9834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 

Street, NW., Suite 200–E, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in this notice. 

Your comments must reference Notice 

No. 104 and include your name and 

mailing address. Your comments also 

must be made in English, be legible, and 

be written in language acceptable for 

public disclosure. We do not 

acknowledge receipt of comments, and 

we consider all comments as originals. 

If you are commenting on behalf of an 

association, business, or other entity, 

your comment must include the entity’s 

name as well as your name and position 

title. If you comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, please enter the 

entity’s name in the ‘‘Organization’’ 

blank of the comment form. If you 

comment via mail, please submit your 

entity’s comment on letterhead. 

You may also write to the 

Administrator before the comment 

closing date to ask for a public hearing. 

The Administrator reserves the right to 

determine whether to hold a public 

hearing. 

Confidentiality 

All submitted comments and 

attachments are part of the public record 

and subject to disclosure. Do not 

enclose any material in your comments 

that you consider to be confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

Public Disclosure 

On the Federal e-rulemaking portal, 

Regulations.gov, we will post, and you 

may view, copies of this notice, selected 

supporting materials, and any electronic 

or mailed comments we receive about 

this proposal. A direct link to the 

Regulations.gov docket containing this 

notice and the posted comments 

received on it is available on the TTB 

Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice 

No. 104. You may also reach the docket 

containing this notice and the posted 

comments received on it through the 

Regulations.gov search page at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

All posted comments will display the 

commenter’s name, organization (if 

any), city, and State, and, in the case of 

mailed comments, all address 

information, including e-mail addresses. 

We may omit voluminous attachments 

or material that we consider unsuitable 

for posting. 

You also may view copies of this 

notice, all related petitions and other 

supporting materials, and any electronic 

or mailed comments we receive about 

this proposal by appointment at the TTB 

Information Resource Center, 1310 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. 

You may also obtain copies at 20 cents 

per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our 

information specialist at the above 

address or by telephone at 202–453– 

2270 to schedule an appointment or to 

request copies of comments or other 

materials. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this proposed 

regulatory amendment, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed regulation 

imposes no new reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other administrative 

requirement. Any benefit derived from 

the use of a viticultural area name 

would be the result of a proprietor’s 

efforts and consumer acceptance of 

wines from that area. Therefore, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it 

requires no regulatory assessment. 

Drafting Information 

N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and 

Rulings Division drafted this notice. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 27 CFR, 

chapter I, part 9, as follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

2. Section 9.183 is amended by 

revising the section heading, paragraph 

(a) and the introductory text of 

paragraphs (b) and (c), and by adding a 

new paragraph (d), to read as follows: 

§ 9.183 Yamhill-Carlton. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’. For purposes of part 

4 of this chapter, ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ is a 

term of viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate 

maps for determining the boundary of 

the Yamhill-Carlton viticultural area are 

eight 1:24,000 scale United States 

Geological Survey topography maps. 

They are titled: 

* * * * * 

(c) Boundary. The Yamhill-Carlton 

viticultural area is located in Yamhill 

and Washington Counties, Oregon, and 

is entirely within the Willamette Valley 

viticultural area. The Yamhill-Carlton 

viticultural area is limited to lands at or 

above 200 feet in elevation and at or 

below 1,000 feet in elevation within its 

boundary, which is described as 

follows— 

* * * * * 

(d) From February 7, 2005, until 

[INSERT DATE ONE DAY BEFORE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL 

RULE], the name of this viticultural area 

was ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’. Effective 

[INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 

FINAL RULE], this viticulture area is 

named ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’. Existing 

certificates of label approval showing 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ as an 

appellation of origin are revoked by 

operation of this regulation on [INSERT 

DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]. 

Signed: January 29, 2010. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4570 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2006–0601; FRL–9122–6] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Montana; 

Revisions to the Administrative Rules 

of Montana—Air Quality, Subchapter 7 

and Other Subchapters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan revisions 

submitted by the State of Montana on 

August 26, 1999, May 28, 2003, March 

9, 2004, October 25, 2005, and October 

16, 2006. The revisions contain new, 

amended, and repealed rules in 

Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction, and 

Operation of Air Contaminant Sources) 

that pertain to the issuance of Montana 

air quality permits, in addition to other 

minor administrative changes to other 

subchapters of the Administrative Rules 

of Montana. The intended effect of this 

action is to propose to approve those 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9835 

portions of the rules that are approvable 

and to propose to disapprove those 

portions of the rules that are 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2006–0601, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and 

leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, 

Director, Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2006– 

0601. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 

8P–AR, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

(303) 312–6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Summary of SIP Revisions 

III. EPA Review and Proposed Action on SIP 

Revisions 

IV. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State or Montana 

mean the State of Montana, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

I. General Information 

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as 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: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Summary of SIP Revisions 

A. August 26, 1999 Submittal 

On August 26, 1999, the Governor of 

Montana submitted a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

request. The revision contains amended 

and repealed rules to various 

subchapters in the Administrative Rules 

of Montana (ARM) that were adopted by 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Note that the May 28, 2003 submittal requested 

rescinding revisions to ARM 17.8.702, adopted on 

July 20, 2001 and submitted on December 20, 2001. 

EPA had already approved the revisions to ARM 

17.8.702 (see 67 FR 55125, 8/28/02, and 40 CFR 

52.1370(c)(55)) by the time we had received the 

May 28, 2003 letter. However, the May 28, 2003 

submittal also requests that all of ARM 17.8.702 be 

repealed. We are proposing to remove ARM 

17.8.702 from the federally-approved SIP. 

the Montana Board of Environmental 

Review (Board) on May 14, 1999. 

Specific to Subchapter 7 (Permit, 

Construction, and Operation of Air 

Contaminant Sources), the submittal 

revised ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733 and 

repealed ARM 17.8.708. However, as 

indicated below, a May 28, 2003 

submittal rescinded the August 26, 1999 

revisions to ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733. 

B. May 28, 2003 Submittal 

On May 28, 2003, the Governor of 

Montana submitted a SIP revision 

request. The revision contains new, 

amended, and repealed rules adopted by 

the Board on December 6, 2002. The 

new and repealed rules pertain to the 

issuance of Montana air quality permits 

and are in Subchapter 7 of the ARM. 

The amended rules contain references to 

the new and repealed rules. 

The new rules include: ARM 

17.8.740, 17.8.743, 17.8.744, 17.8.745, 

17.8.748, 17.8.749, 17.8.752, 17.8.755, 

17.8.756, 17.8.759, 17.8.760, 17.8.762, 

17.8.763, 17.8.764, 17.8.765, 17.8.767, 

and 17.8.770. 

The repealed SIP-approved rules 

include: ARM 17.8.701, 17.8.702, 

17.8.704, 17.8.705, 17.8.706, 17.8.707, 

17.8.710, 17.8.715, 17.8.716, 17.8.717, 

17.8.720, 17.8.730, 17.8.731, 17.8.732, 

17.8.733, and 17.8.734. 

The amended SIP-approved rules 

include: ARM 17.8.101, 17.8.110, 

17.8.309, 17.8.310, 17.8.316, 17.8.818, 

17.8.825, 17.8.826, 17.8.901, 17.8.904, 

17.8.905, 17.8.906, 17.8.1004, 17.8.1005, 

17.8.1106, and 17.8.1109. 

The May 28, 2003 submittal also 

rescinded outstanding SIP submissions 

for rules that amended the following: 

ARM 17.8.702, adopted July 20, 2001 

and submitted on December 20, 2001; 1

ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733, adopted on 

May 14, 1999 and submitted on August 

26, 1999. 

EPA provided written comments to 

the State during the rulemaking process 

for the revisions submitted to EPA on 

May 28, 2003. To review these 

comments please see the October 9, 

2002 letter from Richard R. Long, EPA, 

to the Board included in the docket for 

this action. All future references in this 

notice to EPA’s comments during the 

State rulemaking process refer to this 

letter. In addition, the State provided a 

response to all comments received 

during their rulemaking. To review 

these responses please see Public 

Hearing Notice and Final Notices on 

amendments of air quality rules letter 

dated December 26, 2002 included as 

part of the May 28, 2003 submittal. All 

future references in this notice to the 

State’s response to EPA’s comments 

refer to this letter. 

C. March 9, 2004 Submittal 

On March 9, 2004, the Governor of 

Montana submitted a SIP revision 

request. The revision contains amended 

rules adopted by the Board on 

September 26, 2003. The amended rules 

pertain to the issuance of Montana air 

quality permits. The following rules 

were amended: ARM 17.8.749, 17.8.759, 

17.8.763, and 17.8.764. 

D. October 25, 2005 Submittal 

On October 25, 2005, the Governor of 

Montana submitted a SIP revision 

request. The revision contains amended 

rules adopted by the Board on June 3, 

2005. EPA approved all of the October 

25, 2005 submittal on July 19, 2006 (71 

FR 40922), except for ARM 17.8.767. We 

are addressing ARM 17.8.767 in this 

document. 

E. October 16, 2006 Submittal 

On October 16, 2006, the Governor of 

Montana submitted a SIP revision 

request. The revision contains an 

amended rule for ARM 17.8.743(1) and 

new rules codified as ARM 17.8.1601, 

17.8.1602, 17.8.1603, 17.8.1604, 

17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606, and ARM 

17.8.759 adopted by the Board on 

December 2, 2005. The submittal also 

requested to withdraw ARM 

17.8.743(1)(c) from being incorporated 

into the SIP. We are addressing ARM 

17.8.759 in this document. The revision 

to ARM 17.8.743(1) and the new rules 

pertain to the regulation of oil and gas 

well facilities, and we will address this 

revision request in a separate action. 

III. EPA Review and Proposed Action 

on SIP Revisions 

A. Repealed Rules 

The State has completely rewritten its 

permitting rules in Subchapter 7 of the 

ARM. The State has repealed the 

existing SIP-approved rules and adopted 

new rules. We are proposing to approve 

the State’s May 28, 2003 request to 

repeal the following rules from the SIP: 

ARM 17.8.701, 17.8.702, 17.8.704, 

17.8.705, 17.8.706, 17.8.707, 17.8.710, 

17.8.715, 17.8.716, 17.8.717, 17.8.720, 

17.8.730, 17.8.731, 17.8.732, 17.8.733, 

and 17.8.734. Our review and proposed 

action on the new rules submitted on 

May 28, 2003, with revisions submitted 

on March 9, 2004 and October 25, 2005, 

are discussed below. 

The August 26, 1999 SIP revision 

requested that ARM 17.8.708 be 

repealed from the SIP. On September 

19, 1997, the Governor of Montana 

submitted a SIP revision that completely 

recodified the State’s air quality rules. 

ARM 17.8.708 was one of the rules 

recodified. In our August 13, 2001 final 

notice (66 FR 42427) on the 

recodification, we indicated that we 

would act on several provisions, 

including ARM 17.8.708, at a later date. 

Therefore, ARM 17.8.708 was never 

approved into the SIP. (See page 42434 

of the August 13, 2001 notice). At this 

point there is no ARM 17.8.708 to repeal 

as requested by the August 26, 1999 

submittal letter. 

B. New Subchapter 7 Rules 

1. ARM 17.8.740 Definitions 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.740. ARM 

17.8.740 contains the definitions 

applicable to Subchapter 7. Previously 

the definitions were in ARM 17.8.701, 

which was repealed with the May 2003 

submittal. ARM 17.8.740 contains 

definitions for some terms not contained 

in ARM 7.8.701, as well as makes minor 

modifications to some of the definitions 

that were contained in ARM 17.8.701. 

Also, two terms in ARM 17.8.701, 

‘‘lowest achievable emission rate’’ and 

‘‘major emitting facility,’’ are not 

contained in ARM 17.8.740. 

It is acceptable that the ARM 17.8.740 

does not contain definitions for ‘‘lowest 

achievable emission rate’’ and ‘‘major 

emitting facility.’’ ‘‘Lowest achievable 

emission rate’’ is defined at ARM 

17.8.901(10) and the State’s rules also 

contain a definition of ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ at ARM 17.8.801(22) and 

17.8.901(12). 

Definitions for the following terms are 

being added to ARM 17.8.740, which 

were not previously in ARM 17.8.701: 

day; emitting unit; facility; install or 

installation; modify, Montana air quality 

permit; and routine maintenance, repair, 

or replacement. 

We are proposing to approve the 

definitions in section ARM 17.8.740, 

with the exception of the definitions of 

‘‘routine maintenance, repair, or 

replacement’’ (RMRR), ‘‘modify,’’ 

‘‘negligible risk to the public health, 

safety, and welfare and to the 

environment’’ and ‘‘construct or 

construction.’’ We are proposing to 

disapprove the definition of ‘‘routine 

maintenance, repair, or replacement’’ 

and ‘‘negligible risk to the public health, 

safety, and welfare and to the 

environment,’’ and portions of the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9837 

2See October 9, 2002 letter from Richard R. Long, 

EPA, to the Montana Board of Environmental 

Review—all future references in this notice to 

EPA’s comments during the State rulemaking 

process refer to this letter. 

3See Public Hearing Notice and Final Notices on 

amendments of air quality rules letter dated 

December 26, 2002 included as part of the May 28, 

2003 submittal—all future references in this notice 

to the State’s response to EPA’s comments refer to 

this letter. 

4See September 9, 1988 Memorandum from Don 

R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to David A. Kee, Director, Air and 

Radiation Division, Region V, titled ‘‘Applicability 

of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

Requirements to the Wisconsin Power Company 

(WEPCO) Port Washington Life Extension Project.’’ 

5Facilities or emitting units that emit airborne 

lead must obtain a Montana air quality permit if 

they are new and emit greater than five tons per 

year of airborne lead, or if they are an existing 

facility or emitting unit and a modification results 

in an increase of airborne lead by an amount greater 

than 0.6 tons per year. 

definition of ‘‘construct or construction’’ 

and we are not taking action on portions 

of the definition of ‘‘modify’’ for the 

following reasons. 

a. ‘‘RMRR’’ EPA has determined that 

the definition for RMRR at ARM 

17.8.740(14) would be applicable to 

major sources, since this definition does 

not explicitly limit its application to 

true minor sources. The term RMRR is 

used in Montana’s Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) 

regulations (ARM 17.8.801(20)(b)(i) and 

17.8.901(11)(b)(i)), but RMRR is not 

defined in these subchapters. During the 

State’s rulemaking process we provided 

comments that expressed our concerns 

with the definition of RMRR.2 In 

response to our comments, the State 

indicated that the definitions section 

(that includes the RMRR definition) in 

Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction and 

Operation of Air Contaminant Sources) 

explicitly states that the definitions 

contained in that rule are ‘‘for the 

purposes of this subchapter,’’ and 

therefore, the definition of ‘‘routine 

maintenance, repair, or replacement’’ 

would not apply to Subchapters 8, 9, 

and 10.3 However, EPA interprets ARM 

17.8.743 (Montana Air Quality 

Permits—When Required) as requiring 

all Montana sources (both major and 

minor) to comply with the requirements 

in Subchapter 7, and that major sources 

would also comply with the 

requirements in Subchapters 8, 9, or 10 

as applicable. Therefore, major sources 

and the public may believe the 

definition of RMRR in Subchapter 7 is 

applicable to the major sources since 

there is nothing in subchapters 8, 9, or 

10 prohibiting a major source from 

using this definition. 

Montana’s definition of RMRR allows 

associated fixed capital costs less than 

50% of the fixed capital cost necessary 

to construct a comparable new emitting 

unit to be considered RMRR. Montana’s 

definition of RMRR is inconsistent with 

EPA’s current policy concerning RMRR 

at PSD sources. EPA’s position is that a 

determination of routine maintenance, 

repair, or replacement is a case specific 

process that cannot be generally 

defined, and takes into consideration 

the nature, extent, purpose, frequency 

and cost of the work, as well as any 

other relevant factors.4 Furthermore, the 

State’s rule is less stringent than EPA’s 

vacated Routine Equipment 

Replacement Provision rule for PSD 

sources (68 FR 61248), which had 

specified that the capital cost threshold 

for routine equipment replacement shall 

not exceed 20 percent of the 

replacement value of the process (rule 

vacated by the Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit, New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 

880 (D.C.Cir.2006).) Based on the above 

analysis, we have determined that 

Montana’s definition for RMRR at ARM 

17.8.740(14) is inconsistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and is not 

approvable. 

b. ‘‘Modify.’’ We are not taking action 

on part of the definition of ‘‘modify.’’ 

The new definition for ‘‘modify’’ at ARM 

17.8.740(8) refers to the ‘‘Exclusion of 

De Minimis Changes’’ provision codified 

at ARM 17.8.745, which EPA is not 

taking action on (see discussion 

regarding ARM 17.8.745 below). Since 

we are not taking action on ARM 

17.8.745, we are proposing to approve 

ARM 17.8.740(8) with the exception of 

the following phrases: (1) ‘‘Except when 

a permit is not required under ARM 

17.8.745’’ in ARM 17.8.740(8)(a); and (2) 

‘‘except as provided in ARM 17.8.745’’ 

in ARM 17.8.740(8)(c). 

c. ‘‘Negligible risk to the public health, 

safety, and welfare and to the 

environment.’’ We are proposing to 

disapprove the definition of ‘‘negligible 

risk to the public health, safety, and 

welfare and to the environment’’ in 

ARM 17.8.740(10) because, in a March 

30, 2006 letter to EPA, the State 

rescinded its May 28, 2003 request for 

provision ARM 17.8.770 (Additional 

Requirements for Incinerators) to be 

included in the federally-approved SIP. 

ARM 17.8.770 is the only provision in 

Subchapter 7 that utilizes this 

definition; and therefore, it is not 

necessary for it to be incorporated into 

the SIP. 

Finally, during the State’s rulemaking 

process we expressed concerns with the 

definition of ‘‘construct or construction’’ 

in ARM 17.8.740(2). We were concerned 

because this definition includes the 

phrase ‘‘reasonable period of time for 

startup and shakedown.’’ Subchapters 8, 

9 and 10 contain their own definitions 

addressing construction in ARM 

17.8.801(5) and (10) and ARM 

17.8.901(3) and (6) for major source 

permitting; however, the addition of the 

phrase ‘‘reasonable period of time for 

startup and shakedown’’ makes the 

definition of ‘‘construct or construction’’ 

in ARM 17.8.740(2) inconsistent with 

the same term used in major source 

permitting. Since this phrase also 

reduces the stringency of the current SIP 

approved regulations, an analysis 

should be provided by the State 

showing that this new rule will not 

interfere with compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) or PSD increments. Section 

110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot 

approve a SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

reasonable further progress, as defined 

in Section 171 of the CAA, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Montana did not provide any analysis or 

demonstration that the definition of 

‘‘construct or construction’’ in ARM 

17.8.740(2) meets these criteria. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the definition of ‘‘construct or 

construction’’ in ARM 17.8.740(2) with 

the exception of the phrase ‘‘reasonable 

period of time for startup and 

shakedown.’’ 

2. ARM 17.8.743 Montana Air Quality 

Permits—When Required 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.743. ARM 

17.8.743(1) describes those sources that 

are required to obtain a Montana air 

quality permit and ARM 17.8.743(2)— 

(5) adds new provisions pertaining to 

seasonal construction activities that can 

occur prior to receiving a Montana air 

quality permit. 

ARM 17.8.743(1) provides that any 

new or modified facility or emitting unit 

that has the potential to emit more than 

25 tons per year of any airborne 

pollutant, except lead,5 must obtain a 

Montana air quality permit except as 

provided in ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 

17.8.745 before constructing, installing, 

modifying or operating. ARM 

17.8.431(1)(b) also requires asphalt 

concrete plants, mineral crushers, and 

mineral screens that have the potential 

to emit more than 15 tons per year of 

any airborne pollutant, other than lead, 

to obtain a Montana air quality permit. 

Sources excluded from the above 

requirements are those that are 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

identified in ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 

17.8.745. 

ARM 17.8.743(l) is similar to what 

was previously required in sections 

ARM 17.8.705(1)(l), (m), (n), and (o). 

ARM 17.8.705, which was repealed with 

the May 28, 2003 submittal, identified 

those sources that were not required to 

obtain a permit. ARM 17.8.705(1) listed 

those sources that were not required to 

obtain a permit and included: (l) 

Sources and stacks which do not have 

the potential to emit more than 25 tons 

per years, other than lead; (m) a new 

stack or source of airborne lead whose 

potential to emit is less than 5 tons per 

year; (n) an alteration or modification of 

an already constructed stack or other 

source of lead contamination which 

results in an increase in maximum 

potential of the source or stack to emit 

airborne lead by an amount less than 0.6 

tons per year; and (o) asphalt concrete 

plants and mineral crushers which do 

not have the potential to emit more than 

5 tons per year of any pollutant, other 

than lead. 

For the most part, the provisions that 

were in ARM 17.8.705(1)(l), (m), (n) and 

(o) are contained in the ARM 

17.8.743(1), except that the permitting 

threshold for asphalt concrete plants 

and mineral crushers has been changed 

from 5 tons per year to 15 tons per year. 

During the State’s rulemaking process 

we expressed concerns with the new 

permit threshold for asphalt concrete 

plants and mineral crushers. In its 

response to our comments, the State 

indicated that it was making the permit 

level for this source category consistent 

with other permitting thresholds in the 

subchapter. Also, the State indicated 

that for mineral screen operations the 

rule was more stringent since previously 

only mineral screens greater than 25 

tons per year had to get permits. 

Since for asphalt concrete plants and 

mineral crushers this revision (ARM 

17.8.743(1)(b)) reduces the stringency of 

the current SIP approved regulations, an 

analysis should be provided by the State 

showing that this new rule will not 

interfere with compliance with the 

NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 

110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot 

approve a SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

reasonable further progress, as defined 

in Section 171 of the CAA, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Montana did not provide any analysis or 

demonstration that the increased permit 

threshold, from 5 tons per year to 15 

tons per year, for asphalt concrete plants 

and mineral crushers meets these 

criteria. Montana plans on providing a 

110(l) analysis at a later date. At the 

request of the State, we are taking no 

action on the phrase ‘‘asphalt concrete 

plants, mineral crushers’’ from ARM 

17.8.743(1)(b). We are proposing to 

approve the remainder of ARM 

17.8.743(1)(b), which is ‘‘mineral 

screens that have the potential to emit 

more than 15 tons per year of any 

airborne pollutant, other than lead, that 

is regulated under this chapter.’’ 

ARM 17.8.743(1) also refers to ARM 

17.8.745. As indicated below, we are 

taking no action on ARM 17.8.745. 

Consequently, we are taking no action 

on the phrase ‘‘and 17.8.745’’ that is 

contained in ARM 17.8.743(1). 

As part of the October 16, 2006 

submittal, Montana requested to 

withdraw the request to include ARM 

17.8.743(1)(c) into the SIP as part of the 

May 28, 2003 submission. This 

provision requires any incinerator to 

obtain a Montana air quality permit. 

This incinerator specific provision is 

not in the currently approved SIP. The 

approved SIP treats incinerator sources 

under the provision for ‘‘all other 

sources and stacks not specifically 

excluded, which do not have the 

potential to emit more than 25 tons per 

year of any pollutant, other than lead’’ 

(codified at ARM 17.8.743(e)). We also 

note that any incinerators in Montana 

that are not permitted must meet the SIP 

approved provisions in ARM 17.8.316. 

Therefore, we are taking no action on 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(c) and this section will 

not be incorporated into Montana’s SIP. 

In addition, the October 16, 2006 

submittal requested a revision to ARM 

17.8.743(1) to add a reference to a new 

rule codified at ARM 17.8.1602. This 

revision and the new rule pertain to the 

regulation of oil and gas well facilities, 

and we will address this revision 

request in a separate action. 

With the exceptions noted above, we 

are proposing to approve the remaining 

language in ARM 17.8.743(1). 

During the State’s rulemaking process 

we expressed concerns with the 

provisions in ARM 17.8.743(2)–(5). 

However, after further analysis and for 

the reasons stated below, we are 

proposing to approve ARM 17.8.743(2)– 

(5). These provisions allow only limited 

site preparation and construction, can 

be stopped by the State at any time, 

require a permit application 

completeness determination from the 

State before this type of work can occur, 

and exclude sources subject to Federal 

requirements (i.e., PSD and synthetic 

minors). EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

51.160 do not require the issuance of a 

permit for the construction or 

modification of minor sources, but only 

that the SIP include a procedure to 

prevent the construction of a source or 

modification that would violate the SIP 

control strategy or interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Provision (2) of the State’s 

regulation limits site work prior to 

permit issuance to only installing 

concrete foundation work, belowground plumbing, installing ductwork, 

and other infrastructure and/or 

excavation work involving the same. No 

construction or installation of emission 

units will be allowed under this 

provision. Provision (3) indicates that 

‘‘Notwithstanding the ability to 

undertake the construction activities 

described above, the department may 

issue a letter instructing the owner or 

operator to immediately cease such 

activities pending a final determination 

on an application if it finds that the 

proposed project would result in a 

violation of the State Implementation 

Plan or would interfere with the 

attainment or maintenance of any 

Federal or State ambient air quality 

standard.’’ Provision (4) indicates that 

the State is not obligated to issue an air 

quality permit and that an ‘‘owner or 

operator who has received a 

completeness determination and who 

elects to engage in initial construction 

activities accepts the regulatory risks of 

engaging in such activities.’’ Provision 

(5) indicates that ‘‘the provisions of (2) 

do not supersede any other local, state, 

or federal requirements.’’ The State has 

interpreted ARM 17.8.743(5), in its 

formal response to EPA’s comments, to 

mean that ARM 17.8.743(2) ‘‘does not 

allow pre-permit construction if some 

other permit or rule prohibits such 

activities. For example, if a source needs 

a Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permit, both federalFederal and 

stateState regulations require that the 

applicant secure the permit before 

undertaking any construction.’’ The 

State’s formal response to comments on 

this provision also stated that ‘‘nothing 

in this rule would supersede these 

existing restrictions in other rules. The 

applicant would only be able to 

undertake limited pre-permit 

construction if it did not need a PSD 

permit as well.’’ 

EPA approved minor NSR programs 

in several States do not require permits 

prior to construction, but instead 

require sources to submit a notice and 

authorization for sources to begin 

construction after a specified time if the 

permitting authority does not issue an 

order preventing construction. However, 

all minor NSR projects above the 

permitting thresholds (25 tons per year 

for new sources and 15 tons per year for 

modifications (not approved into the 

SIP)) in Montana will receive a permit. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9839 

6NEPA’s October 10, 1978, memorandum from 

Edward E. Reich, Director Division of Stationary 

Source Enforcement, to Thomas W. Devine, Chief 

Air Branch, Region 1, titled ‘‘Source Construction 

Prior to Issuance of PSD Permit,’’ discusses 

preconstruction activities allowed at a site with 

both PSD and non-PSD sources. This memo states 

that construction may begin on PSD-exempt 

projects before the permit is issued. 

These projects go through the required 

air quality impact analysis before the 

project is approved. Additionally, all 

minor NSR permits go through a public 

notice and comment period before being 

issued. 

EPA had commented to the State that 

we had concerns that ARM 17.8.743(2) 

does not require some type of 

administrative approval from the State 

prior to allowing pre-permit 

construction activities. EPA did not 

initially take into account the permit 

application completeness determination 

from the Montana Department of 

Environment Quality (DEQ). After 

reviewing the procedure for permit 

application completeness 

determination, EPA has concluded that 

it is an administrative approval which 

must be issued by the State prior to the 

start of pre-permit construction 

activities, ensuring that sources that are 

subject to Federal requirements (i.e., 

PSD and synthetic minors) do not begin 

any construction prior to permit 

issuance. Also, the State clarified in its 

response to EPA’s comments that this 

pre-permit construction provision is 

limited to true minor sources. A true 

minor source is not subject to PSD 

requirements and is not subject to other 

Federal requirements. 

As part of our analysis of Montana’s 

pre-permit construction provision we 

also reviewed recent EPA actions 

approving pre-permit construction rules 

into other State SIPs. EPA’s July 10, 

2006 (71 FR 38773) approval of 

Mississippi’s minor source permit 

regulations included a new provision 

entitled ‘‘Optional Pre-Permit 

Construction,’’ which allows 

construction to commence on certain 

non-major sources and non-major 

modifications prior to receiving a final 

permit to construct, provided certain 

conditions are met. EPA also approved 

pre-permit construction rules for the 

State of Idaho’s permit to construct 

regulations, which were approved into 

the Idaho SIP on January 16, 2003 (68 

FR 2217). Both of these State provisions 

allow complete construction of the 

source, including the emission units, 

prior to issuance of the permit. 

However, these provisions preclude any 

actual operation of the new or modified 

source before issuance of the final 

construction permit. EPA has approved 

these provisions because they require 

the prior written approval of the State 

and have safeguards to ensure that new 

major stationary sources and major 

modifications do not commence 

construction prior to permit issuance. 

Montana’s pre-permit construction 

provision differs from these other States’ 

rules in that it allows only limited site 

preparation and construction, which 

does not include the emission units, and 

does not require the prior written 

approval of the State. 

As discussed above, Montana’s ARM 

17.8.743(2)–(5) is consistent with the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) of 

the CAA and Federal regulations found 

at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164, 

including 40 CFR 51.160(b), which 

requires States to have legally 

enforceable procedures to prevent 

construction or modification of a source 

if it would violate any SIP control 

strategies or interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Furthermore, Montana’s rule is 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.160(e), which 

requires States to identify the basis for 

determining which facilities will be 

subject to review. Sources in Montana 

subject to ARM 17.8.743 must have an 

air quality permit prior to construction 

or modification of the emission units 

and prior to operation. Only limited site 

preparation and construction, which 

does not include the emission units, 

would be allowed at minor sources prior 

to issuance of an air quality permit. A 

permit application completeness 

determination from the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(Department) must be made before this 

type of work can occur. Additionally, 

the Department can require the owner or 

operator to immediately cease any prepermit construction activities if it finds 

that the proposed project would result 

in a violation of the SIP or would 

interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of any Federal or State 

ambient air quality standard. Finally, 

this proposal is consistent with prior 

EPA statements.6 Therefore, we are 

proposing approval for ARM 

17.8.743(2)–(5). 

3. ARM 17.8.744 Montana Air Quality 

Permits—General Exclusions 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.744. This section 

describes those sources that are not 

required to obtain a Montana air quality 

permit. This section is similar to what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.705(1), 

except that: (a) Several of the provisions 

that were in ARM 17.8.705(1) were 

deleted or incorporated into ARM 

17.8.743(1), and (b) two provisions were 

added (ARM 17.8.744(1)(f) and (k)). 

During the State’s rulemaking process 

we expressed concerns with the 

provisions in ARM 17.8.744(1)(f). 

However, after further review, we are 

proposing to approve all of ARM 

17.8.744 including ARM 17.8.744(1)(f). 

ARM 17.8.744(1)(f) is acceptable since 

this exclusion is limited to emergency 

equipment used only to alleviate 

adverse effects on public health or 

facility safety. In addition, this 

exclusion is limited to only minor 

sources, since ARM 17.8.818(1) states 

that ‘‘a major stationary source or major 

modification exempted from the 

requirements of Subchapter 7 under 

ARM 17.8.744 or 17.8.745 shall, if 

applicable, still be required to obtain a 

Montana air quality permit and comply 

with all applicable requirements of this 

subchapter.’’ Likewise, ARM 17.8.904(1) 

and 17.8.1004(1) both indicate ‘‘a major 

stationary source or major modification 

exempted from the requirements of 

Subchapter 7 under ARM 17.8.744 or 

17.8.745 * * *, shall, prior to 

construction, still be required to obtain 

a Montana air quality permit* * *’’ 

4. ARM 17.8.745 Montana Air Quality 

Permits—Exclusion for De Minimis 

Changes 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.745. This section 

describes those situations where a 

source is not required to obtain a 

Montana air quality permit under ARM 

17.8.743 for de minimis changes. With 

this provision, Montana has adopted a 

15 tons per year potential to emit 

increase as a de minimis limit for any 

pollutant below which no permit is 

required for changes. 

During the State’s rulemaking process 

we expressed concerns with the de 

minimis level specified in this 

provision. Since this new section (ARM 

17.8.745) reduces the stringency of the 

current SIP approved regulations, an 

analysis should be provided by the State 

showing that this new rule will not 

interfere with compliance with the 

NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 

110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot 

approve a SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

reasonable further progress, as defined 

in Section 171 of the CAA, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Montana did not provide any analysis or 

demonstration that the new section 

(ARM 17.8.745) meets these criteria. 

Montana plans on providing a 110(l) 

analysis at a later date, as well as a 

revision to its 15 tons per year de 

minimus limit. At the request of the 

State, we are taking no action on 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Montana’s de minimis provision in 

ARM 17.8.745. 

5. ARM 17.8.748 New or Modified 

Emitting Units—Permit Application 

Requirements 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.748. This section 

describes the permit application 

requirements and for the most part is 

the same as what previously existed in 

ARM 17.8.706 with some minor 

changes. The last sentence contained in 

ARM 17.8.748(1) was originally 

contained in ARM 17.8.707(1)(b) and 

ARM 17.8.748(7) was originally 

contained in ARM 17.8.720(2)(a). 

We are proposing to approve all of 

ARM 17.8.748. 

6. ARM 17.8.749 Conditions for 

Issuance or Denial of Permit 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.749. This section 

describes the conditions for issuance or 

denial of a Montana air quality permit. 

The provisions in ARM 17.8.749(1), (3), 

(4), and (7) are similar to what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.710(1), 

(2), (4), and ARM 17.7.730. The 

provisions in ARM 17.8.749(2), (5) and 

(6) are new provisions. 

On March 9, 2004, the State submitted 

revisions to ARM 17.8.749(7) pertaining 

to how the Department notifies an 

applicant when it denies a permit and 

advises the applicant of the right to 

appeal. The revisions allow the 

Department to provide such notice 

through the mail. 

During the State’s rulemaking process, 

we expressed concerns with provisions 

ARM 17.8.749(2)—that allow the 

department to extend the deadlines 

specified in a permit and ARM 

17.8.749(5)—that requires ‘‘state-only’’ 

conditions be identified in the permit, 

and specifies these conditions ‘‘are not 

intended by the department to be 

enforceable under federal law.’’ For 

ARM 17.8.749(2) we were concerned 

that extended deadlines may conflict 

with requirements for sources subject to 

PSD. In response to our concerns, the 

State indicated that the provisions of 

their PSD rules (ARM 17.8.819) meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(r) and 

51.166(j)(4). After further analysis we 

are have determined that ARM 

17.8.749(2) allows a director’s 

discretion, in that it states that ‘‘the 

department may extend a deadline 

specified in the schedule’’ for permit 

conditions to become effective. Based 

on this director’s discretion we are 

proposing to disapprove ARM 

17.8.749(2). 

For ARM 17.8.749(5) we asked for a 

justification as to why certain permit 

provisions would not warrant Federal 

(and citizen) review and enforceability. 

In response to our concerns, the State 

noted that they ‘‘have adopted certain 

requirements that are more stringent 

than Federal requirements,’’ ‘‘these rules 

are not intended to be part of the SIP,’’ 

and ‘‘during the permitting process, EPA 

and other concerned persons will have 

the opportunity to ensure that the 

Department correctly applies the stateonly designation.’’ After further analysis 

we have determined that ARM 

17.8.749(5) will be used to identify 

State-only provisions in permits that are 

more stringent than Federal 

requirements. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve ARM 17.8.749(5). 

We are proposing to approve ARM 

17.8.749(1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (8) 

submitted on May 28, 2003; and ARM 

17.8.749(7) submitted on March 9, 2004. 

7. ARM 17.8.752 Emission Control 

Requirements 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.752. This section 

describes the emission control 

requirements for a new or modified 

facility or emission unit. The provisions 

in ARM 17.8.752 are similar to what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.715, 

except that the provisions in ARM 

17.8.752(1)(a)(i) are new. This new 

provision states that Montana’s minor 

source Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) requirement is only 

triggered for the modified unit at an 

existing source (not the entire source). 

Federal NSR regulations do not require 

BACT for minor sources. Therefore, we 

are proposing to approve all of ARM 

17.8.752. 

8. ARM 17.8.755 Inspection of Permit 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.755. This section 

indicates that the current Montana air 

quality permit must be made available 

at the facility or emitting unit unless the 

permittee and Department agree on a 

different location. This section is similar 

to what previously existed in ARM 

17.8.716, except that a new phrase was 

added indicating that a different 

location may be acceptable if mutually 

agreeable between the permittee and 

department. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 

17.8.755. 

9. ARM 17.8.756 Compliance With 

Other Requirements 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.756. This section 

describes the permittee responsibilities 

in complying with other requirements. 

ARM 17.8.756(1) is similar to what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.717, 

and ARM 17.8.756(2) and (3) is similar 

to what previously existed in ARM 

17.8.710(6) and (3), respectively. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 

17.8.756. 

10. ARM 17.8.759 Review of Permit 

Applications 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.759. This section 

describes the Department’s 

responsibilities for determining 

completeness of the permit application, 

for issuing a preliminary completeness 

determination, for public notification 

and providing the opportunity for 

comment, and for issuing a final 

decision. Most of this new section is 

similar to what previously existed in 

ARM 17.8.720(2) and (3). 

During the State’s rulemaking process 

we expressed concerns with the 

timeframe allowed for the public and 

EPA to comment on preliminary permit 

determinations. On March 9, 2004, the 

State submitted revisions to ARM 

17.8.759(4). The revisions extend the 

date by which comments can be 

submitted on the preliminary 

determination for certain permit actions 

and the timeline for the department to 

notify the applicant of approval or 

denial of the application. On October 

16, 2006, the State submitted additional 

revisions to ARM 17.8.759(4), added a 

new 17.8.759(5), and renumbered the 

existing paragraph 17.8.759(5) to (6). 

The new 17.8.759(5) specifies, in part, 

that ‘‘the department may, on its own 

action, or at the request of the applicant 

or member of the public, extend by 15 

days the period within which public 

comments may be submitted as 

described in (4)(b)(ii) and the date for 

issuing a final decision on a permit 

application.’’ After further analysis, we 

no longer have concerns with this 

provision because the Department now 

has an opportunity to extend by 15 days 

the period in which public comments 

may be submitted either on its own, or 

at the request of an external party. This 

would minimize the time crunch for 

reviewing draft permits. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 

17.8.759(1) through (3), submitted on 

May 28, 2003; and ARM 17.8.759(4), (5), 

and (6) submitted on October 16, 2006. 

11. ARM 17.8.760 Additional Review 

of Permit Applications 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.760. This section 

describes additional review 

requirements for applications subject to 

the Montana Environmental Policy Act 

and the Major Facility Siting Act. This 

section is similar to what previously 

existed in ARM 17.8.720(1) and (4). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9841 

We are proposing to approve ARM 

17.8.760. 

12. ARM 17.8.762 Duration of Permit 

On May 28, 2003, that State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.762. This section 

describes the conditions that affect the 

duration of a permit. This section is 

similar to what previously existed in 

ARM 17.8.731. Provision ARM 

17.8.762(2) specifies that a permit will 

expire unless construction or 

installation is commenced within the 

time specified in the permit, which may 

not be less than one year or more than 

three years after the permit is issued. 

The current SIP-approved provision in 

ARM 17.8.731 does not specify a 

maximum time period for permit 

expiration. 

During the State’s rulemaking process, 

we expressed concerns with the permit 

expiration timelines in ARM 

17.8.762(2). We were concerned that 

extended deadlines may conflict with 

requirements for sources subject to PSD. 

In response to our concerns, the State 

indicated that a provision in their PSD 

rules (ARM 17.8.819) met the 

requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2) and 

51.166(j)(4). The State further indicated 

that this rule ‘‘will not replace the PSD 

requirements for PSD sources (i.e., the 

18-month limit applies to PSD sources, 

but not to non-PSD sources).’’ Despite 

the State’s assertion, we note that ARM 

17.8.819 does not meet the Federal PSD 

requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2), 

which specifies that ‘‘approval to 

construct shall become invalid if 

construction is not commenced within 

18 months after receipt of such 

approval.’’ 40 CFR 52.21 specifies the 

PSD requirements for areas that are not 

covered by a federally approved PSD 

SIP. 

However, the PSD requirements for 

SIP-approved States, such as Montana, 

contained in 40 CFR 51.166 do not have 

an ‘‘18-month’’ provision analogous to 

40 CFR 52.21(r)(2). ARM 17.8.819 is 

consistent with the ‘‘18-month phased 

construction project’’ provision in 

51.166(j)(4). Therefore, ARM 17.8.762(2) 

is consistent with the Federal PSD rules 

for SIP-approved States. We are 

proposing to approve ARM 17.8.762. 

13. ARM 17.8.763 Revocation of 

Permit 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.763. This section 

describes the reasons why the 

Department may revoke a Montana air 

quality permit, the process the 

Department must follow when revoking 

a permit, and the ability of the permittee 

to request a hearing before the Board. 

This section is similar to what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.732. 

During the State’s rulemaking process, 

we expressed concerns with the 

provisions in ARM 17.8.763(1) in that 

applicable provisions or the permit (e.g., 

major source requirements) may be 

inadvertently revoked at the request of 

the permittee. In response to our 

concerns, the State indicated that while 

some portions of a permit may be 

revoked, the permit as a whole must 

still meet any underlying applicable 

regulations. After further analysis, we 

no longer have concerns with these 

provisions because the State does not 

intend to revoke any applicable 

regulations, only minor administrative 

changes. 

On March 9, 2004, the State submitted 

revisions to ARM 17.8.763(2) and (3) 

pertaining to how the Department 

notifies an applicant when it revokes a 

permit or a portion of a permit. The 

revisions allow the Department to 

provide such notice through the mail. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 

17.8.763 (1) and (4), submitted on May 

28, 2003; and ARM 17.8.763(2) and (3), 

submitted on March 9, 2004. 

14. ARM 17.8.764 Administrative 

Amendment to Permit 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section AMR 17.8.764. This section 

describes how the Department may 

make administrative amendments to a 

Montana air quality permit, the process 

the Department must follow when 

making administrative amendments to a 

permit, and the ability of the permittee 

to request a hearing before the Board of. 

This section is similar to what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.733, 

except that ARM 17.8.764(1)(c) is a new 

provision. 

On March 9, 2004, the State submitted 

revisions to ARM 17.8.764(2) and (3) 

pertaining to how the Department 

notifies an applicant when it proposes 

administrative amendments to a permit. 

The revisions allow the Department to 

provide such notice through the mail. 

During the State’s rulemaking process 

we raised concerns that some 

administrative amendments should 

receive public review even though there 

might not be an increase in emissions. 

In response to our concerns, the State 

indicated that the current SIP-approved 

rule contains the same provision. After 

further analysis, we have determined 

that new section ARM 17.8.764 is 

consistent with the existing SIPapproved ARM 17.8.733. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 

17.8.764(1) (except as noted below) and 

(4), submitted on May 28, 2003; and 

ARM 17.8.764(2) and (3) submitted on 

March 9, 2004. As indicated earlier, we 

are taking no action on ARM 17.8.745. 

Consequently, we are taking no action 

on the phrase ‘‘the emission increase 

meets the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for 

a de minimis change not requiring a 

permit,’’ that is contained in ARM 

17.8.764(1)(b). 

15. ARM 17.8.765 Transfer of Permit 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.765. This section 

describes the requirements for 

transferring a Montana air quality 

permit from one location to another, and 

from one owner or operator to another. 

This section is similar to what 

previously existed in ARM 17.8.734, 

except that ARM 17.8.765(3) revises 

what was in ARM 17.8.734(3). The main 

difference is that the prior rule required 

action by the Department to approve or 

disapprove the permit transfer and the 

new rule indicates that the transfer is 

deemed approved if the Department 

does not act within 30 days of receipt 

of the notice. 

During the State’s rulemaking process 

we expressed concerns with the 

provisions in ARM 17.8.765(3) in that a 

source may inappropriately locate in an 

area and jeopardize attainment of the 

NAAQS and the permit transfer would 

be deemed approved if the Department 

does not act within 30 days. In its 

response to our concerns, the State 

indicated that permits for portable 

sources are written in such a manner as 

to comply with applicable requirements 

regardless of location of the source. 

Consequently, we are proposing to 

approve all of ARM 17.8.765. 

16. ARM 17.8.767 Incorporation by 

Reference 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.767. This section 

adopts and incorporates by reference 

various documents and indicates where 

these documents are available. This 

section is similar to what previously 

existed in ARM 17.8.702. 

On October 25, 2005, the State 

submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.767. 

This revision deletes the incorporation 

by reference (IBR) of 40 CFR 52.21 

(Prevention of significant deterioration 

of air quality) in ARM 17.8.767(1)(d) 

and modifies the addresses where 

various documents can be obtained in 

ARM 17.8.767(2), (3) and (4). 40 CFR 

52.21 specifies the PSD requirements for 

areas that are not covered by a federally 

approved PSD SIP. Since Subchapter 7 

contains the requirements for the 

permitting, construction, and operation 

of all air contaminant sources and not 

just PSD sources, this IBR of 40 CFR 

52.21 is not necessary. Subchapter 8 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

contains Montana’s SIP approved PSD 

rules. 

We are proposing to approve ARM 

17.8.767(1)(a) through (c), submitted on 

May 28, 2003; and ARM 17.8.767(1)(d) 

through (g) and 17.8.767(2), (3) and (4) 

submitted on October 25, 2005. 

17. ARM 17.8.770 Additional 

Requirements for Incinerators 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

new section ARM 17.8.770. This section 

discusses additional requirements an 

incineration facility must meet for a 

Montana air quality permit. In the prior 

codification of Subchapter 7, this 

section had not been incorporated into 

the SIP. On March 30, 2006, the 

Department requested to withdraw the 

request to include ARM 17.8.770 into 

the SIP as part of the May 28, 2003 

submission. Consequently, we are 

taking no action on ARM 17.8.770, and 

this section will not be incorporated 

into Montana’s SIP. 

C. Revisions to Other Subchapters 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

revisions to other subchapters of the 

ARM. Because the State repealed, in 

Subchapter 7, various rules and added 

new rules in their place, the crossreferences in other subchapters are 

being revised. In addition, the previous 

Subchapter 7 referred to ‘‘air quality 

preconstruction permits’’ whereas the 

new Subchapter 7 refers to ‘‘Montana air 

quality permits.’’ In other subchapters, 

the phrase ‘‘air quality preconstruction 

permits’’ is being replaced with 

‘‘Montana air quality permits.’’ Finally, 

new rules are being added and minor 

administrative changes are occurring in 

other subchapters. 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to the following sections submitted on 

May 28, 2003: ARM 17.8.101(4); 

7.8.110(7), (8), and (9); 17.8.818(1); 

17.8.825(3); 17.8.826(1) and (2); 

17.8.904(1) and (2); 17.8.905(1) and (4); 

17.8.906; 17.8.1004; 17.8.1005(1), (2), 

and (5); 17.8.1106; and 17.8.1109. 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

revisions to ARM 17.8.309(5)(b) and 

17.8.310(3)(e). We previously 

disapproved the provisions in ARM 

17.8.309(5)(b) and 17.8.310(3)(e) on 

January 24, 2006 (see 40 CFR 

52.1384(a)). Therefore, we are proposing 

to not act on the revisions to these same 

sections submitted on May 28, 2003. 

On May 28, 2003, the State submitted 

revisions to ARM 17.8.316(6). This rule 

pertains to the regulation of incinerators 

and we will address this revision in a 

separate action with other revisions to 

ARM 17.8.316 submitted previously. 

We have previously approved changes 

to ARM 17.8.901(14) that incorporate 

the changes to ARM 17.8.901(14)(e)(iii) 

submitted on May 28, 2003 (see January 

24, 2006 (71 FR 3776) action). Since we 

have already approved these revisions 

into the SIP we are not taking action on 

them in this document. 

On October 16, 2006, the State 

submitted a revision to ARM 17.8.743(1) 

and new rules codified at ARM 

17.8.1601, 17.8.1602, 17.8.1603, 

17.8.1604, 17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606. 

These rules pertain to the regulation of 

oil and gas well facilities, and we will 

address this revision request in a 

separate action. 

IV. Summary of EPA’s Proposed SIP 

Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

removal of the following provisions 

from the federally- approved SIP: ARM 

17.8.701, 17.8.702, 17.8.704, 17.8.705, 

17.8.706, 17.8.707, 17.8.710, 17.8.715, 

17.8.716, 17.8.717, 17.8.720, 17.8.730, 

17.8.731, 17.8.732, 17.8.733, and 

17.8.734. 

We are proposing to approve the 

following new Subchapter 7 provisions 

into the federally-approved SIP: ARM 

17.8.740 (except 17.8.740(10) and (14) 

and the following phrases in 

17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) 

‘‘except when a permit is not required 

under ARM 17.8.745;’’ and (2) ‘‘except as 

provided in ARM 17.8.745’’ and the 

phrase ‘‘reasonable period of time for 

startup and shutdown’’ in ARM 

17.8.740(2)), submitted on May 28, 

2003; 17.8.743 (except the phrases 

‘‘asphalt concrete plants, mineral 

crushers’’ in 17.8.743(1)(b) ‘‘and 

17.8.745’’ in 17.8.743(1), and 

17.8.743(1)(c)), submitted on May 28, 

2003; 17.8.744 and 17.8.748, submitted 

on May 28, 2003; 17.8.749(1), (3), (4), 

(5), (6), and (8), submitted on May 28, 

2003; 17.8.749(7), submitted on March 

9, 2004; 17.8.752, 17.8.755, and 

17.8.756, submitted on May 28, 2003; 

17.8.759(1) through (3), submitted on 

May 28, 2003; 17.8.759(4) through (6), 

submitted on October 16, 2006; 17.8.760 

and 17.8.762, submitted on May 28, 

2003; 17.8.763(1) and (4), submitted on 

May 28, 2003; 17.8.763(2) and (3), 

submitted on March 9, 2004; 17.8.764(1) 

(except the phrase ‘‘the emission 

increase meets the criteria in ARM 

17.8.745 for a de minimis change not 

requiring a permit’’ in 17.8.764(1)(b)) 

and (4), submitted on May 28, 2003; 

17.8.764(2) and (3), submitted on March 

9, 2004; 17.8.765, submitted on May 28, 

2003; 17.8.767(1)(a) through (c), 

submitted on May 28, 2003; and 

17.8.767(1)(d) through (g), (2), (3), and 

(4), submitted on October 25, 2005. 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

following new Subchapter 7 provisions: 

ARM 17.8.749(2), ARM 17.8.740(10), 

17.8.740(14); and portions of 

17.8.740(2). 

We are proposing to approve revisions 

to the following sections of other 

subchapters submitted on May 28, 2003: 

ARM 17.8.101(4); 17.8.110(7), (8), and 

(9); 17.8.818(1); 17.8.825(3); 17.8.826(1) 

and (2); 17.8.904(1) and (2); 17.8.905(1) 

and (4); 17.8.906; 17.8.1004; 

17.8.1005(1), (2), and (5); 17.8.1106; and 

17.8.1109. 

We are not acting, at the request of the 

State, on the following provisions in 

Subchapter 7: ARM 17.8.743(1)(c) and 

ARM 17.8.770, the phrase ‘‘asphalt 

concrete plants, mineral crushers’’ in 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) and ARM 17.8.745 

submitted on May 28, 2003. 

We are not acting on the following 

provisions of other subchapters: The 

following phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and 

(c), respectively, (1) ‘‘except when a 

permit is not required under ARM 

17.8.745’’ and (2) ‘‘except as provided in 

ARM 17.8.745,’’ submitted on May 28, 

2003; ARM 17.8.309(5)(b), 

17.8.310(3)(e), 17.8.316(6), and 

17.8.901(14)(3)(iii), submitted on May 

28, 2003; the phrase ‘‘and 17.8.745’’ in 

ARM 17.8.743(1), submitted on May 28, 

2003; ARM 17.8.749(2) submitted on 

May 28, 2003; and the phrase ‘‘the 

emission increase meets the criteria in 

ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change 

not requiring a permit,’’ in ARM 

17.8.764(1)(b), submitted on May 28, 

2003; and ARM 17.8.743(1), 17.8.1601, 

17.8.1602, 17.8.1603, 17.8.1604, 

17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606, submitted on 

October 16, 2006. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9843 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L.104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds, Incorporation by 

reference. 

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

Dated: February 3, 2010. 

Carol Rushin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4559 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0068, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2010–0069, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010– 

0070, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0072, EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2010–0073, EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2010–0074, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0075, 

EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0076; FRL–9120–6] 

RIN 2050–AD75 

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule 

No. 52 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list 

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow EPA to assess 

the nature and extent of public health 

and environmental risks associated with 

the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may 

be appropriate. This rule proposes to 

add eight sites to the General Superfund 

section of the NPL. 

DATES: Comments regarding any of these 

proposed listings must be submitted 

(postmarked) on or before May 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate 

Docket Number from the table below. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/County, State Docket ID No. 

Sanford Dry Cleaners ......................................... Sanford, FL ...................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0068. 

St. Clair Shores Drain ........................................ St. Clair Shores, MI ......................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0069. 

Vienna Wells ...................................................... Vienna, MO ...................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0070. 

ACM Smelter and Refinery ................................ Cascade County, MT ....................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0072. 

Wright Chemical Corporation ............................. Riegelwood, NC ............................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0073. 

Black River PCBs ............................................... Jefferson County, NY ....................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0074. 

Dewey Loeffel Landfill ........................................ Nassau, NY ...................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0075. 

Smokey Mountain Smelters ............................... Knox County, TN ............................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0076. 

Submit your comments, identified by 

the appropriate Docket number, by one 

of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles 

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, 

Headquarters; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket 

Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; 

Washington, DC 20460 

• Hand Delivery or Express Mail: 

Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes) 

to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the appropriate Docket number (see 

table above). EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public Docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system; that 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS