the State showingthat 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 orreasonable further progress, as defined in Section 171 ofthe CAA, oranyother applicablerequirementofthe CAA. Montanadid not provide any analysis ordemonstration that the definition of"constructor construction" in ARM 17.8.740(2) meets these criteria. Therefore, we arc proposing to approve the definition of"constructorconstruction" in ARM 17.8.740(2) with the exception ofthe phrase "reasonable period oftime for startup and shakedown:'

Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Requirements to the Wisconsin Power Company (WEPCO) Port Washington Life Extension Project." 122. 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
occurprior to receiving 

### a Montana air quality permit. ARM 17.8.743(1) provides that any new or modified facility oremitting unit that has the potential to emit more than 25 tons per year ofany airborne po]Jutant except lead,s must obtain a Montana airquality permit exceptas provided in ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 17.8.745**bcl~)re** constructing. installing, modifyingoroperating. ARM 17.8.431(1 )(b) also requires asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers, and mineral screens that havethe potential to emit more than 15 tons per yearofany airborne pollutant. otherthan lead, to obtain a Montanaairquality 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 similarto 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 thatwere 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, otherthan lead: (m) a new stack orsource ofairborne lead whose potential to emit is less than 5 tons peryear; (n) an alteration or moditication ofan already constructed stack or other source oflead contamination which results in an increase inmaximum potential ofthe source orstack to emit airborne lead by

5 Facilities oremitting units that emit airborne lead must obtain a Montanaair quality permit ifthey**an~** new and emit greater than five tons peryearofairborne lead. orifthey are an existing facility or emitting unit and a 13an 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 ofany pollutant. otherthan 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), exceptthat 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 permitthreshold for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers. In its response to ourcomments, the State indicatedthat 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 greaterthan 25 tons per year had to get permits. Since for asphaltconcrete 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 bythe State showingthat this newrule will not interfere with compliance withthe NAAQS orPSD increments. Section 110(1) ofthe CAA states that EPA cannot approve

a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicablerequirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress, as defined in Section 171 ofthe CAA or any other applicablc requirement ofthe CAA Montanadid not provide any analysis ordemonstration that the increased permit threshold, from 5 tons per yearto 

### IS tons peryear, for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers meets these criteria. Montanaplans on providing a 110(1) analysis at a later date. At the request ofthe State, we are taking no action on the phrase "asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers" from ARM 17.8.743(1)(b). We arc proposingto approve the remainderof ARrv1 17.8.743(1)(b), which is "mineral screens that have the potential to emitmore than 15 tons

modification results in an increase ofairborne lead by an amount greaterthan 0.6 tons peryear. 14

### per year ofany airborne pollutant, otherthan 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 aretaking no action onthe phrase "and 17.8.745" that is contained in ARM 17.8.743(1). As part ofthe October 16,2006 submittal, Montanarequested to withdraw the request to include ARM 17.8.743(1)(c) into the SIP as part ofthe May 28, 2003 submission. This provisionrequires any incineratorto obtain a Montanaair quality permit. This incinerator specific provision is not in the currently approved SIP. The approved SIP treats incinerator

sources underthe provision for "all other sources and stacks not specifically excluded, which do not have the potential to emit more than 25 tons peryearofany pollutant, other than lead" (codified at ARM 17.8.743(e)). We also notethat any incinerators in Montanathat are not permitted must meetthe SIP approvedprovisions 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 newrule codified at ARM 17.8.1602. This revision and the newrule pertain to the regulation ofoil and gas well facilities. and we will address this revision request in a separate action. With the exceptions noted above, we are proposingto approvethe remaining language in ARM 17.8.743(1). Duringthe State'srulemaking 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 ofwork 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 ofa permit for the construction or modification ofminor sources, but only thatthe SIP include a procedure to preventthe construction ofa source ormodificationthat would violate the SIP control strategy or interfere with attainment ormaintenance ofthe NAAQS. Provision (2) ofthe State's regulation limits site work priorto 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 ofemissionunits will be allowed underthis provision. Provision (3) indicates that "Notwithstandingthe ability to undertake the construction activities described above, the departmentmay issue a letter instructing the owner oroperatorto immedi'ately cease such activities pending a final determination on an application ifit finds that the proposed project would result in a violation ofthe State Implementation Plan orwould interfere with the attainment or maintenance ofany federal or state ambient airquality standard." Provision (4) indicates thatthe State is not obligated to issue an air quality permit and that an "owneror operator who has received a completeness determination and who elects to engage in initial construction activities accepts the regulatory risks ofengaging 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 allowpre-permit construction if

some otherpermit or rule prohibits such activities. Forexample, ifa source needs a Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) permit, both federal and state regulations require thatthe applicant secure the permitbefore undertaking any construction." The State's formal response to 16comments on this provision also statcd that "nothing in this rule would supersede these existing restrictions in otherrules. The applicant would only be able to undertake limited pre-permit construction ifit did not need a PSDpermit as well:' EPA approved minorNSRprograms in several states do not require pem1its priorto construction, but instead require sources to submit a notice and authorization tor sources to begin construction aftera spccitled time ifthe permitting authority does not issue an orderpreventing construction. Howevcr, all minorNSRprojects above the permittingthresholds (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 impactanalysis before the project is approved. Additionally, all minor NSRpermits go through a public notice and comment period hefon: being issued. EPA had commentedto the State that we had concerns that ARM 17.8.743(2) does not require some type ofadministrative approval from the State priorto allowing pre-permit construction activities. EPA did not initially take into account the pennit application completeness determination from the Montana Department ofEnvironment Quality (DEQ). Atlerreviewingthe procedure for permit application completeness detennination, EPA has concluded that it is an administrative approval which must be issued by the State priorto the start ofpre-permitconstruction activities. ensuring that sources that are subject to federal requirements (i.e., PSD and synthetic minors) do notbegin any construction priorto permit issuance. Also. the State clarified in its response to EPA's commentsthat this pre-permit construction provision is limited to true minorsources. A true minorsource is not subject to PSD requirements and is not subject to otherfederal**requirement~.** As part ofour analysis ofMontana's pre-permit constructionprovision we also reviewed 

### 17recent EPA actions approving pre-permit construction rules into other State SIPs. EPA'sJuly 10,2006 (71 FR 38773) approval ofMississippi'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 priorto receiving a final pennitto construct, provided certain conditions are met. EPA also approved pre-permit construction rules for the State ofIdaho's permitto construct regulations, which were approved into the Idaho SIP on January 16,2003 (68 FR 2217). Both ofthese State provisions allow complete construction ofthe source, including the emission lmits, priorto issuance ofthe permit. However. these provisions preclude any actual operation ofthe new or modified source before issuance ofthe 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 priorto 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 ofthe State. As discussed above, Montana'sARM 17.8.743(2)

-- (5) is consistent with the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe CAA and federal regulations found at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164, including40 CFR 51.160(b), which requires states to have legally enforceableprocedures to prevent construction or modification ofa source ifit would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment ormaintenance ofthe 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 priorto construction ormodification ofthe emission 18units und prior to operation. Only limited site preparation and construction, which docs.not include the emission units, would be allowed at minor sourcespriorto issuance ofan air quality permit. A permit applicationcompletenessdetermination from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Department) must be made beforethis type ofwork can occur. Additionally, the Department can require the owneroroperatorto immediately cease any prepermit construction activities 

### ifit finds that the proposed project would result in a violationof the 

### SIP orwould interferewith the attainment or maintenance ofany 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 MontanaAir 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 airquality permit. This section is similarto whatpreviously existed in ARM 17.8.705(1), except that: (a) several ofthe 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 proposingto approve all ofARM 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 ofStationary Source Enforcement, to Thomas W. Devine. ChiefAir 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-exemptprojects before the permit is issued. 1917.8.818(I) states that "a**m,~or** stationary source ormajor modification exempted from the requirements ofSubchapter7 under ARM 17.8.744or 17.8.745 shall, ifapplicable, still be rcquiredto obtain a Montana airquality pennit and comply with all applicablc requiremcnts of this subchapter." Likewise. ARM 17.8.904(1) and 17.8.1004(I) both indicate "amajor stationary source ormajor modification exempted from the requirements ofSubchapter7 under ARM 17.8.744 or 17.8.745
...., shall, priorto construction. still be required to obtain a Montana airquality permit
..." 4. ARM 17.8.745 MontanaAir 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 Montanaairquality permit underARM 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 pollutantbelow which no permit is required for changes. Duringthe State'srulemaking process we expressed concerns with the de minimis level specified in this provision. Since this new section (ARM 17.8.745)reduces the stringency ofthe current SIP approved regulations. an analysis should be provided bythe State showing that this

newrule will not interfere ",·ith compliance with the NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(1) ofthe CAA states that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirementconcerning attainment or reasonable further progress, as defined in Section 171 ofthe CAA or any otherapplicable requirement ofthe CAA. Montana did not provide any analysis ordemonstrationthat the new section (ARM 17.8.745) meets these criteria. Montanaplans onprovidinga 110(1) analysis at a later date, as well as. a revision to its 15 tons per yearde minimus limit. Atthe request ofthe State, we are taking no action on Montana's de 20minimis 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 sectionARM 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 ofARM 17.8.748. 

### 6. ARM 17.8.749 Conditions for Issuance or Denial ofPermit On May 28,200], the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.749. This section describes the conditions for issuance ordenial ofa Montanaair quality permit. The provisions in ARM 17.8.749(1), (3), (4), and (7) are similarto 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 ofEnvironmental Quality (Department) notifies an applicant when it denies a pennit and advises the applicant ofthe right to appeal. The revisions allow the Departmentto provide such notice through the mai

### 1. During the State'srulemakingprocess, we expressed concerns with provisions ARM 17.8.749(2)

- that allowthe departmentto extendthe 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." ForARM 17.8.749(2) we were concerned that extended deadlines may conflict with requirements for 21sources subject to PSD. In response to ourconcerns, the State indicated that the provisions of their PSD rules (ARM 17.8.819) meet the requirements of40 eFR 52.2I(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 "thedepartment may extend a deadline specified in the schedule" for permitconditions to becomeeffective. 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 ajustification asto 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 stringentthan federal requirements:' "these rules are not intended to be part ofthe SIP:'and "duringthe permitting process, EPA and otherconcerned 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 proposingto 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 newormodified facility oremission unit. The provisions in ARM 17.8.752 are similarto what previously existed in ARM 17.8.7I5, exceptthat the provisions in ARM I7.8.752( 1)(a)(i) are new. This newprovision states that Montana's minor source Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement is onlytriggered for the 22modified 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 ofARM 17.8.752. 8. ARM 17.8.755 Inspection ofPermit On May 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.755. This section indicates that the current Montana air quality permit mustbe made available at the facility or emitting unit unless the permittee and Department agree on a different location. This section is similarto what previously existed in ARM 17.8.716. exceptthat a new phrase was added indicating that a different location may be acceptable ifmutually agreeable between the permittee and department. We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.755. 9. ARM 17.8.756 Compliance with otherrequirements 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 similarto 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. 1

## n. ARM 17.8.759 Reviev,: ofPermit Applications On May 28. 2003. the State submitted new section ARM 17.8.759. This section describes the Department's responsibilities for determining completeness ofthe pennit application. for issuing a preliminary completeness determination, for public notification and

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

section is similarto what previously existed in ARM 17.8.720(2) and (3). Duringthe State'srulemaking process we expressed concerns with the timeframeallowed 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 onthe preliminary determination for certain permitactions andthe timeline for the Department to notify the applicant ofapproval ordenial ofthe 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, orat the request ofthe applicant

ormemberofthe public, extend by 

### 15 daysthe period within which public commentsmay 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 daysthe period in which public comments may be submittedeitheron its own. orat the request ofan 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 ofPermit 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 similarto 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 DurationofPermit On May 28, 2003, that State submitted new section ARM 17.8.762. This section 24describes the conditions that atTect the duration ofa permit. This section is similarto 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 yearor 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 permitexpiration. 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 appliesto 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 ifconstruction is not commenced within 18 months after receipt ofsuch 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 eFR51.166 do not have an "18-month" provision analogous to 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2). ARM 17.8.819is consistent with the ., 18-monthphased construction project" provision in 51 .166(j)(4). Therefore, ARM 17.8.762(2) is consistentwith the federal PSO rules for SIP-approved states. We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.762. 13. ARM 17.8.763 Revocation ofPermit 25On May 

### 28, 2003, the State submitted new section ARM 

### 17.8.763. This section describes the reasons why the Departmentmay revoke a Montana air quality permit, the process the Departmentmust**f~)lIow** \vhen revoking a permit, and the ability ofthe permitteeto request a hearing before the Board. This section is similarto what previously existed in ARM 

### 17.8.732. Duringthe State's rulemaking process, we expressed concerns with the provisions in ARM 

### 17.8.763(1) in that applicable provisions orthe permit (e.g., major source requirements) may be inadvertently revoked at the request ofthe permittee. In response to ourconcerns, the State indicated that while some portions ofa permit may be revoked, the permit as a whole must still meet any underlying applicable regulations. Afterfurther analysis, we no longerhave

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 submittedrevisions to ARM 

### 17.8.763(2) and 

### (3) pertaining to howthe Department notifies an applicantwhen it revokes a permit ora portion ofa permit. The revisions allow the Departmentto 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 Amendmentto Permit On May 

### 28, 2003, the State submitted new section AMR 

### 17.8.764. This section describes howthe Department may make administrative amendmentsto a Montanaair quality permit. the process the Department must follow when making administrative amendments to a permit, and the ability ofthe permittee to request a hearing before the Board. This section is similarto what previously existed in ARM 

### 17.8.733, exceptthat ARM]

### 7.8.764( 1)(c) is a new provIsion. 

### 26On March 9, 2004, the State submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.764(2) and (3) pertaining to how the Departmentnotifies an applicant when it proposes administrative amendments to a permit. The revisions allow the Departmentto provide such notice through the mail. During the State's rulemaking process we raised concerns that some administrative amendments should receive public revieweventhough there might not be an increase in emissions. In response to our concerns, the State indicated thatthe 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 transfeninga Montanaair quality permitfrom one location to another, and from one owneroroperatorto another. This section is similarto whatpreviously existed in ARM 17.8.734, exceptthat ARM 17.8.765(3) revises what was in ARM 17.8.734(3). The main difTerence is that the priorrule required action hy the Department to approve or disapprove the permittranstCr and the newrule indicates thatthe transfer is deemed approved if the Department docs not act within 30days of receipt ofthe 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 andjeopardize 27attainment ofthe NAAQS and the permittransfer would be deemed approved ifthe 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 oflocation ofthe source. Consequently, we are proposing to approve all ofARM 17.8.765. 16. ARM 17.8.767 Incorporation by Reference OnMay 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 similarto 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) of40 CFR52.21 (Prevention ofsignificant deterioration ofair 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 ofall aircontaminant

sources and notjust PSD sources. this IBR 01'40 eFR 52.21 is not necessary. Subchapter 8 contains Montana's SIP approved PSD rules. We are proposingto 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 Montanaair quality 28permit. In the priorcodification ofSubchapter7, this section had not been incorporated into the SIP. On March 30. 2006, the Montana 

### DRQ requested to withdrawthe request to include ARM 17.8.770 into the SIP as part ofthe 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 OtherSubchapters On May 28, 2003, the State submitted revisions to other subchapters ofthe 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 "airquality prcconstruction pennits" whereas the new Subchapter7 refers to "Montanaair quality permits." In other subchapters, the phrase "airquality preconstruction pennits" is being replaced with "Montanaair quality permits." Finally, newrules are being added and minoradministrative 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 ofincinerators 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 onMay 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 arevision to ARM 17.8.743(1) and newrules codified at ARM 17.8.1601, 17.8.1602, 17.8.1603, 17.8.1604, 17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606. These rules pertainto the regulation ofoil and gas well facilities, and we will address this revision request in a separate action. IV. Summary ofEPA'sProposed Action 

### We are proposing to approve the removal ofthe 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 proposingto approve the following new Subchapter 7provisions into the federally-approved SIP: ARM 17.8.740 (except 17.8.740(10) and (14) andthe following phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) 

### "exceptwhen apermit is not required under ARM 17.8.745" and (2) "exceptas provided in ARM 17.8.745," and the phrase "reasonableperiod of time for startup and shakedown" in ARM 17.8.740(2)), submitted on May 28, 2003; 17.8.743 (exceptthe phrases "asphaltconcrete 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 onMay 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) 30and (4), submitted on May 28, 2003; 17.8.763(2) and (3), submitted on March 9. 2004; 17.8.764(1) (except the phrase "theemission 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). submittedon March 9.2004; 17.8.765. submitted on May 28, 2003; 17.8.767(1)(a) through (c), submittedon May 28, 2003; and 17.8.767(1)(d) through (g). (2), (3), and (4), submitted on October25. 2005. We are proposing to disapprove the following new Subchapter7 provisions submitted on May 28.2003: the phrase "reasonable period oftime for startup and shakedown" in ARM 17.8.740(2); 17.8.740(10) and (14); and 17.8.749(2). We are proposingto approve revisions to the following sections ofother 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 ofthe State. on the following provisions in Subchapter 7: ARM 17.8.743(1)(c); 17.8.770: the phrase "asphaltconcrete plants, mineral crushers" in 17.8.743( 1)(b): and 17.8.745. submitted on May 28, 2003. We are not acting onthe following provisions ofother 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) "exceptas provided in ARM 17.8.745," submitted on May 28. 2003: ARM 17.8.309(5)(b), 17.8.310(3)(e). 17.8.316(6), and 17.8.901(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 "theemission 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), 31submitted 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 Underthe Clean Air Act. the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe Act and applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.c. 741 O(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus. in reviewing SIP submissions. EPA'srole is to approve state choices. provided thatthey meet the criteriaofthe Clean Air Act. Accordingly. this proposed action merely approves state law asmeeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Forthat reason, this action:

• is not a "signiticant regulatory action" subject to review by the Otlice ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4. 1(93);

• docs not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

### etseq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial numberofsmall entities underthe Regulatory FlexibilityAct (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 J3211 (66 FR 28355. May 22, 200I);

• is not subject to requirements ofSection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and AdvancementAct of 1995 (J 5 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose requircments would be inconsistentwith the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disprop0l1ionate human health orenvironmental 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, November9.2000). 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 orpreempttribal law. List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Airpollution 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 

### etseq

33

### -,

IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT: Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of AirQuality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana

- AirQuality, Subchapter7 and OtherSubchapters (Page34 of34)

Dated: Carol Rushin Acting Regional Administrator Region 8

34.......



### IDENTIFICATION OFDOCUMENT: Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air QualityImplementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to theAdministrativeRules of Montana

- AirQuality,Subchapter7 and OtherSubchapters (Page34 of34)

Dated: Carol Campbell ActingDeputy Regional Administrator Region 8

34