Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 4225 

§ 60.15 Process for requesting Fisher 

House or other temporary lodging. 

(a) Submitting requests. An 

accompanying individual requesting 

Fisher House or other temporary lodging 

must contact directly the provider, 

social worker, case manager, or Fisher 

House Manager at the veteran’s VA 

health care facility of jurisdiction. Upon 

receiving a request, VA will determine 

the accompanying individual’s 

eligibility for the requested housing, as 

provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section. 

(b) Processing requests. (1) Requests 

for all temporary housing are generally 

processed in the order that they are 

received by VA, and temporary lodging 

is then granted on a first come, first 

served basis; however, in extraordinary 

circumstances, such as imminent death, 

critical injury, or organ donation, 

requests may be processed out of order. 

* * * * * 

(6) If VA denies a request for one type 

of lodging, such as at a Fisher House, 

the request will be considered for other 

temporary lodging and vice versa, if the 

requester is eligible. 

(7) If VA denies a request for 

temporary lodging, VA will refer the 

request to a VA social worker at the VA 

health care facility of jurisdiction to 

determine if other arrangements can be 

made. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–01491 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0556, FRL–9941–54- 

Region 8] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 

Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Montana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions from the State of 

Montana to demonstrate the State meets 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (Act or CAA) for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on 

March 12, 2008, lead (Pb) on October 

15, 2008, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on 

January 22, 2010, sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

on June 2, 2010 and fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012. 

EPA is also proposing to approve 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J) with regard to PSD 

and element 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for 

the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2, and 2006 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove element 4 of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2006 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

approve SIP revisions the State 

submitted to update Montana’s PSD 

program and provisions regarding state 

boards. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each state submit a SIP for 

the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 25, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2013–0556 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6563, 

fulton.abby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register volume, date, and page 

number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a new NAAQS for ozone, revising the 

levels of the primary and secondary 8- 

hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436, March 27, 2008). Subsequently, 

on October 15, 2008, EPA revised the 

level of the primary and secondary Pb 

NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3 (73 FR 

66964, Nov. 12, 2008). On January 22, 

2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour 

primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 

100 parts per billion (ppb) while 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

4226 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA proposed approval of elements 1 and 2 of 

Montana’s SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a 

notice published November 23, 2015 (80 FR 72937). 

2For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb. 

The 2010 NO2 NAAQS is expressed as 

the three-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the annual distribution of 

daily maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations. The secondary NO2

NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb 

(75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010). On June 2, 

2010, the EPA promulgated a revised 

primary SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based 

on a three-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of one-hour daily 

maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520, 

June 22, 2010). Finally, on December 14, 

2012, the EPA promulgated a revised 

annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the 

level to 12.0 mg/m3 and retaining the 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 mg/ 

m3 (78 FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013). 

EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS 

for PM2.5 on October 17, 2006, 

tightening the level of the 24-hour 

standard to 35 mg/m3 and retaining the 

level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15 

mg/m3. EPA approved the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Montana’s 

infrastructure SIP for this NAAQS on 

July 30, 2013 (78 FR 45869). As 

discussed below, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) covers elements 1 and 

2 of ‘‘interstate transport.’’ In this 

proposed action, EPA is addressing only 

interstate transport elements 3 and 4 

from CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for 

the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not 

addressing elements 1 and 2 for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in this action. These elements 

will be addressed in a later rulemaking 

action.1

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. These submissions must 

contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for PM2.5, ozone, Pb, 

NO2, and SO2 already meet those 

requirements. EPA highlighted this 

statutory requirement in an October 2, 

2007, guidance document entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA 

issued an additional guidance document 

pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo), 

followed by the October 14, 2011, 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, 

EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Memo). 

III. What is the Scope of this 

Rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Montana that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within three years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation of 

a national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA; ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A; and nonattainment 

new source review (NSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.2 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

Examples of some of these 

ambiguities and the context in which 

EPA interprets the ambiguous portions 

of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) are 

discussed at length in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of 

State Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 

and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 

71040 Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘III. What is 

the Scope of this Rulemaking?’’ 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be 

contrary to the CAA because they 

purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 4227 

3Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (September 20, 1999). 

Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 

32526, June 13, 2007 (‘‘NSR Reform’’). 

IV. What infrastructure elements are 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP 

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements include 

requirements such as modeling, 

monitoring, and emissions inventories, 

which are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are listed below. 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority, conflict of interest, and 

oversight of local governments and 

regional agencies. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

A detailed discussion of each of these 

elements is contained in the next 

section. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the three 

year submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (1) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment NSR’’) required under 

part D, and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I), 

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). 

Furthermore, EPA interprets the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on 

visibility as not being triggered by a new 

NAAQS because the visibility 

requirements in part C, title 1 of the 

CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS. 

V. How did Montana address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

The Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (Department or 

MDEQ) submitted certification of 

Montana’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS on December 19, 2011, 

2008 ozone NAAQS on January 3, 2013, 

2010 NO2 NAAQS on June 4, 2013, 2010 

SO2 NAAQS on July 15, 2013, and 2012 

PM2.5 on December 17, 2015. Montana’s 

infrastructure certifications demonstrate 

how the State, where applicable, has 

plans in place that meet the 

requirements of section 110 for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These plans 

reference the current Administrative 

Rules of Montana (ARM) and Montana 

Code Annotated (MCA). These 

submittals are available within the 

electronic docket for today’s proposed 

action at www.regulations.gov. The 

ARM and MCA referenced in the 

submittals are publicly available at 

http://www.mtrules.org/ and http://leg.

mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/index.htm. 

Montana’s SIP, air pollution control 

regulations, and statutes that have been 

previously approved by EPA and 

incorporated into the Montana SIP can 

be found at 40 CFR 52.1370. 

VI. Analysis of the State Submittals 

1. Emission limits and other control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

Specific control measures adopted in 

Board of Environmental Review (BER) 

orders and multiple SIP-approved state 

air quality regulations within the ARM 

and cited in Montana’s certifications 

provide enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means of techniques, schedules for 

compliance, and other related matters 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, subject to 

the following clarifications. 

First, this infrastructure element does 

not require the submittal of regulations 

or emission limitations developed 

specifically for attaining the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Montana’s 

certifications (contained within this 

docket) generally list provisions and 

enforceable control measures within its 

SIP which regulate pollutants through 

various programs, including its 

stationary source permit program which 

requires sources to demonstrate 

emissions will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of any NAAQS (ARM 

17.8.749). This suffices, in the case of 

Montana, to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Second, as previously discussed, EPA 

is not proposing to approve or 

disapprove any existing state rules with 

regard to director’s discretion or 

variance provisions. A number of states, 

including Montana, have such 

provisions which are contrary to the 

CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 

45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the agency 

plans to take action in the future to 

address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision which is contrary to 

the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps 

to correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

Finally, in this action, EPA is also not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provision with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at a facility. A number of 

states, including Montana, have SSM 

provisions which are contrary to the 

CAA and existing EPA guidance 3 and 

the agency is addressing such state 

regulations separately (80 FR 33840, 

June 12, 2015). 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve Montana’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(A) to include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques to meet the applicable 

requirements of this element. 

2. Ambient air quality monitoring/

data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to ‘‘(i) 

monitor, compile, and analyze data on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

4228 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

ambient air quality, and (ii) upon 

request, make such data available to the 

Administrator.’’ 

On an annual basis, the Department 

evaluates trends in industrial and 

economic development, meteorology, 

and population growth, and conducts 

other scientific, social, and geographic 

observations regarding areas of the State 

which may be adversely affected by the 

impact of criteria pollutants. The 

Department, with participation and 

input from local county air pollution 

control program staff and other 

interested persons, develops decisions 

regarding monitor type, location, and 

schedules for monitoring air quality in 

these hotspots. Montana’s annual 

monitoring network plan (AMNP), is 

made available by the Department for 

public review and comment prior to 

submission to EPA. EPA approved 2015 

network changes through an AMNP 

response letter (contained within the 

docket) mailed to the Department on 

November 25, 2015. 

Further, in accordance with 40 CFR 

58.10, beginning in July 2008, and every 

five years thereafter, Montana develops 

a periodic network assessment to ensure 

the effective implementation of an 

adequate ambient air quality 

surveillance system. The periodic 

network assessment is made available 

by the Department for public review and 

comment prior to submission to EPA. 

Pursuant to its Quality Assurance 

Project Plans, the Department makes 

arrangements to operate and maintain 

federal reference monitors and 

establishes federally-approved protocols 

for sample collection, handling, and 

analysis. Air monitoring data is 

submitted to EPA’s national ‘‘AIRS’’ 

database. 

The provisions in state law for the 

collection and analysis of ambient air 

quality data are contained in the MT 

CAA, 75–2–101 et seq., MCA, and 

specifically, 75–2–112, MCA, Powers 

and Responsibilities of Department. 

Montana’s air monitoring programs 

and data systems meet the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B). Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to approve Montana’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirements in section 

110(a)(2)(B). 

3. Program for enforcement of control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

SIPs to include a program to provide for 

the enforcement of the measures 

described in subparagraph (A), and 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure NAAQS are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D. 

To generally meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is 

required to have SIP-approved PSD, 

nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR 

permitting programs adequate to 

implement the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this 

action, EPA is not evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D of the Act. EPA is 

evaluating the State’s PSD program as 

required by part C of the Act, and the 

State’s minor NSR program as required 

by 110(a)(2)(C). 

PSD Requirements 

With respect to Elements (C) and (J), 

the EPA interprets the CAA to require 

each state to make an infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

that demonstrates that the air agency 

has a complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of Element D(i)(II) may 

also be satisfied by demonstrating the 

air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program correctly addressing 

all regulated NSR pollutants. Montana 

has shown that it currently has a PSD 

program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs (anyway 

sources) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) 

issued an amended judgment vacating 

the regulations that implemented Step 2 

of the EPA’s PSD and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not 

the regulations that implement Step 1 of 

that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule 

covers sources that are required to 

obtain a PSD permit based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 

applied to sources that emitted only 

GHGs above the thresholds triggering 

the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. 

The amended judgment preserves, 

without the need for additional 

rulemaking by the EPA, the application 

of the BACT requirement to GHG 

emissions from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’ 

sources. With respect to Step 2 sources, 

the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment 

vacated the regulations at issue in the 

litigation, including 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to the extent they 

require a stationary source to obtain a 

PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the 

only pollutant (i) that the source emits 

or has the potential to emit above the 

applicable major source thresholds, or 

(ii) for which there is a significant 

emission increase from a modification.’’ 

The EPA is planning to take 

additional steps to revise federal PSD 

rules in light of the Supreme Court 

opinion and subsequent D.C. Circuit 

judgment. Some states have begun to 

revise their existing SIP-approved PSD 

programs in light of these court 

decisions, and some states may prefer 

not to initiate this process until they 

have more information about the 

planned revisions to EPA’s PSD 

regulations. The EPA is not expecting 

states to have revised their PSD 

programs in anticipation of the EPA’s 

planned actions to revise its PSD 

program rules in response to the court 

decisions. 

At present, the EPA has determined 

the State’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, and (J) 

with respect to GHGs. This is because 

the PSD permitting program previously 

approved by the EPA into the SIP 

continues to require that PSD permits 

issued to ‘‘anyway sources’’ contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. The SIP 

contains the PSD requirements for 

applying the BACT requirement to 

greenhouse gas emissions from ‘‘anyway 

sources’’ that are necessary at this time. 

The application of those requirements is 

not impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of Step 2 

sources. Accordingly, the Supreme 

Court decision and subsequent D.C. 

Circuit judgment do not prevent the 

EPA’s approval of Montana’s 

infrastructure SIP as to the requirements 

of Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3 and 

(J). 

In our July 22, 2011 rulemaking titled 

‘‘Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard; Montana’’ (76 FR 

43918) we disapproved the Montana 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 4229 

4See ‘‘Section 128 and 2012 PM2.5 Cover Letter 

and PSD Commitment Letter’’ submitted to EPA on 

December 17, 2015, contained within this docket. 

NAAQS for elements (C) and (J) on the 

basis that Montana’s SIP-approved PSD 

program did not properly regulate 

nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor. 

For the same reason, we later 

disapproved Montana’s infrastructure 

SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

for elements (C) and (J) in our July 30, 

2013 rulemaking titled ‘‘Promulgation of 

State Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 P.M.2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards; Montana’’ (78 FR 

45864). On January 29, 2015, (80 FR 

4793), we approved a Montana SIP 

revision that addressed the PSD 

requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule promulgated in 

2005 (70 FR 71612). As a result, the 

approved Montana PSD program meets 

current requirements for ozone. 

Finally, we evaluate the PSD program 

with respect to current requirements for 

PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, 

EPA promulgated the rule, 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 

FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010 EPA 

promulgated the rule, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). EPA regards 

adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a 

necessary requirement when assessing a 

PSD program for the purposes of 

element (C). 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), 

issued a judgment that remanded EPA’s 

2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered 

EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these rules 

pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with 

this opinion.’’ Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of 

part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes 

additional provisions for particulate 

matter nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 implementation rule 

addressed by the court decision, 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 

FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated 

NSR requirements for implementation 

of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/

unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the 

requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain 

to nonattainment areas, EPA does not 

consider the portions of the 2008 

Implementation rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas to be affected by the 

court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does not 

anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated in the 2008 

Implementation rule in order to comply 

with the court’s decision. Accordingly, 

EPA’s proposed approval of Montana’s 

infrastructure SIP as to elements C or J 

with respect to the PSD requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

Implementation rule does not conflict 

with the court’s opinion. 

The court’s decision with respect to 

the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

Implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. EPA interprets the 

Act to exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program, from infrastructure SIP 

submissions due three years after 

adoption or revision of a NAAQS. 

Instead, these elements are typically 

referred to as nonattainment SIP or 

attainment plan elements, which would 

be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as 10 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

The second PSD requirement for 

PM2.5 is contained in EPA’s October 20, 

2010 rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). 

EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5

increments as a necessary requirement 

when assessing a PSD program for the 

purposes of element (C). 

On August 21, 2012, Montana 

submitted revisions to EPA which 

addressed the requirements of the 2008 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule and the 

2010 Increment Rule. Portions of the 

2010 Increment rule were vacated by the 

Federal Courts (Sierra Club v. EPA). 

EPA subsequently revised the affected 

NSR-PSD rules accordingly (78 FR 

73698, Dec. 9, 2013). On March 24, 

2015, Montana submitted revisions 

which addressed the Court’s decision 

and supersedes and replaces these 

aspects of the August 21, 2012 

submittal. These submittals are 

available within this docket. 

In this action, we propose to approve 

the necessary portions of Montana’s 

August 21, 2012 and March 24, 2015 

submittals to reflect the 2008 PM2.5

Implementation Rule and the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically 40 

CFR part 166, paragraphs (b)(14)(i), (ii), 

(iii), (b)(15)(i), (ii), (b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i), 

(vi), and paragraph (c)(1). EPA is 

proposing to approve revisions to: ARM 

17.8.801(3), 17.8.801(21), 17.8.801(27), 

17.8.804(1), ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iv)–(xi), 

17.8.822(9), 17.8.822(10), 17.8.822(11), 

17.8.822(12), and 17.8.825(4) from the 

August 21, 2012 submittal. We propose 

no action on revisions to ARM 

17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) and 17.8.820(2) 

because they were superseded by the 

March 24, 2015 submittal. We are not 

proposing to act on any other portions 

of the August 21, 2012 submittal. 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

from the March 24, 2015 submittal to 

ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) on the condition 

that the State adopts and submits 

specific revisions within one year of 

EPA’s final action on these 

infrastructure submittals; specifically to 

remove the phrase ‘‘24-hour average’’ in 

ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) .4 We propose no 

action on ARM 17.8.820(2) because it 

deletes a section of the ARM which was 

never approved into the State’s SIP. The 

submitted revisions make Montana’s 

PSD program up to date with respect to 

current requirements for PM2.5. 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Montana’s SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

include a PSD permit program in the 

SIP as required by part C of the Act on 

the condition that the State adopts and 

submits revisions to ARM 

17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) as previously 

described. 

Minor NSR 

The State has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR program, adopted under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR 

program was originally approved by 

EPA on March 22, 1972. Since approval 

of the minor NSR program, the State and 

EPA have relied on the program to 

assure that new and modified sources 

not captured by the major NSR 

permitting programs do not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Montana’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a 

program in the SIP that regulates the 

enforcement, modification, and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. 

4. Interstate Transport: The interstate 

transport provisions in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions) require each state 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

4230 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA proposed approval of elements 1 and 2 of 

Montana’s SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a 

notice published November 23, 2015 (80 FR 72937). 

6 2011 Memo, at pg 8. 7 Idaho’s maximum design value was calculated 

using EPA’s AirData Web site, at http://www.epa.

gov/airquality/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. 

to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that will have certain adverse air quality 

effects in other states. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct 

elements related to the impacts of air 

pollutants transported across state lines. 

The two elements under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will (element 1) 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) 

interfere with maintenance by any other 

state with respect to the same NAAQS. 

The two elements under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state under part C (element 3) to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or (element 4) to protect 

visibility. In this action, EPA is 

addressing all four elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard to the 

2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA is 

addressing only elements 3 and 4 of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. We will also address elements 

3 and 4 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

because EPA did not address these 

elements as part of the July 30, 2013 

action in which we approved elements 

1 and 2 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (78 

FR 45869). We are not addressing 

elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone 5

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

this action. These elements will be 

addressed in a later rulemaking. 

A. Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment and 

Interference With Maintenance 

2008 Pb NAAQS 

Montana’s analysis of potential 

interstate transport for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS discussed the lack of sources 

with significant Pb emissions near the 

State’s borders. Montana’s analysis is 

available in the docket for this action. 

As noted in our 2011 Memo, there is 

a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at 

least in the coarse fraction, as the 

distance from a Pb source increases. For 

this reason, EPA found that the 

‘‘requirements of subsection (2)(D)(i)(I) 

(prongs 1 and 2) could be satisfied 

through a state’s assessment as to 

whether or not emissions from Pb 

sources located in close proximity to 

their state borders have emissions that 

impact the neighboring state such that 

they contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in that state.’’ 6 In that 

guidance document, EPA further 

specified that any source appeared 

unlikely to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment unless it was located less 

than 2 miles from a state border and 

emitted at least 0.5 tons per year of Pb. 

Montana’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) analysis 

specifically noted that there are no 

sources in the State that meet both of 

these criteria. EPA concurs with the 

State’s analysis and conclusion that no 

Montana sources have the combination 

of Pb emission levels and proximity to 

nearby nonattainment or maintenance 

areas to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in or interfere with 

maintenance by other states for this 

NAAQS. Montana’s SIP is therefore 

adequate to ensure that such impacts do 

not occur. We are proposing to approve 

Montana’s submission in that its SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

2010 NO2 NAAQS 

Montana’s 2010 NO2 transport 

analysis for elements 1 and 2 of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) describes how sources in 

the State are subject to various 

permitting requirements. Montana 

asserts that these requirements prevent 

sources from emitting NO2 in amounts 

that would contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states. The State’s analysis is available 

in the docket for this action. 

EPA concurs with the conclusion of 

Montana’s 2010 NO2 transport analysis. 

Due to Montana’s limited technical 

analysis, EPA considered additional 

factors before reaching this conclusion, 

specifically NO2 monitoring data from 

Montana and surrounding states. EPA 

notes that the highest monitored NO2

design values in each state bordering or 

near Montana are significantly below 

the NAAQS (see Table 1). This fact 

supports the State’s contention that 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS from 

Montana is unlikely. As shown in Table 

1, the maximum design values in states 

bordering Montana are well below the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. In addition, no areas 

in the U.S. have been designated 

nonattainment for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. As the states near Montana are 

not only attaining, but also having no 

trouble maintaining the NAAQS, there 

are no areas to which Montana could 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—HIGHEST MONITORED 2010 NO2 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES

State 2012–2014 Design value % of NAAQS 

(100 ppb) 

Idaho ............................................................................................................................. 43 ppb 7 ..................................................... 43 

North Dakota ................................................................................................................ 35 ppb ....................................................... 35 

South Dakota ................................................................................................................ 38 ppb ....................................................... 38 

Wyoming ....................................................................................................................... 35 ppb ....................................................... 35 

* Source: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 4231 

8http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

9See 2013 Memo. 10See ARM 17.8.901–906. 

In addition to the monitored levels of 

NO2 in states near Montana being well 

below the NAAQS, Montana’s highest 

official design value from 2012–2014 

was also significantly below this 

NAAQS (7 ppb).8

Based on all of these factors, EPA 

concurs with the State’s conclusion that 

Montana does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS in other states. EPA is 

therefore proposing to determine that 

Montana’s SIP includes adequate 

provisions to prohibit sources or other 

emission activities within the State from 

emitting NO2 in amounts that will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in or interfere with 

maintenance by any other state with 

respect to the NO2 NAAQS. 

B. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Prevent Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) 

With regard to the PSD portion of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to a comprehensive EPAapproved PSD permitting program in 

the SIP that applies to all regulated new 

source review (NSR) pollutants and that 

satisfies the requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules.9 As noted in the 

discussion for infrastructure element (C) 

earlier in this notice, EPA is proposing 

to conditionally approve CAA section 

110(a)(2) element (C) for Montana’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to PSD 

requirements. As discussed in detail in 

that section, Montana’s PSD program 

will meet the current structural 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) for PM2.5

on the condition that the State adopts 

and submits specific revisions within 

one year of EPA’s final action on these 

infrastructure submittals to correct the 

language in ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii). We 

are also proposing to conditionally 

approve Montana’s infrastructure SIP as 

meeting the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) element 3 

(PSD) requirements for 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As stated in the 2013 Memo, in-state 

sources not subject to PSD for any one 

or more of the pollutants subject to 

regulation under the CAA because they 

are in a nonattainment area for a 

NAAQS related to those particular 

pollutants may also have the potential 

to interfere with PSD in an attainment 

or unclassifiable area of another state. 

One way a state may satisfy element 3 

with respect to these sources is by citing 

an air agency’s EPA-approved 

nonattainment NSR provisions 

addressing any pollutants for which the 

state has designated nonattainment 

areas. Montana has a SIP-approved 

nonattainment NSR program which 

ensures regulation of major sources and 

major modifications in nonattainment 

areas, and therefore satisfies element 3 

with regard to this requirement.10

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve the infrastructure SIP 

submission with regard to the 

requirements of element 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Protect Visibility 

The determination of whether the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requirement for visibility is satisfied is 

closely connected to EPA’s regional 

haze program. Under the regional haze 

program, each state with a Class I area 

is required to submit a regional haze SIP 

with reasonable progress goals for each 

such area that provides for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days and ensures no 

degradation of the best days. CAA 

section 169A. 

Because of the often significant 

impacts on visibility from the interstate 

transport of pollutants, we interpret the 

provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) described above as 

requiring states to include in their SIPs 

measures to prohibit emissions that 

would interfere with the reasonable 

progress goals set to protect Class I areas 

in other states. This is consistent with 

the requirements in the regional haze 

program which explicitly require each 

state to address its share of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

surrounding Class I areas. 64 FR 35714, 

35735 (July 1, 1999). 

Montana did not submit a regional 

haze SIP to EPA, which in turn required 

EPA to promulgate a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) to satisfy the 

regional haze requirements for the State. 

EPA finalized its regional haze FIP for 

Montana in a rule published September 

18, 2012 (77 FR 57864). Several parties 

filed petitions for review of the Montana 

regional haze FIP. In Nat’l Parks 

Conservation Ass’n v. EPA, 788 F.3d 

1134 (9th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated 

and remanded to EPA certain portions 

of the regional haze FIP setting NOX and 

SO2 emission limits at two facilities in 

Montana. EPA is currently working to 

address the remand of these portions of 

the Montana regional haze FIP in 

accordance with the court’s decision. 

In its 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2 and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

certifications, Montana asserted that 

each of these pollutants was ‘‘generally 

insignificant’’ related to impacts on 

visibility impairment, emitted in limited 

amounts in the state, and that 

significant impacts from each of these 

pollutants are ‘‘mostly located away’’ 

from state borders. In its February 10, 

2010 certification for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, the State did not directly 

address visibility impacts from Montana 

to other states, and instead generally 

addressed element 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

In its 2008 Pb NAAQS certification, 

Montana cited the 2011 Memo in noting 

the general insignificance of Pb-related 

impacts on visibility impairment, and 

stated that significant impacts from Pb 

emissions from stationary sources are 

expected to be limited to short distances 

from the source. Montana affirmed that 

it did not contain sources with 0.5 tpy 

or greater lead emissions located within 

two miles of the State’s border and 

therefore concluded that it met the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with 

respect to visibility for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

In its 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

certification, Montana asserted that their 

Visibility Plan and FIP, which is in 

place to satisfy requirements of the EPA 

Regional Haze Program (77 FR 57863, 

Sept. 18, 2012), demonstrate that 

sources in Montana do not interfere 

with visibility protection in other states. 

However, they acknowledge that, in 

accordance with EPA’s 2013 

infrastructure SIP guidance, a FIP 

cannot be relied upon to meet the 

requirements of element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to visibility 

and therefore the requirements of 

element 4 are not met. 

EPA disagrees with the State’s 

assertions that NO2, SO2 and ozone are 

generally insignificant in their impacts 

on visibility impairment. See 77 FR at 

23995, 24053–54 (EPA determined in its 

regional haze FIP rulemaking that 

Montana emissions have impacts at 

Class I areas in other states). Montana’s 

claim that significant impacts from 

these three pollutants are located away 

from state borders is conclusory and not 

supported by relevant information or 

analysis. As the State does not have a 

fully approved regional haze SIP, and 

has not otherwise demonstrated that its 

SIP satisfies the visibility requirement of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA proposes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

4232 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11 2013 Memo at 33. 

12See Administrative Rule of Montana (‘‘ARM’’) 

17.8.826(2)(d). 

to disapprove this portion of Montana’s 

SIP for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Because 

EPA in the Montana regional haze FIP 

has and will continue to address 

visibility impairment from Montana 

sources in Class I areas outside of the 

State, this disapproval will not require 

further action from the State, and does 

not create a new FIP obligation for EPA. 

Regarding the 2008 Pb NAAQS, EPA 

agrees that significant impacts from Pb 

emissions from stationary sources are 

expected to be limited to short distances 

from the source and most, if not all, Pb 

stationary sources are located at 

distances from Class I areas such that 

visibility impacts would be negligible. 

Further, when evaluating the extent to 

which Pb could impact visibility, EPA 

has found Pb-related visibility impacts 

insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10 

percent).11 Montana does not have any 

major sources of Pb located within ten 

miles of a neighboring state’s Class I 

area. EPA proposes to approve 

Montana’s conclusion that it does not 

have any significant sources of lead 

emissions within 2 miles of its border 

and that it therefore does not have 

emissions of Pb that would interfere 

with the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility. 

EPA agrees with Montana’s assertion 

that its SIP does not satisfy the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA proposes to disapprove 

this portion of the Montana SIP. 

5. Interstate and International 

transport provisions: CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include 

provisions ensuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of CAA 

sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement). Specifically, CAA section 

126(a) requires new or modified major 

sources to notify neighboring states of 

potential impacts from the source. 

Section 126(a) of the CAA requires 

notification to affected, nearby states of 

major proposed new (or modified) 

sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain 

to petitions by affected states to the 

Administrator of the EPA 

(Administrator) regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 115 of the CAA similarly 

pertains to international transport of air 

pollution. 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(iv), Montana’s SIPapproved PSD program requires notice 

to states whose lands may be affected by 

the emissions of sources subject to 

PSD.12 This suffices to meet the notice 

requirement of section 126(a). 

Montana has no pending obligations 

under sections 126(c) or 115(b); 

therefore, its SIP currently meets the 

requirements of those sections. In 

summary, the SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and EPA is therefore 

proposing approval of this element for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

is also proposing to approve the 

Montana SIP as meeting the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Montana submitted an infrastructure 

certification generally addressing CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on February 10, 

2010. 

6. Adequate resources: Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide 

necessary assurances that the state will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out 

the SIP (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of federal or state law from 

carrying out the SIP or portion thereof). 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires 

each state to comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

under CAA section 128. Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to 

‘‘provide necessary assurances that, 

where the State has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any [SIP] provision, the State has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such [SIP] 

provision.’’ 

a. Sub-Elements (i) and (iii): Adequate 

Personnel, Funding, and Legal 

Authority Under State Law To Carry 

Out Its SIP, and Related Issues 

The provisions contained in 75–2– 

102, MCA, 75–2–111, MCA, and 75–2– 

112, MCA, provide adequate authority 

for the State of Montana and the DEQ to 

carry out its SIP obligations with respect 

to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

State receives sections 103 and 105 

grant funds through its Performance 

Partnership Grant along with required 

state matching funds to provide funding 

necessary to carry out Montana’s SIP 

requirements. 

With respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the regulations cited by 

Montana in their certifications (75–2– 

111 and 75–2–112, MCA) and contained 

within this docket also provide the 

necessary assurances that the State has 

responsibility for adequate 

implementation of SIP provisions by 

local governments. Therefore, we 

propose to approve Montana’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

b. Sub-Element (ii): State Boards 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each 

state’s SIP to contain provisions that 

comply with the requirements of section 

128 of the CAA. That provision contains 

two explicit requirements: (i) That any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA 

shall have at least a majority of members 

who represent the public interest and do 

not derive a significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to such 

permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) 

that any potential conflicts of interest by 

members of such board or body or the 

head of an executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

In our July 30, 2013 action, we 

disapproved Montana’s February 10, 

2010 infrastructure SIP submission for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because the 

Montana SIP did not contain provisions 

meeting requirements of CAA section 

128. On December 17, 2015, EPA 

received a submission from the State of 

Montana to address the requirements of 

section 128. The Montana BER 

approved new rule language on October 

16, 2015. A copy of New Rule I (ARM 

17.8.150), II (ARM 17.8.151), and III 

(ARM 17.8.152) is available within this 

docket. New Rule II Board Action 

addresses board composition 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) and 

New Rule III Reporting addresses 

conflict of interest requirements of 

section 128(a)(2). We propose to 

approve this new rule language as 

meeting the requirements of section 128 

for the reasons explained in more detail 

below. Because this revision meets the 

requirements of section 128, we also 

propose to approve the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The State made 

these infrastructure SIP submissions in 

connection with the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, but section 128 is not NAAQSspecific and once the State has met the 

requirements of section 128 that is 

sufficient for purposes of infrastructure 

SIP requirements for all NAAQS. If we 

finalize this proposed approval for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this will 

also resolve the prior disapproval for 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 4233 

13Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy 

General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, 

Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 

Requirements of Section 128 (Mar. 2, 1978). 

14H.R. Rep. 95–564 (1977), reprinted in 3 

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977, 526–27 (1978). 

We are proposing to approve the 

State’s December 17, 2015 SIP 

submission as meeting the requirements 

of section 128 because we believe that 

it complies with the statutory 

requirements and is consistent with 

EPA’s guidance recommendations 

concerning section 128. In 1978, EPA 

issued a guidance memorandum 

recommending ways states could meet 

the requirements of section 128, 

including suggested interpretations of 

certain key terms in section 128.13 In 

this proposal notice, we discuss 

additional relevant aspects of section 

128. We first note that, in the conference 

report on the 1977 amendments to the 

CAA, the conference committee stated, 

‘‘[i]t is the responsibility of each state to 

determine the specific requirements to 

meet the general requirements of 

[section 128].’’ 14 This legislative history 

indicates that Congress intended states 

to have some latitude in adopting SIP 

provisions with respect to section 128, 

so long as states meet the statutory 

requirements of the section. We also 

note that Congress explicitly provided 

in section 128 that states could elect to 

adopt more stringent requirements, as 

long as the minimum requirements of 

section 128 are met. 

In implementing section 128, the EPA 

has identified a number of key 

considerations relevant to evaluation of 

a SIP submission. EPA has identified 

these considerations in the 1978 

guidance and in subsequent rulemaking 

actions on SIP submissions relevant to 

section 128, whether as SIP revisions for 

this specific purpose or as an element of 

broader actions on infrastructure SIP 

submissions for one or more NAAQS. 

Each state must meet the 

requirements of section 128 through 

provisions that EPA approves into the 

state’s SIP and are thus made federally 

enforceable. Section 128 explicitly 

mandates that each SIP ‘‘shall contain 

requirements’’ that satisfy subsections 

128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2). A mere narrative 

description of state statutes or rules, or 

of a state’s current or past practice in 

constituting a board or body and in 

disclosing potential conflicts of interest, 

is not a requirement contained in the 

SIP and does not satisfy the plain text 

of section 128. 

Subsection 128(a)(1) applies only to 

states that have a board or body that is 

composed of multiple individuals and 

that, among its duties, approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

It does not apply in states that have no 

such multi-member board or body that 

performs these functions, and where 

instead a single head of an agency or 

other similar official approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

This flows from the text of section 128, 

for two reasons. First, as subsection 

128(a)(1) refers to a majority of members 

of the board or body in the plural, we 

think it reasonable to read subsection 

128(a)(1) as not creating any 

requirements for an individual with sole 

authority for approving permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA. 

Second, subsection 128(a)(2) explicitly 

applies to the head of an executive 

agency with ‘‘similar powers’’ to a board 

or body that approves permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA, 

while subsection 128(a)(1) omits any 

reference to heads of executive agencies. 

We infer that subsection 128(a)(1) 

should not apply to heads of executive 

agencies who approve permits or 

enforcement orders. 

Subsection 128(a)(2) applies to all 

states, regardless of whether the state 

has a multi-member board or body that 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA. Although the title of 

section 128 is ‘‘State boards,’’ the 

language of subsection 128(a)(2) 

explicitly applies where the head of an 

executive agency, rather than a board or 

body, approves permits or enforcement 

orders. In instances where the head of 

an executive agency delegates his or her 

power to approve permits or 

enforcement orders, or where statutory 

authority to approve permits or 

enforcement orders is nominally vested 

in another state official, the requirement 

to adequately disclose potential 

conflicts of interest still applies. In other 

words, EPA interprets section 128(a)(2) 

to apply to all states, regardless of 

whether a state board or body approves 

permits or enforcement orders under the 

CAA or whether a head of a state agency 

(or his/her delegates) performs these 

duties. Thus, all state SIPs must contain 

provisions that require adequate 

disclosure of potential conflicts of 

interest in order to meet the 

requirements of subsection 128(a)(2). 

The question of which entities or parties 

must be subject to such disclosure 

requirements must be evaluated by 

states and EPA in light of the specific 

facts and circumstances of each state’s 

regulatory structure. 

A state may satisfy the requirements 

of section 128 by submitting for 

adoption into the SIP a provision of 

state law that closely tracks or mirrors 

the language of the applicable 

provisions of section 128. A state may 

take this approach in two ways. First, 

the state may adopt the language of 

subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2) 

verbatim. Under this approach, the state 

will be able to meet the continuing 

requirements of section 128 without any 

additional, future SIP revisions, even if 

the state adds or removes authority, 

either at the state level or local level, to 

individual or to boards or bodies to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA so long as the state 

continues to meet section 128 

requirements. 

Second, the state may modify the 

language of subsections 128(a)(1) (if 

applicable) and 128(a)(2) to name the 

particular board, body, or individual 

official with approval authority. In this 

case, if the state subsequently modifies 

that authority, the state may have to 

submit a corresponding SIP revision to 

meet the continuing requirements of 

section 128. If the state chooses to not 

mirror the language of section 128, the 

state may adopt state statutes and/or 

regulations that functionally impose the 

same requirements as those of section 

128, including definitions for key terms 

such as those recommended in EPA’s 

1978 guidance. While any of these 

approaches would meet the minimum 

requirements of section 128, the statute 

also explicitly authorizes states to adopt 

more stringent requirements, for 

example to impose additional 

requirements for recusal of board 

members from decisions, above and 

beyond the explicit board composition 

requirements. Although such recusal 

alone does not meet the requirements of 

section 128, states have the authority to 

require that over and above the explicit 

requirements of section 128. These 

approaches give states flexibility in 

implementing section 128, while still 

ensuring consistency with the statute. 

EPA has evaluated the New Rule I 

Definitions, II Board Action, and III 

Reporting (available within this docket) 

from the State in light of the 

requirements of section 128, these key 

considerations previously noted, and 

the recommendations in the 1978 

guidance. The Montana Code creates a 

Board of Environmental Review (BER) 

which consists of seven members 

appointed by the Governor. A person 

who is directly and adversely affected 

by the Montana DEQ’s approval or 

denial of a permit to construct an air 

pollution source may request a hearing 

before the BER and the BER may 

uphold, alter, or reverse decisions of the 

Montana DEQ. Similarly, a person who 

participated in the comment period on 

Montana DEQ’s issuance, renewal, 

amendment, or modification of a title V 

operating permit may request a hearing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

4234 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

15New Rule I defines ‘‘represent the public 

interest’’ as a person who ‘‘(4) does not: (a) Own 

a controlling interest in or have five percent or more 

of his or her capital invested in a regulated person; 

(b) serve as attorney for, act as consultant for, or 

serve as an officer or director of a regulated person; 

or (c) hold any other official or contractual 

relationship with a regulated person.’’ 

16New Rule I defines ‘‘significant portion of 

income’’ as ‘‘(5) ten percent or more of gross 

personal income for a calendar year, including 

retirement benefits, consulting fees, and stock 

dividends, except that it shall mean 50 percent or 

more of gross personal income for a calendar year 

if the recipient is over 60 years of age and is 

receiving such portion pursuant to retirement, 

pension, or similar arrangement. For purposes of 

this section, income derived from mutual-fund 

payments, or from other diversified investments as 

to which the recipient does not know the identity 

of the primary sources of income, shall be 

considered part of the recipient’s gross personal 

income but shall not be treated as income derived 

from persons subject to permits or enforcement 

orders under the Clean Air Act.’’ 

before the BER and the BER may 

uphold, alter, or reverse decisions of the 

Montana DEQ. Finally, a person who 

receives an enforcement order from 

Montana DEQ under Chapter 2 of Title 

75, Air Quality, may request a hearing 

before the BER and the BER may 

uphold, alter, or reverse decisions of the 

Montana DEQ. 

As EPA has explained in other 

rulemaking actions, e.g., 78 FR 32613 

(May 31, 2013), we interpret section 

128(a)(1) to mean that boards that are 

the potential final decisionmaker via 

permit and enforcement order appeals 

‘‘approve’’ those permits and 

enforcement orders. For example, by 

being the final decisionmaker with 

respect to questions such as whether a 

source receives a permit and the specific 

contents of such a permit, the board is 

an entity that approves the permit 

within the meaning of 128(a)(1). Thus, 

the BER is subject to the requirements 

of 128(a)(1). 

Montana’s New Rule II Board Action, 

provides that the BER must be 

composed in conformance with 

requirements of section 128 of the CAA 

for all permits and enforcement orders 

initiated under Montana’s air pollution 

control authority. In essence, the rule 

prohibits the BER from taking action if 

the BER does not meet the requirements 

of section 128(a)(1). The State has 

submitted New Rule II (ARM 17.8.151) 

to EPA for adoption into their SIP, thus 

making a legally binding requirement 

that the BER be comprised of a majority 

of members that represent the public 

interest and do not derive a significant 

portion of their income from parties 

subject to permit requirements or 

enforcement orders under the CAA. The 

definitions of ‘‘regulated person,’’ 

‘‘represent the public interest,’’ and 

‘‘significant portion of income’’ are 

consistent with the recommendations in 

our 1978 guidance. We believe 

Montana’s submission of New Rule II 

satisfies the requirements of subsection 

128(a)(1). 

To meet the requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(2), the State’s New 

Rule III (ARM 17.8.152) Reporting, 

includes disclosure requirements 

applying to members of the BER. At the 

first meeting each calendar year, 

members of the BER must file with the 

BER secretary a written certification that 

they ‘‘represent the public interest 15’’ 

and do not derive a ‘‘significant portion 

of income’’ from ‘‘regulated persons’’ as 

defined in New Rule I (ARM 17.8.150) 

Definitions (4)(a), (b) and (c). The board 

member must file with the BER a 

written withdrawal of certification if 

they no longer represent the public 

interest or has begun to derive a 

‘‘significant portion of income 16’’ from 

‘‘regulated persons,’’ as defined in New 

Rule I (5) and (3)(a) and (b). 

Furthermore, board members must file 

with the BER a written disclose of any 

‘‘potential conflicts of interest’’ as 

defined in New Rule I (2)(a) and (b). 

New Rule I defines ‘‘potential conflict of 

interest’’ as ‘‘(a) any income from a 

regulated person; or (b) any interest or 

relationship that would preclude the 

individual having the interest or 

relationship from being considered one 

who represents the public interest.’’ 

This definition is consistent with the 

suggested definition in the 1978 

guidance. We believe Montana’s 

submission of New Rule I and III 

satisfies the requirements of subsection 

128(a)(2). 

For the foregoing reasons, the EPA 

believes that the New Rules I (ARM 

17.8.150), II (ARM 17.8.151), and III 

(ARM 17.8.152) adopted by the BER on 

October 16, 2015 and submitted to EPA 

for inclusion in the SIP on December 17, 

2015 contains provisions that meet the 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) and 

section 128(a). Accordingly, we are 

proposing approval of that submission 

and also proposing approval of the 

infrastructure SIP submission as 

meeting the requirements of section 128 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

7. Stationary source monitoring 

system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: (i) 

The installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources; (ii) Periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources; and (iii) Correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the Act, which 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

The provisions cited by Montana 

(ARM 17.8.105 and 17.8.106) pertain to 

testing requirements and protocols. 

Montana also incorporates by reference 

40 CFR part 51, appendix P, regarding 

minimum monitoring requirements. 

(See ARM 17.8.103(1)(D)). In addition, 

Montana provides for monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements for sources subject to 

minor and major source permitting 

Furthermore, Montana is required to 

submit emissions data to the EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

The EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar-year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through the EPA’s 

online Emissions Inventory System. 

States report emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants and their associated 

precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter and 

volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. Montana 

made its latest update to the NEI in 

April 2013. EPA compiles the emissions 

data, supplementing it where necessary, 

and releases it to the general public 

through the Web site http://www.epa.

gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. 

Based on the analysis above, we 

propose to approve the Montana SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

8. Emergency powers: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires 

infrastructure SIPs to ‘‘provide for 

authority comparable to that in [CAA 

section 303] and adequate contingency 

plans to implement such authority.’’ 

Under CAA section 303, the EPA 

Administrator has authority to bring suit 

to immediately restrain an air pollution 

source that presents an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 4235 

17A discussion of the requirements for meeting 

CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, 

Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘VI. Analysis of State 

Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.’’ 

18 75–2–402 MCA, Emergency Procedure: 

‘‘(1) Any other law to the contrary 

notwithstanding, if the department finds that a 

generalized condition of air pollution exists and 

that it creates an emergency requiring immediate 

action to protect human health or safety, the 

department shall order persons causing or 

contributing to the air pollution to immediately 

reduce or discontinue the emission of air 

contaminants. Upon issuance of this order, the 

department shall fix a place and time within 24 

hours for a hearing to be held before the board. 

Within 24 hours after the start of the hearing and 

without adjournment, the board shall confirm, 

modify, or set aside the order of the department. 

(2) Except as provided in subsection (1), if the 

department finds that emissions from the operation 

of one or more air contaminant sources are causing 

imminent danger to human health or safety, it may 

order the person responsible for the operation in 

question to reduce or discontinue emissions 

immediately, without regard for 75–2–401. In this 

event, the requirements for hearing and 

confirmation, modification, or setting aside of 

orders as provided in subsection (1) apply. 

(3) This section does not limit any power that the 

governor or any other officer may have to declare 

an emergency and act on the basis of this 

declaration, whether the power is conferred by 

statute or the constitution or is inherent to the 

office.’’ 

19 75–2–111, MCA. Powers of board: 

‘‘The board shall, subject to the provisions of 75– 

2–207: 

(1) Adopt, amend, and repeal rules for the 

administration, implementation, and enforcement 

of this chapter, for issuing orders under and in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7419, and for fulfilling 

the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7420 and regulations 

adopted pursuant to that section, except that, for 

purposes other than agricultural open burning, the 

board may not adopt permitting requirements or 

any other rule relating to: 

(a) any agricultural activity or equipment that is 

associated with the use of agricultural land or the 

planting, production, processing, harvesting, or 

storage of agricultural crops by an agricultural 

producer and that is not subject to the requirements 

of 42 U.S.C. 7475, 7503, or 7661a; 

(b) a commercial operation relating to the 

activities or equipment referred to in subsection 

(1)(a) that remains in a single location for less than 

12 months and is not subject to the requirements 

of 42 U.S.C. 7475, 7503, or 7661a; or 

(c) forestry equipment and its associated engine 

used for forestry practices that remain in a single 

location for less than 12 months and are not subject 

to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7475, 7503, or 

7661a; 

(2) hold hearings relating to any aspect of or 

matter in the administration of this chapter at a 

place designated by the board. The board may 

compel the attendance of witnesses and the 

production of evidence at hearings. The board shall 

designate an attorney to assist in conducting 

hearings and shall appoint a reporter who must be 

present at all hearings and take full stenographic 

notes of all proceedings, transcripts of which will 

be available to the public at cost. 

(3) issue orders necessary to effectuate the 

purposes of this chapter; 

(4) by rule require access to records relating to 

emissions; 

(5) by rule adopt a schedule of fees required for 

permits, permit applications, and registrations 

consistent with this chapter; 

(6) have the power to issue orders under and in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7419.’’ 

20 75–2–112, MAC, Powers and responsibilities of 

department. 

‘‘(1) The department is responsible for the 

administration of this chapter. 

(2) The department shall: 

(a) by appropriate administrative and judicial 

proceedings, enforce orders issued by the board;’’ 

21See email from David Klemp, Montana State 

Air Director to EPA, Dec. 12, 2015, contained 

within this docket. 

22 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 

Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS).’’ Steve Page, OAQPS Director, October 

14, 2011, at p 13. 

health or welfare, or the environment.17

If such action may not practicably 

assure prompt protection, then the 

Administrator has authority to issue 

temporary administrative orders to 

protect the public health or welfare, or 

the environment, and such orders can 

be extended if EPA subsequently files a 

civil suit. We propose to find that 

Montana’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

and certain State statutes provide for 

authority for the State comparable to 

that granted to the EPA Administrator to 

act in the face of an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to the public’s 

health or welfare, or the environment. 

Montana’s SIP submittals with regard 

to the section 110(a)(2)(G) emergency 

order requirements explain that 

Montana has an EPA approved 

Emergency Episode Avoidance Plan 

(EEAP) (71 FR 19, Jan. 3, 2006). 

According to the EEAP, ‘‘the 

Department shall take the necessary 

precautions to protect public health as 

set forth in 75–2–402 ,18 MCA, 

‘‘Emergency Powers.’’ These 

precautions include, but are not limited 

to, ordering a halt or curtailment of any 

operations, activities, processes, or 

conditions the Department believes are 

contributing to the air pollutant 

emergency episode.’’ Additionally, 

under 75–2–111(3) MCA ,19 Montana’s 

environmental review board has broad 

authority to ‘‘issue orders necessary to 

effectuate the purposes’’ of Chapter 2. 

Also, under 75–2–112(2)(a) 20 MCA, the 

DEQ has the authority to use 

‘‘appropriate administrative and judicial 

proceedings’’ to enforce orders issued 

by the board. Any air pollution 

discharge that created an emergency 

situation would constitute a violation of 

the chapter and its purposes, therefore 

providing the BER and the DEQ 

authority to issue administrative orders 

to stop discharges that cause 

emergencies effecting welfare and the 

environment .21

While no single Montana statute 

mirrors the authorities of CAA section 

303, we propose to find that the 

combination of MCA provisions 

discussed above provide for authority 

comparable to section 303 to 

immediately bring suit to restrain and 

issue emergency orders for applicable 

emergencies to take prompt 

administrative action against any person 

causing or contributing to air pollution 

that presents an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment. 

Consistent with EPA’s 2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the 

narratives provided in Montana’s SIP 

submittals about the State’s authorities 

applying to emergency episodes (as 

discussed above), plus additional 

Montana statutes that we have 

considered, we propose that they are 

sufficient to meet the authority 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

States must also have adequate 

contingency plans adopted into their 

SIP to implement the air agency’s 

emergency episode authority (as 

discussed above). This can be done by 

submitting a plan that meets the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 

51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS 

if the NAAQS is covered by those 

regulations. EPA approved Montana’s 

EEAP in 71 FR 19 (Jan. 3, 2006). We find 

that Montana’s air pollution emergency 

rules include PM10, ozone, NO2, and 

SO2; establish stages of episode criteria; 

provide for public announcement 

whenever any episode stage has been 

determined to exist; and specify 

emission control actions to be taken at 

each episode stage, consistent with the 

EPA emergency episode SIP 

requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51 

subpart H (prevention of air pollution 

emergency episode) for particulate 

matter, ozone, NO2, and SO2. 

As noted in the October 14, 2011 

guidance,22 based on EPA’s experience 

to date with the Pb NAAQS and 

designating Pb nonattainment areas, 

EPA expects that an emergency episode 

associated with Pb emissions would be 

unlikely and, if it were to occur, would 

be the result of a malfunction or other 

emergency situation at a relatively large 

source of Pb. Accordingly, EPA believes 

the central components of a contingency 

plan would be to reduce emissions from 

the source at issue and communicate 

with the public as needed. We note that 

40 CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150– 

51.152) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

L do not apply to Pb. 

Based on the above analysis, we 

propose approval of Montana’s SIP as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

4236 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

23See email from David Klemp, Montana State 

Air Director, to EPA on Dec. 12, 2015, contained 

within this docket. 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

9. Future SIP revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide 

for revision of such plan: (i) From time 

to time as may be necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air 

quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard; and (ii), 

except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), 

whenever the Administrator finds on 

the basis of information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under this [Act]. 

Montana’s statutory provisions in the 

Montana CAA at 75–2–101 et seq., give 

the BER sufficient authority to meet the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, 

we propose to approve Montana’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(H). 

10. Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, PSD and 

visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the 

applicable requirements of section 121 

of this title (relating to consultation), 

section 127 of this title (relating to 

public notification), and part C of this 

subchapter (relating to PSD of air 

quality and visibility protection).’’ 

The State has demonstrated that it has 

the authority and rules in place to 

provide a process of consultation with 

general purpose local governments, 

designated organizations of elected 

officials of local governments and any 

Federal Land Manager having authority 

over federal land to which the SIP 

applies, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 121 (see 59 

FR 2988, Jan. 20, 1994). Furthermore, 

Montana’s Emergency Episode 

Avoidance Plan, approved into the SIP 

(71 FR 19, Jan. 3, 2006), meets the 

general requirements of CAA section 

127. 

Turning to the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I of the Act, EPA has evaluated this 

requirement in the context of 

infrastructure element (C) in section 

VI.3 above. As discussed there, EPA 

proposes to conditionally approve 

Montana’s infrastructure SIP for the 

requirement in 110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP 

include a permit program as required in 

part C, on the condition that the State 

adopts and submits specific revisions 

within one year of EPA’s final action on 

these infrastructure submittals; 

specifically to remove the phrase ‘‘24- 

hour average’’ in ARM 

17.8.818(7)(a)(iii). For the same reason, 

EPA proposes to conditionally approve 

Montana’s infrastructure SIP with 

regard to the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I the Act. 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act. In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there are no applicable 

visibility requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. 

Based on the above analysis, we 

propose to approve the Montana SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to sections 

121 and 127 of the CAA, and 

conditional approval of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with regard to meeting the 

applicable requirements of part C 

relating to PSD. 

11. Air quality and modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP 

provide for: (i) The performance of such 

air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a 

NAAQS; and (ii) the submission, upon 

request, of data related to such air 

quality modeling to the Administrator. 

Montana’s PSD program (see ARM 

17.8.821(1)) requires estimates of 

ambient air concentrations be based on 

applicable air quality models specified 

in Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, 

pertaining to the Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models. Additionally, MCA 75– 

2–211. Powers of board and MCA 75–2– 

112. Powers and responsibilities of 

department, provide Montana with the 

broad authority to develop and 

implement an air quality control 

program that includes conducting air 

quality modeling to predict the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which a NAAQS 

has been promulgated.23 As a result, the 

SIP provides for such air quality 

modeling as the Administrator has 

prescribed with respect to the SIP 

outside of the nonattainment areas. 

Therefore, we propose to approve the 

Montana SIP as meeting the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

12. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires the owner or 

operator of each major stationary source 

to pay to the permitting authority, as a 

condition of any permit required under 

this act, a fee sufficient to cover: (i) The 

reasonable costs of reviewing and acting 

upon any application for such a permit; 

and (ii) if the owner or operator receives 

a permit for such source, the reasonable 

costs of implementing and enforcing the 

terms and conditions of any such permit 

(not including any court costs or other 

costs associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

Montana requires an applicant 

proposing to construct or modify an air 

pollution source to pay an application 

fee, ARM 17.8.504 (State rule only). 

Sources must also pay an annual 

operation fee, ARM 17.8.505 (State rule 

only). Under ARM 17.8.823(1), Source 

Information for PSD of air quality, ‘‘(1) 

The owner or operator of a proposed 

source or modification shall submit the 

permit application fee required 

pursuant to ARM 17.8.504 and all 

information necessary to perform any 

analysis or make any determination 

required under procedures established 

in accordance with this subchapter.’’ 

ARM 17.8.823 was adopted into 

Montana’s SIP on August 13, 2001 (66 

FR 42427). Additionally, ARM 

17.8.1704, Registration Fees, for oil and 

gas facilities states that ‘‘(1) The 

registration fee required by ARM 

17.8.504 must be submitted to the 

department with each registration 

submitted under this subchapter. No fee 

is required for notifying the department, 

pursuant to ARM 17.8.1703(4), of 

changes to registration information. (2) 

The registration fee must be paid in its 

entirety at the time the registration form 

is submitted to the department.’’ ARM 

17.8.1703 was adopted into the Montana 

SIP on November 19, 2013 (78 FR 

69296). 

We also note that all the State SIPs we 

are proposing to approve in this action 

cite the regulation that provides for 

collection of permitting fees under 

Montana’s approved title V permit 

program (65 FR 37049, June 13, 2000). 

As discussed in that approval, the State 

demonstrated that the fees collected 

were sufficient to administer the 

program. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 4237 

Therefore, based on the State’s 

experience in relying on the funds 

collected through application and 

processing fees at ARM 17.8.504 and 

ARM 17.8.505, and the use of title V 

fees to implement and enforce PSD 

permits once they are incorporated into 

title V permits, we propose to approve 

the submissions as supplemented by the 

State for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

13. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

The statutory and other provisions 

cited in Montana’s SIP submittals 

(Section 75–2–112(2)(j) of the MT CAA, 

ARM 17.8.140, 17.8.141 and 17.8.142, 

contained within this docket) meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve 

Montana’s SIP as meeting these 

requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VII. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve infrastructure elements for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS from the State’s certifications as 

shown in Table 2. EPA is proposing 

conditional approval of elements (C), 

D(i)(II) element 3 and (J) with respect to 

the requirement to have a PSD program 

that meets the requirements of part C of 

Title 1 of the Act as shown in Table 3. 

Elements we propose no action on are 

reflected in Table 5. EPA is proposing 

to disapprove (D)(i)(II) element 4 for the 

2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (Table 4). 

As noted, finalization of this 

disapproval would not require further 

action from the State, and does not 

create a new FIP obligation for EPA. We 

also propose to approve revisions to the 

ARM from the August 21, 2012 

submittal (Table 2) and conditionally 

approve a revision from the March 24, 

2015 submittal (Table 3) to bring 

Montana’s PSD program up to date with 

respect to current requirements for 

PM2.5. If Montana does not submit a SIP 

revision to correct the language in ARM 

17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) within one year of 

EPA’s final action on these 

infrastructure submittals, conditional 

approvals will automatically revert to 

disapprovals for ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii), 

and elements (C), D(i)(II) element 3 and 

(J) with respect to PSD requirements. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

new ARM submitted on December 17, 

2015 to satisfy requirements of element 

(E)(ii), state boards. 

A comprehensive summary of 

infrastructure elements, and revisions 

and additions to the ARM organized by 

EPA’s proposed rule action are provided 

in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 

5. 

TABLE 2—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT EPA IS PROPOSING TO APPROVE

Proposed for approval 

February 10, 2010 submittal—1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(ii) for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

December 19, 2011 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) and (M). 

January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, 

(K), (L) and (M). 

June 4, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of 

sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) and (M). 

July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) 

and (M). 

December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) 

and (M). 

August 21, 2012 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

ARM 17.8.801(3), 17.8.801(21), 17.8.801(27), 17.8.804(1), 17.8.818(7)(a)(iv)–(xi), 17.8.822(9), 17.8.822(10), 17.8.822(11), 17.8.822(12) 

and 17.8.825(4). 

December 17, 2015 submittal—New Rules to ARM, CAA Section 128 

New Rule I (ARM 17.8.150), II (ARM 17.8.151) and III (ARM 17.8.152). 

TABLE 3—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT EPA IS PROPOSING TO CONDITIONALLY

APPROVE

Proposed for conditional approval 

February 10, 2010 submittal—1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 3 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

December 19, 2011 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 

January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 

June 4, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 

July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 

December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

4238 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT EPA IS PROPOSING TO CONDITIONALLY

APPROVE—Continued 

Proposed for conditional approval 

March 24, 2015 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii). 

TABLE 4—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS THAT EPA IS PROPOSING TO DISAPPROVE

Proposed for disapproval 

February 10, 2010 submittal—1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4. 

June 4, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4. 

July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4. 

December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4. 

TABLE 5—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT EPA IS PROPOSING TO TAKE NO

ACTION ON

[Proposed for no action] 

Revised section 

Reason for proposed ‘‘No Action’’ 

Revision to be 

made in future 

rulemaking 

action 

Revision made 

in a separate 

rulemaking 

action 

(80 FR 72937) 

Revision 

deletes 

section of the 

ARM never 

approved into 

State’s SIP 

Revision 

superseded by 

revision in 

March 24, 

2015 State 

submittal 

January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 ......................................................................... ........................ x ........................ ........................

July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 ......................................................................... x ........................ ........................ ........................

December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 ......................................................................... x ........................ ........................ ........................

August 21, 2012 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ x 

ARM 17.8.820(2) ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ x 

March 24, 2015 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

ARM 17.8.820(2) ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ x ........................

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the Administrative Rules of Montana 

pertaining to major source permitting 

and PM2.5 emission limits discussed in 

section VI. 3. Program for enforcement 

of control measures and section VI. b. 

Sub-element (ii): State boards, of this 

preamble. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IX. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 4239 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 12, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01403 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0747; FRL–9941–59– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS13 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants; Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Request for information; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On November 27, 2015, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

requested information related to 

hazardous air pollutant emissions from 

sources in the oil and natural gas 

production and natural gas transmission 

and storage segments of the oil and 

natural gas sector. The deadline to 

respond to our request was January 26, 

2016. In response to requests from 

several stakeholders, the EPA is 

extending the period to respond to our 

request for information to March 11, 

2016. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

the request for information published in 

the Federal Register on November 27, 

2015 (80 CFR 74068), is being extended. 

Written comments must be received on 

or before March 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0747, to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket. Publicly available documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection either electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. The official public 

docket for this rulemaking is Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0747. 

World Wide Web. The EPA Web site 

for this rulemaking is at http://www3.

epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/

actions.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this action, 

contact Mr. Matthew Witosky, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

05), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number: 

(919) 541–2865; facsimile number: (919) 

541–3740; email address: 

witosky.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comment Period 

After considering the requests to 

extend the public comment period, the 

EPA has decided to extend the public 

comment period until March 11, 2016. 

This extension will provide the 

additional time requested by the public 

to review the request and gather data to 

respond. 

Dated: January 14, 2016. 

Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01508 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Indian Health Service 

42 CFR Part 136 

RIN 0905AC97 

Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund 

AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Indian Health Service 

(IHS) administers the Catastrophic 

Health Emergency Fund, The purpose of 

CHEF is to meet the extraordinary 

medical costs associated with the 

treatment of victims of disasters or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS