Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 7531 

XI. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

38. This Final Rule is effective March 

14, 2012. The Commission has 

determined, with the concurrence of the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined in section 351 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40 

Applicability, Mandatory reliability 

standards, Availability of reliability 

standards. 

By the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3272 Filed 2–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0100; FRL–9495–9] 

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Montana; Revisions to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana—Air 

Quality, Subchapter 7, Exclusion for 

De Minimis Changes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions and new rules as 

submitted by the State of Montana on 

June 25, 2010 and May 28, 2003. The 

revisions contain new 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 (ARM). In this action, EPA 

is approving those portions of the rules 

that are approvable and disapproving 

those portions of the rules that are 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). This action is being taken under 

section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective March 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0100. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

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 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 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: 

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. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

A. Summary of Final Action 

B. Other Relevant Actions Related to the 

Montana SIP Revision Submittals 

II. What is the background? 

A. Brief Discussion of Statutory and 

Regulatory Requirements 

B. Summary of the Submittals Addressed 

in This Final Action 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. What are the grounds for this approval 

action? 

V. What are the grounds for this disapproval 

action? 

VI. Final Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

A. Summary of Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

new rule ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by 

the State of Montana on June 25, 2010. 

Montana adopted this rule on May 14, 

2010 and it became State effective on 

May 28, 2010. We are also taking final 

action to approve all references to ARM 

17.8.745, submitted by Montana on May 

28, 2003. Specifically, 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,’’ the phrase ‘‘and 17.8.745’’ in 

ARM 17.8.743(1) 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 

17.8.864(1)(b). These references were 

adopted on December 6, 2002, and 

became State effective on December 27, 

2002. EPA is also taking final action to 

disapprove the phrase ‘‘asphalt concrete 

plants, mineral crushers’’ in new rule 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) as submitted by the 

State of Montana on May 28, 2003. This 

rule was adopted on December 6, 2002, 

and became State effective on December 

27, 2002. 

ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the 

State of Montana on June 25, 2010, and 

all references to ARM 17.8.745, as 

submitted by the State of Montana on 

May 28, 2003, meet the requirements of 

the Act and EPA’s minor New Source 

Review (NSR) regulations. ARM 

17.8.743(1)(b), as submitted by the State 

of Montana on May 28, 2003, does not 

meet the requirements of the Act and 

EPA’s minor NSR regulations. 

EPA proposed an action for the above 

SIP revision submittals on September 

26, 2011 (76 FR 59338). We accepted 

comments from the public on this 

proposal from September 27, 2011, until 

October 26, 2011. A summary of the 

comments received and our evaluation 

thereof is discussed in section III below. 

In the proposed rule, we described our 

basis for the actions identified above. 

The reader should refer to the proposed 

rule, and sections III and IV of this 

preamble, for additional information 

regarding this final action. 

EPA reviews a SIP revision 

submission for its compliance with the 

Act and EPA regulations. CAA 

110(k)(3). We evaluated the submitted 

Program based upon the regulations and 

associated record that have been 

submitted and are currently before EPA. 

In order for EPA to ensure that Montana 

has a Program that meets the 

requirements of the CAA, the State must 

demonstrate the Program is as stringent 

as the Act and the implementing 

regulations discussed in this notice. For 

example, EPA must have sufficient 

information to make a finding that the 

new Program will ensure protection of 

the NAAQS, and noninterference with 

the Montana SIP control strategies, as 

required by section 110(l) of the Act.

The provisions in these submittals 

were not submitted to meet a mandatory 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
7532 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Facilities 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. 

requirement of the Act. Therefore, the 

final action to disapprove these 

submittals does not trigger a sanctions 

or Federal Implementation Plan clock. 

See CAA section 179(a). 

B. Other Relevant Actions Related to the 

Montana SIP Revision Submittals 

The Amended Consent Decree in 

WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 

09–cv–02148 (D. Col.), as amended, 

currently provides that EPA will take 

final action on the State’s SIP revision 

submittals by October 31, 2011. See 

Stipulation to Extend the Deadline for 

EPA’s Final Action of Item Number 11 

on Exhibit A to the Consent Decree, 

filed with the Court on March 30, 2011 

(Doc. 33). 

II. What is the background? 

A. Brief Discussion of Statutory and 

Regulatory Requirements 

The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 

CFR 51.160 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 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Such minor NSR programs 

are for pollutants from stationary 

sources that do not require Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) or 

nonattainment NSR permits. States may 

customize the requirements of the minor 

NSR program as long as their program 

meets minimum requirements. 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states: 

‘‘[e]ach revision to an implementation 

plan submitted by a State under this Act 

shall be adopted by such State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision to a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this chapter.’’ 

The States’ obligation to comply with 

each of the NAAQS is considered as 

‘‘any applicable requirement(s) 

concerning attainment.’’ A 

demonstration is necessary to show that 

this SIP revision will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS, including those for ozone, 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide 

(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) or any other 

requirement of the Act. Montana’s 

demonstration of noninterference (see 

docket), as submitted to EPA on June 25, 

2010, and our Technical Support 

Document (see docket) provide 

sufficient basis that new section ARM 

17.8.745 submitted by Montana on June 

25, 2010, will not interfere with 

attainment, reasonable further progress 

(RFP), or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Further details 

are provided in sections IV and V of this 

action. 

B. Summary of the Submittals 

Addressed in This Final Action 

The State’s May 28, 2003 submittal 

included ARM 17.8.743, which was a 

new rule. ARM 17.8.743(1) describes 

those sources that are required to obtain 

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,1 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. 

This notice contains EPA’s final 

action on Montana rules relating to the 

permitting threshold for asphalt 

concrete plants and mineral crushers in 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(b). In our July 8, 2011 

rulemaking, EPA approved of all of new 

section ARM 17.8.743(1), except for the 

phrase ‘‘asphalt concrete plants and 

mineral crushers’’ where the de minimis 

permitting threshold for those sources 

was changed from five 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. (See October 9, 2002, letter 

from EPA to the State of Montana in the 

docket.) 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, which has a 

threshold of five tons, we stated that 

Montana must provide an analysis 

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 

RFP, 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 five tons per year to 15 

tons per year, for asphalt concrete plants 

and mineral crushers meets these 

criteria. At the request of the State, we 

took no action on the phrase ‘‘asphalt 

concrete plants, mineral crushers’’ in 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) in 76 FR 40237. 

EPA is taking final action to disapprove 

the May 28, 2003, SIP revision request 

for 17.8.743(1)(b) in this action. If the 

State submits a new SIP with the 

appropriate 110(l) analysis, we would 

evaluate such a new SIP and analysis. 

The State’s June 25, 2010 submittal 

included new rule ARM 17.8.745. This 

revision request for ARM 17.8.745, 

which supercedes the State’s May 28, 

2003 submittal for ARM 17.8.745, 

creates an exemption from the 

requirement to obtain an air quality 

permit or permit modification for 

certain changes at a permitted facility 

that did not increase the facility’s 

potential emissions of an air pollutant 

by more than five tons per year, when 

conditions specified in the rule were 

met. 

During the State’s 1996 and 1999 

rulemaking process we expressed 

concerns with the de minimis level 

specified in the earlier versions of the 

regulation we are proposing action on 

today (see letters from EPA to the State 

of Montana dated July 25, 1996, April 1, 

1999 and October 9, 2002 in the docket.) 

ARM 17.8.745 created an exemption 

from the requirement to obtain an air 

quality permit or permit modification 

for certain changes at a permitted 

facility that did not increase the 

facility’s potential emissions of an air 

pollutant by more than 15 tons per year, 

when conditions specified in the rule 

were met. Since this new rule reduced 

the stringency of the current SIP 

approved regulations, EPA indicated 

that the State must provide an analysis 

showing that the 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 

RFP, as defined in section 171 of the 

CAA, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Montana’s May 

28, 2003 submittal did not provide any 

analysis or demonstration that the new 

rule (ARM 17.8.745) meets these 

requirements. In EPA’s final July 8, 2011 

rulemaking (76 FR 40237), which 

approved revisions to ARM 17.8.7, no 

action was taken on Montana’s de 

minimis provision in ARM 17.8.745. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 7533 

Since EPA took no action on ARM 

17.8.745 in our 76 FR 40237 notice, we 

took no action on all references to ARM 

17.8.745 in ARM 17.8.7. 

III. Response to Comments 

EPA did not receive comments on our 

September 26, 2011 Federal Register 

proposed action regarding the partial 

approval and partial disapproval of 

Montana’s SIP revisions to ARM 

17.8.745 as submitted by the State of 

Montana on June 25, 2010, all references 

to ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by the 

State of Montana on May 28, 2003 and 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(B) as submitted by the 

State of Montana on May 28, 2003. 

IV. What are the grounds for this 

approval action? 

We evaluated ARM 17.8.745 using the 

following: (1) The statutory 

requirements under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(c), which requires states to 

include a minor New Source Review 

(NSR) program in their SIP to regulate 

modifications and new construction of 

stationary sources within the area as 

necessary to assure the NAAQS are 

achieved; (2) the regulatory 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.160, 

including section 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; and (3) the 

statutory requirements under CAA 

section 110(l), which provides that EPA 

cannot approve a SIP revision if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and RFP, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Therefore, EPA will approve a SIP 

revision only after a state has 

demonstrated that such a revision will 

not interfere (‘‘noninterference’’) with 

attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of 

Progress (ROP), RFP or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

EPA retains the discretion to adopt 

approaches on a case-by-case basis to 

determine what the appropriate 

demonstration of noninterference with 

attainment of the NAAQS, rate of 

progress, RFP or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA should entail. 

In this instance, EPA asked the State to 

submit an analysis showing that the 

approval of new section ARM 17.8.745 

would not violate section 110(l) of the 

CAA (see docket number EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0100); this is also referred to 

as a ‘‘demonstration of noninterference’’ 

with attainment and maintenance under 

CAA section 110(l). In addition to the 

State’s demonstration submitted on June 

25, 2010, EPA conducted its own 

analysis utilizing SIP-approved 

attainment plans, past rulemakings, 

stipulations, consent decrees, air 

modeling data and air monitoring data. 

In EPA’s proposed notice (76 FR 59338), 

we considered the State’s demonstration 

of noninterference, our own analysis, 

the nature of the permitting 

requirement, its potential impact on the 

air quality in the area and the air quality 

of the area in which the permitting 

requirements apply. We analyzed this 

information pollutant by pollutant in 

order to make a determination that new 

rule 17.8.745 is consistent with CAA 

requirements; in particular, it’s impact 

on compliance with NAAQS standards. 

The scope and rigor of the 

demonstration of noninterference 

conducted in this notice is appropriate 

given the air quality status of the State, 

and the potential impact of the revision 

on air quality and the pollutants 

affected. 

The State’s technical support 

document (TSD) (see docket) contains 

the State’s regulatory history of the de 

minimis rule, effects of the de minimis 

rule on attainment and reasonable 

further progress of the NAAQS and 

assesses air quality trends, current air 

quality conditions and future projected 

air quality conditions. The 

demonstration analyses the effects of the 

new rule pollutant by pollutant in past 

and current nonattainment areas 

utilizing monitoring data, maintenance 

plans, modeling data, emission 

inventories, federal implementation 

plan requirements and past and future 

projected permits. 

V. What are the grounds for this 

disapproval action? 

EPA is disapproving the phrase 

‘‘asphalt concrete plants and mineral 

crushers’’ in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) 

submitted by the State of Montana on 

May 28, 2003. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of 

the Act requires that each 

implementation plan include a program 

to regulate the construction and 

modification of stationary sources, 

including a permit program as required 

by parts C and D of title I of the Act, 

as necessary to assure that the NAAQS 

are achieved. Parts C and D, which 

pertain to PSD and nonattainment, 

respectively, address major NSR 

programs for stationary sources, and the 

permitting program for ‘‘nonmajor’’ (or 

‘‘minor’’) stationary sources is 

addressed by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act. We generally refer to the latter 

program as the ‘‘minor NSR’’ program. 

A minor stationary source is a source 

whose ‘‘potential to emit’’ is lower than 

the major source applicability threshold 

for a particular pollutant defined in the 

applicable major NSR program. 

Therefore, we evaluated the submitted 

revisions and new rules using the 

federal regulations under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C), which require each state to 

include a minor NSR program in its SIP. 

In addition, we reviewed the State’s 

regulations for compliance with the Act. 

Generally, SIPs must be enforceable (see 

section 110(a) of the Act) and must not 

relax existing SIP requirements (see 

section 110(l) and 193 of the Act). 

EPA is disapproving the revision to 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), which contains a 

modification size cutoff (15 tons per 

year) that the State proposes as de 

minimis for asphalt concrete plants and 

mineral crushers. Fifteen tons per year 

represents the major modification 

significance level for one criteria 

pollutant (PM10) and exceeds the 

significance level for another criteria 

pollutant (PM2.5) as well as for several 

non-criteria pollutants. It also exceeds 

the major source threshold for 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 

Because of these reasons, EPA 

determines that the revision to ARM 

17.8.743(1)(b) is not de minimis in the 

sense of having a trivial environmental 

effect. EPA has agreed in several 

rulemaking actions that certain 

activities with emissions of five tons per 

year or less may be considered 

‘‘insignificant.’’ However, EPA never 

before denoted emissions increases as 

high as 15 tons per year as de minimis. 

Since the State did not provide an 

analysis as to why emission increases as 

high as 15 tons per year should be 

considered as having a trivial 

environmental effect, EPA finds no basis 

for approving this revision. Therefore, 

EPA lacks sufficient available 

information to determine that the 

requested revision to increase the de 

minimis permitting threshold for 

asphalt concrete plants and mineral 

crushers from five tons per year to 15 

tons per year would not interfere with 

attainment and RFP of the NAAQS as 

required by CAA Section 110(l), or any 

other requirement of the Act. 

VI. Final Action 

Based on the above discussion, EPA 

finds that the addition of new rule ARM 

17.8.745 would not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of any of the 

NAAQS in the State of Montana and 

would not interfere with any other 

applicable requirement of the Act (see 

proposed notice for this action and TSD 

for basis); and thus, are approvable 

under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we 

are taking final action to approve ARM 

17.8.745 as submitted on June 25, 2010 

by the State of Montana. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
7534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

We are approving new section ARM 

17.8.745; and thus, we are also 

approving all references to ARM 

17.8.745. This includes: The 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 ‘‘and 17.8.745’’ in 17.8.743(1), 

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 17.8.764(1)(b) and (4), submitted on 

May 28, 2003. 

Based on the above discussion, EPA is 

finds no basis to determine that the 

addition of new rule ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) 

would not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any of the NAAQS in 

the State of Montana and would not 

interfere with any other applicable 

requirement of the Act; and thus, is not 

approvable under CAA section 110(l). 

Therefore, we are taking final action to 

disapprove the phrase ‘‘asphalt concrete 

plants and mineral crushers’’ in ARM 

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

2003. 

VII. 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 final 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.); 

• 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. 

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 action 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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 April 13, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action 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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 28, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart BB—Montana 

■ 2. Section 52.1370 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(72) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(72) On May 28, 2003 the State of 

Montana submitted revisions to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana 

(ARM), 17.8.740, Definitions; 17.8.743, 

Montana Air Quality Permits—When 

Required; and 17.8.764, Administrative 

Amendment to Permit. On June 25, 

2010, the State of Montana submitted 

revisions to the ARM, 17.8.745, 

Montana Air Quality Permits— 

Exclusion for De Minimis Changes. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Administrative Rules of Montana, 

17.8.740, Definitions; 17.8.743, Montana 

Air Quality Permits—When Required, 

except for the phrase in 17.8.743(1)(b), 

‘‘asphalt concrete plants, mineral 

crushers, and’’; and 17.8.764, 

Administrative Amendment to Permit, 

effective 12/27/2002. 

(B) Administrative Rules of Montana, 

17.8.745, Montana Air Quality 

Permits—Exclusion for De Minimis 

Changes, effective 5/28/2010. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3245 Filed 2–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES