Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37049

B. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 14, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action

approving the West Virginia 111(d)/129

plan for HMIWI may not be challenged

later in proceedings to enforce its

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 1, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

40 CFR part 62, subpart XX, is

amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart XX—West Virginia

2. A new center heading and

§§ 62.12150, 62.12151, and 62.12152 are

added to Subpart XX to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators

(HMIWIs)—SECTION 111(d)/129 Plan

§ 62.12150 Identification of plan.

Section 111(d)/129 plan for HMIWIs

and the associated West Virginia (WV)

Department of Environmental Protection

regulations, as submitted on August 18,

1999, and as amended on April 19,

2000.

§ 62.12151 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to all existing WV

HMIWI for which construction was

commenced on or before June 20, 1996.

§ 62.12152 Effective date.

The effective date of the plan is July

28, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–14766 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[MT–001a; FRL–6714–4]

Clean Air Act Full Approval of

Operating Permit Program; State of

Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating full

approval of the operating permit

program submitted by the State of

Montana. Montana’s operating permit

program was submitted for the purpose

of meeting the federal Clean Air Act

(Act) directive that states develop, and

submit to EPA, programs for issuing

operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources

within the states’ jurisdiction.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on August 14, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by July 13, 2000. If adverse

comment is received, EPA will publish

a timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, Air

and Radiation Program, Mail Code 8P–

AR, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation

Program, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202–

2466 and are also available during

normal business hours at the Montana

Department of Environmental Quality,

1520 East 6th Avenue, P.O. Box 200901,

Helena, Montana 59620–0901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Reisbeck, 8P–AR, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 8, 999 18th Street, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466, (303) 312–6435.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

As required under Title V of the Clean

Air Act (‘‘the Act’’) as amended (42

U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), EPA has

promulgated rules that define the

minimum elements of an approvable

state operating permit program and the

corresponding standards and

procedures by which EPA will approve,

oversee, and withdraw approval of state

operating permit programs (see 57 FR

32250 (July 21, 1992)). These rules are

codified at 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part 70 (part 70). Title

V directs states to develop, and submit

to EPA, programs for issuing operating

permits to all major stationary sources

and to certain other sources.

The Act directs states to develop and

submit operating permit programs to

EPA by November 15, 1993, and

requires that EPA act to approve or

disapprove each program within 1 year

after receiving the submittal. The EPA’s

program review occurs pursuant to

section 502 of the Act (42 U.S.C.

§ 7661a) and the part 70 regulations,

which together outline criteria for

approval or disapproval. Where a

program substantially, but not fully,

meets the requirements of part 70, EPA

may grant the program interim approval.

If EPA has not fully approved a program

by two years after the November 15,

1993 date, or before the expiration of an

interim program approval, it must

establish and implement a federal

program. The State of Montana was

granted final interim approval of its

program on May 11, 1995 (see 60 FR

25143) and the program became

effective on June 12, 1995. Interim

approval of the Montana program

expires on December 1, 2001.

II. Analysis of State Submission

The Governor of Montana submitted

an administratively complete Title V

operating permit program for the State

of Montana on March 29, 1994. This

program, including the operating permit

regulations (Title 16, Chapter 8, SubChapter 20, Sections 16.8.2001 through

16.8.2025, inclusive, of the

37050 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Administrative Rules of Montana

(ARM)), substantially met the

requirements of part 70. EPA deemed

the program administratively complete

in a letter to the Governor dated May 12,

1994. The program submittal included a

legal opinion from the Attorney General

of Montana stating that the laws of the

State provide adequate legal authority to

carry out all aspects of the program, and

a description of how the State would

implement the program. The submittal

additionally contained evidence of

proper adoption of the program

regulations, application and permit

forms, and a permit fee demonstration.

EPA’s comments noting deficiencies

in the Montana program were sent to the

State in a letter dated October 3, 1994.

The deficiencies were segregated into

those that would require corrective

action prior to interim program

approval, and those that would require

corrective action prior to full program

approval. The State committed to

address the program deficiencies that

would require corrective action prior to

interim program approval in a letter

dated October 20, 1994. The State

submitted these corrective actions with

letters dated March 30, and April 5,

1995. EPA reviewed these corrective

actions and determined them to be

adequate for interim program approval.

On January 15, 1998, Montana

amended its operating permit program

to make the corrections identified as

necessary in the May 11, 1995 Federal

Register notice of final interim

approval. These program amendments,

recodified at Title 17, Chapter 8, SubChapter 12, Sections 1201, 1210, and

1213, ARM, were approved and adopted

by the Montana Board of Environmental

Review on January 15, 1998. The

revised program regulations adequately

addressed the problems identified in the

May 11, 1995 Federal Register notice as

requiring corrective action prior to full

program approval. The State also

submitted evidence of proper adoption

of the revisions to its program

regulations and a revised Attorney

General’s opinion dated July 31, 1998.

The revised program and a request for

full approval were submitted to EPA in

a letter from the Governor of Montana

dated February 4, 1999. EPA notified

Montana, in a letter to the Department

of Environmental Quality (DEQ) dated

April 1, 1999, of two additional changes

required for final approval. The DEQ

revised the administrative rules to

implement the two requested changes at

Title 17, Chapter 8, Sub-Chapter 12,

ARM. These amendments to SubChapter 12 were approved and adopted

by the Board on March 17, 2000. On

April 12, 2000, the Governor of Montana

submitted the revised program, with

proof of proper adoption, and requested

full approval of its operating permit

program.

Areas in the Montana program that

were identified by EPA as deficient and

the State’s corrective actions for full

program approval consist of the

following:

(1) The definition of administrative

permit amendment allowed the

department to exercise discretion in

determining whether or not a change in

monitoring or reporting requirements

would be as stringent as current

monitoring or reporting requirements.

This did not satisfy the criteria for an

administrative permit amendment listed

in 40 CFR 70.7(d)(1)(iii), which require

that only requirements for more

frequent monitoring or reporting may be

processed through an administrative

permit amendment. Correction: The

State deleted the problematic section of

the administrative permit amendment

definition, Section 17.8.1201(1)(d),

ARM.

(2) The definition of administrative

permit amendment allowed the State to

determine if other types of permit

changes not listed in the definition of

administrative permit amendment could

be incorporated into a permit through

the administrative permit amendment

process. This did not meet requirements

of 40 CFR 70.7(d)(1)(vi). Correction: The

State modified Section 17.8.1201(1),

ARM, part of the administrative permit

amendment definition, to state: ‘‘(e)

incorporates any other type of change

which the department and EPA have

determined to be similar to those

revisions set forth in (a) through (d)

above.’’

(3) The definition of ‘‘insignificant

emissions unit’’ included an emission

threshold of 15 tons per year of any

pollutant other than a hazardous air

pollutant. EPA did not consider this to

be a reasonable level at which to exempt

emissions units from title V operating

permit requirements. Correction: The

State lowered the trigger level of 15 tons

per year to 5 tons per year in the

definition of ‘‘insignificant emissions

units’’ to assure that the term will not

encompass activities that are subject to

applicable requirements (see Section

17.8.1201(22)(a)(i), ARM).

(4) The State was required to revise or

delete Section 17.8.1201(24)(a)(ii),

ARM, so that rules and requirements

imposed under the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) would not be

included in the definition of ‘‘nonfederally enforceable.’’ Correction: The

State originally revised Section

17.8.1201(24)(a)(ii) to exclude only

regulations that are not federally

enforceable (not in the SIP). The State

adopted an additional correction to this

section on March 17, 2000, which is

explained below.

(5) The State was required to include

a severability clause in Sub-Chapter 12

consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(a)(5) of the

federal permitting regulation.

Correction: The State revised Section

70.8.1210(2)(l), ARM, to include a

severability clause, which states ‘‘If any

provision of a permit is found to be

invalid, all valid parts that are severable

from the invalid part remain in effect. If

a provision of a permit is invalid in 1

or more of its applications, the

provision remains in effect in all valid

applications that are severable from the

invalid applications.’’

(6) The State was required to provide

an Attorney General’s opinion verifying

Montana’s authority to use any

monitoring data to determine

compliance and for direct enforcement

or to revise the State’s SIP-approved

regulations to provide authority to use

any monitoring data to determine

compliance and for direct enforcement.

Correction: The Attorney General’s

opinion and Section 17.8.1213(2) were

amended to clarify Montana’s authority.

The revised opinion was submitted with

the Governor’s letter, dated February 4,

1999.

(7) The Attorney General’s opinion

was not clear regarding the State’s

authority to terminate permits. The

State was required to provide an

Attorney General’s interpretation that

Montana’s statutory authority extends to

‘‘terminating’’ permits. Correction: This

was clarified in the revised Attorney

General’s opinion.

(8) The State was required to

demonstrate to EPA that it had the

ability to make case-by-case MACT

determinations pursuant to section

112(j) of the Act. Correction: This was

adequately addressed in the revised

Attorney General’s opinion.

(9) The State was required to certify

its ability to require annual

certifications from part 70 sources

regarding proper implementation of

their risk management plans (RMP) and

to provide a compliance schedule for

sources that fail to submit the required

RMP. Correction: The State will include

a statement listing 40 CFR 68.215(a) as

an applicable requirement in all Title V

operating permits.

(10) The State was required to clarify

that it has the authority to terminate or

revoke and reissue permits in all

circumstances in which cause to do so

exists or amend Section 17.8.1210(2)(a)

to eliminate any provisions that may be

construed to limit ‘‘cause’’ in an

unacceptable manner. Correction:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37051

Section 17.8.1210(2)(a) has been revised

to include: ‘‘Permits may be terminated

or revoked and reissued for cause.

Appropriate ‘cause’ for permit

termination is noncompliance with

permit terms or conditions that is

continuing or substantial in nature and

scope.’’

Two additional corrections, requested

in the April 1, 1999 letter from EPA to

the DEQ, are as follows:

(1) The revised definition of ‘‘nonfederally enforceable requirements’’ in

Section 17.8.1201(24)(a), ARM,

included ‘‘(ii) any term, condition or

other requirement contained in any air

quality preconstruction permit issued

by the department under this chapter

that is not contained in the Montana

State implementation plan approved or

promulgated by the administrator

through rulemaking under title I of the

FCAA.’’ This was required to be

changed or deleted as it implied that the

terms and conditions of a

preconstruction permit are not federally

enforceable, unless they are contained

in the Montana SIP or EPA regulation.

In fact, every permit issued under a SIPapproved permit program is federally

enforceable, and every term and

condition of the permit is federally

enforceable. Correction: The State has

revised Section 17.8.1201(24) to delete

this language in the definition of the

phrase ‘‘non-federally enforceable

requirements.’’

(2) Section 17.8.1225(4), ARM,

incorrectly applied the permit shield to

all administrative permit amendments.

The permit shield provided by 40 CFR

Part 70 applies only to permit actions

that have gone through public review.

Therefore, Section 17.8.1225(4) was

required to be revised to say that the

permit shield does not extend to

administrative permit amendments

except as allowed by 40 CFR 70.7(d)(4).

Correction: The State revised Section

17.8.1225(4) to state that the permit

shield does not apply to administrative

permit amendments.

III. Final Action

In this document, EPA is granting full

approval of the Montana part 70

operating permits program for all areas

within the State except the following:

any sources of air pollution located in

‘‘Indian Country’’ as defined in 18

U.S.C. 1151, including the following

Indian reservations in the State:

Northern Cheyenne, Rocky Boys,

Blackfeet, Crow, Flathead, Fort Belknap,

and Fort Peck Indian Reservations, or

any other sources of air pollution over

which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction.

See section 301(d)(2)(B) of the Act; see

also 63 FR 7254 (February 12, 1998).

The term ‘‘Indian Tribe’’ is defined

under the Act as ‘‘any Indian tribe,

band, nation, or other organized group

or community, including any Alaska

Native village, which is federally

recognized as eligible for the special

programs and services provided by the

United States to Indians because of their

status as Indians.’’ See section 302(r) of

the Act; see also 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21,

1993).

The EPA is publishing this rule

without prior proposal because the State

is currently implementing its part 70

program and the Agency views this as

a noncontroversial action and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to grant

full approval of the operating permit

program submitted by the State of

Montana should adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective August

14, 2000 without further notice unless

the Agency receives adverse comments

by July 13, 2000.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this rule must do so at

this time.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866, entitled

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Order 12612 (Federalism) and Executive

Order 12875 (Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership).

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

state and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies

that have federalism implications’’ is

defined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that have

‘‘substantial direct effects on the states,

on the relationship between the national

government and the states, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.’’ Under Executive

Order 13132, EPA may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

Government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by state and local

governments, or EPA consults with state

and local officials early in the process

of developing the proposed regulation.

EPA also may not issue a regulation that

has federalism implications and that

preempts state law unless the Agency

consults with state and local officials

early in the process of developing the

proposed regulation.

This final rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the states,

on the relationship between the national

government and the states, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045

because it is not an economically

significant regulatory action as defined

by E.O. 12866, and it does not establish

a further health or risk-based standard

because it approves state rules which

implement a previously promulgated

health or safety-based standard.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

37052 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget, in a separately identified

section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected tribal governments, a summary

of the nature of their concerns, and a

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’ Today’s rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of Indian tribal

governments. This action does not

involve or impose any requirements that

affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because part 70

approvals under section 502 of the Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because this approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 14, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control,

Environmental protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Operating

permits, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 2, 2000.

Rebecca W. Hanmer,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

40 CFR part 70, is amended as

follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In appendix A to part 70 the entry

for Montana is amended by adding

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Montana

* * * * *

(b) The Montana Department of

Environmental Quality submitted an

operating permits program on March 29,

1994; effective on June 12, 1995; revised

January 15, 1998, and March 17, 2000;

full approval effective on August 14,

2000.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–14768 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL–6715–4]

Revisions to the Interim Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

(IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

(Stage 1 DBPR) and Revisions to State

Primacy Requirements to Implement

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Amendments.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: Because we received adverse

comments, EPA is withdrawing the

direct final rule regarding the Interim

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule, the Stage 1 Disinfectant and

Disinfection Byproducts Rule, and the

Primacy Rule that published on April

14, 2000 (65 FR 20304).

In the direct final rule, we stated that

if we received adverse comments by

May 15, 2000, we would publish a

timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register. EPA subsequently received

adverse comments. We will address

those comments in a final rule based