### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

economic reasonableness ofState actions. The CAA forbids the EPAto base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246,256-266 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.section 7410(a)(2).

Under Section 202 ofthe 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 aFederal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, ortribal governments in the aggregate; orto theprivate sector, of $100 million ormore. Under Section 205, EPA must select themost costeffective and leastburdensome alternative thatachieves the objectives oftherule and is consistent with statutoryrequirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments thatmay be significantly

oruniquely impacted bytherule.

EPA has determined that theapproval action promulgated today does not include a Federal mandate thatmay result in estimated costs of$100 million

ormore toeither State, local, ortribal governments in the aggregate, orto the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State orlocal law, and imposes

no new Federalrequirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, ortribal governments, orto theprivate sector, result from this action.

This action has been classified as a Table 3action for signature by the Regional Administratorunder the procedures published in theFederal Register on January 19, 1989 (54FR 2214-2225), asrevised by aJuly 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator forAir and Radiation.

Under section 307(b)(1) oftheCAA, 42 U.S.C.7607(b), petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by May20, 1996. Filinga petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthisrule for the purposes ofjudicialreview nor does it extend thetime within which apetition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later inproceedings to enforce itsrequirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) Executive Order 12866

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 52

Environmental Protection, 

### Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control for hydrocarbons, Incorporation by Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Motor 

### vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 28, 1995. JackW.McGraw, ActingRegionalAdministrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as 

### follows:

PART52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 7671q. 

### Subpart G-Colorado

2. Section 52.320 is amended by 

### addingparagraph (c)(73) toread as follows: §52.320 Identificationofplan.
)* * *** (c)* (73) On January 14, 1994 and on June 24, 1994, Roy Romer, the Governor of Colorado, submitted SIP revisions to the State Implementation Plan for the Control ofAir Pollution. This revisions requires the implementation ofa basic
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program in the urbanized

areas ofEl Paso (Colorado Springs), Larimer (Fort Collins), and Weld (Greeley)Counties meeting the requirements ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This material is being incorporated byreference for the enforcement ofColorado's basic I/M program only. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A) Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-4-306.5- 42-4-316 adopted June 8, 1993 as House Bill 93-1340, effective July 1, 1993.

(B) Regulation No. 11 (Inspection/ Maintenance Program) as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC)on March 17, 1994, effective April 30, 1994. [FR Doc. 96 6005Filed 3 18 96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 40CFR Part 52 [MT7-1-5487a; MT26-2-6874a; FRL-5438- 9]
Clean AirActApproval and Promulgation of PM10

### Implementation Plan for Montana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct finalrule.
SUMMARY: EPA approves the state implementation plan (SIP)forthe Kalispell,Montana nonattainment area, theFlathead County Air Pollution Program, and a Board Order setting emission limits atnine Kalispell area stationary sources, submitted with letters dated November 25, 1991, January 11, 1994, August26, 1994 and July 18, 1995, to achieve attainment of theNational Ambient AirQuality Standards (NAAQS) forparticulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equalto a nominal 10 micrometers (PMio). The SIP was submitted to satisfy certain federal Clean Air Actrequirements for an approvable moderate nonattainment

area PM10 

### SIP for Kalispell. In addition, EPA also approves the SIPrevisions submitted by the State ofMontana on August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995, to satisfy theFederal Clean AirAct requirement to submit contingency

measures for the Kalispell and Columbia Falls moderate PM10 

### nonattainment

areas. The Columbia Falls submittal also incorporates minorrevisions to the attainment and maintenance demonstrations for the Columbia Falls moderate PM10 

### nonattainment area SIP into theMontana SIP. Since the SIP still adequately demonstrates timely attainment and maintenance ofthe PM1

### o standard, EPA approves these revisions.

EPA is also deleting an obsolete section ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR)which applied to furtherrequirements for theButtetotal suspended particulates (TSP)plan. DATES: This action is effective on May 20, 1996 unless adverse comments are received by April 18, 1996. Ifthe effective date is delayed, timely notice willbepublished in theFederal Register. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to:Richard R.Long, Director, AirProgram, EPARegion VIII, at the address listed below. Copies ofthe State's submittal and other information

are available for inspection during normalbusiness hours atthe following locations: Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,Denver, Colorado 

## 11153

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11153 1996

### 11154 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

80202-2466; and Montana Department ofHealth and Environmental Sciences, Air Quality Bureau, 826 Front Street, Helena, Montana 59620-0901. The information maybe inspected between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., on weekdays, except for legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Videtich, 8P2-A, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 312-6434.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### I. Background

The Kalispell and Columbia Falls, Montana areas were designated nonattainment for PM 10 and classified

as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) ofthe Clean Air Act, upon enactment ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.1 See 56 FR56694 (November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 81.327 (specifyingdesignation forFlathead County). The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM 1 0 nonattainment areas are set out in Subparts 1 and 4 ofTitle Iofthe Act.2 (EPA took action on the Columbia Falls PM 10 SIP on April 14, 1994 (see 59 FR 17700)).

The EPA has issued a "General Preamble" describing EPA'spreliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under Title I ofthe Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM 10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for amore detailed discussion ofthe interpretations ofTitle I advanced in this final action and the supporting rationale. In thisrulemaking action on the Montana moderate PM10 SIP, EPA is applying its interpretations considering the specific factual issues presented.

Those States containing initial moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas
were required to submit, amongother things, the following provisions by November 15, 1991:

1The 1990Amendments to the Clean AirAct made significant changes to the Act. See Public Law No. 101 549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to the CleanAir Act, as amended ("theAct"). The Clean Air Actiscodified, as amended, inthe U.S. Code at42 U.S.C. Sections 7401, etseq.

2Subpart 1 containsprovisions applicable to nonattainment areas generally and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically applicable toPM10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and Subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the relationship amongtheseprovisions in the "General Preamble" and, asappropriate, in today's notice and supporting information. 1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no later than December 10, 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously

aspracticable but no later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment bythat date is impracticable; 3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment by December 31, 1994; and

4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources ofPM10 also apply to major stationary sources ofPM10 precursors except where the Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly
to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 ofthe Act.

Some provisions were due at alater date. States with initial moderate nonattainment areas were required to submit apermit program for the construction and operation ofnew and modified major stationary sources of PM 10 by June 30, 1992, [see section 189(a)]. States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas

were also required to submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993 (see 57 FR 13543). These measures must become effective, without further action by the State or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve reasonable further progress (RFP) or to attain the PMlo National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable statutory deadline. The contingency measures for Kalispell and Columbia Falls, which are described in Section II.2.A and II.2.B of this document, were submitted to fulfill this requirement. See Section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543- 

### 13544.
II. This Action

EPA is taking five actions with this document. 1)Approval ofthe Kalispell PM 10 nonattainment area control plan including the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program. (EPA earlier took action on certain portions ofthe Program with the approval ofthe Columbia Falls PM 10 SIP on April 14, 1994 (see 59 FR 17700). In this action, EPA is approving the Program as resubmitted by the Governor on August 26, 1994 with further modifications submitted on July 18, 1995). 2) Approval ofthe Kalispell PM 10 Contingency Measure Plan. 3) Approval ofthe Columbia Falls PM10 Contingency Measure Plan. 4) Deletion ofan obsolete section ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) which applied to furtherrequirements for the Butte total suspended particulates (TSP) plan. 5) Approval ofMontana's New Source Review rules forKalispell since precursors are determined to not contribute significantly. Below is a description ofeach ofthese actions.

1. KalispellPM10 SIP. EPA is approving the Kalispell PM10 nonattainment area control plan and rules ofthe Flathead County Air Pollution Control Plan found in the Flathead County AirPollution Control Program originally submitted bythe Governor on November 25, 1991, with revisions submitted on January 11, 1994, August 26, 1994 and July 18, 1995. Flathead County contains two PM10 nonattainment areas forwhich SIPs were due in November 1991: Columbia Falls and Kalispell. The Flathead County AirPollution Control Program regulations apply to both areas and were submitted with the attainment demonstration for Kalispell on November 25, 1991. EPA initially took final approval action on all aspects of the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program, except rules 501 through 506, with the Columbia Falls SIP on April 14, 1994 (see 59 FR 17700). The August 26, 1994, submittal contained minor modifications to the Flathead county Air Pollution Control Program regulations that had been adopted through Board Order on May 20, 1994. Thus, EPA is taking action on the entire Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program submitted on August 26, 1994, in order to assure that the
most recent version ofthe rules is approved into the SIP. The July 18, 1995 submittal contained revised control effectiveness calculations.

Section 110(k) ofthe Act sets out provisions governing EPA's review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In today's action, EPA is granting approval ofthose elements ofthe Kalispell PM10plan that were due on November 15, 1991, and submitted by the State on November 25, 1991, January 11, 1994, August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995. EPA believes that the Kalispell plan meets the applicable requirements ofthe Act.

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11154 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

A. Analysis ofStateSubmission
1. Procedural Background. The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) ofthe Act provides that each implementation plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.3 Section 110(1) ofthe Act similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA also must determine whether

a submittal is complete and therefore
warrants furtherEPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set out at40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. The EPA attempts to make completeness determinations within 60 days ofreceiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation oflaw if a completeness determination is not made by EPA six months after receipt ofthe submission.

To entertain public comment on the PM 10 implementation plan for Kalispell, the State ofMontana held a public hearing on November 15, 1991. The State supplied evidence that adequate public notice for these hearings was provided. Followingthe public hearings, the Board ofHealth and Environmental Sciences adopted the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program and the Kalispell PM 10 Control Plan. The submittal for the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program and Kalispell PM10 SIP were signed by the Governor on November 25, 1991. The final plan was received by EPA on December 4, 1991, as aproposed revision to the SIP.

The SIP revision and subsequent submittals from the Governor were reviewed byEPA to determine completeness in accordance with the completeness criteria set out at 40CFR Part 51, Appendix V. The November 25, 1991 submittal was found to be complete and a letter, dated April 29, 1992, was forwarded to the Governor indicating the completeness ofthe submittal and the next steps to be taken in the review process. The January 11, 1994 submittal was found complete by default on July 11, 1994. The August 26, 1994 submittal was found complete and

aletter was forwarded to the Governor ofthat finding on November 1, 1994. The July 18, 1995, submittal was found complete in a letter forwarded to the Governor on July 18, 1995.

2. Accurate Emission Inventory. Section 172(c)(3) ofthe Act requires that nonattainment plan provisions include

acomprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all

sources ofrelevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. The emission inventory also should include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory ofallowable emissions in the

area. Because the submission ofsuch inventories is a necessary adjunct to an area's attainment demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the emission inventories must be received with the submission (see 57 FR 13539).

Kalispell's base year emission inventory was developed for September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987. The results were segregated into seasonal emissions (winter, spring, summer, fall.) Area sources comprise over 90% ofthe PM10 emissions on an annual basis. Annually, paved road dust accounts for 80.16% ofthe PM10 emissions, with unpaved road dust responsible for 7.45%. Industrial sources and residential woodburning account for 5.54% and 4.69% ofthe total emissions respectively. Re-entrained road dust is the primary source ofemissions in all four seasons.

EPA is approving the emission inventory because it is accurate and comprehensive, and provides a sufficient basis for determining the adequacy ofthe attainment demonstration for this area consistent with the requirements ofsections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) ofthe Act.4

For further details see the Kalispell PM10 SIP TSD for this action.

3. RACM (Including RACT). As noted, the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment

areas must submit provisions to assure that RACM (includingRACT) are implemented no later than December 10, 1993, (see sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion ofEPA's interpretation ofthe RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57 FR 13539- 13545 and 13560-13561).

Five sources/source categories were identified as contributing to the PMlo nonattainment problem in Kalispell. In the following table, an outline is presented on these sources, theircontrol

measures and associated emissions reduction credit, and effective dates.

Source Control 

# [ PM10 emissions reduction 

# I Effective5 Re-entrained road dust

............. Flathead County Rules: 501 Sanding &chip sealing standards and 505 Street Sweeping and Flushing. 502 Construction and Demolition Activity

.................................. 503 Pavement of Roads Required

............................................ 504 Pavement of Parking Lots Required

.................................. 506 Clearing of land greater than 1/4 acre in size (requires

measures to control dust when clearing areas largerthan 1/ 4 acre). Prescribed burning

.................... Flathead County Rules: 201 (Open Burning) D efinitions

................................................. 202 M aterials Prohibited

............................................................ 203 MinorOpen Burning Source Requirements

....................... 204 MajorOpen Burning Source Requirements

....................... 205 Special Open Burning Periods

........................................... 206 Fire FighterTraining

........................................................... 207 Conditional Air QualityOpen Burning Permits

................... 208 Emergency Open Burning Permits

..................................... 209 P ermit F ees
........................................................................

3Also Section 172(c)(7) of theAct requires that 4EPA issued guidance on PM 10 emissions plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the inventories prior to the enactment ofthe Clean Air applicable provisions of Section 110(a)(2). Act Amendments in the form of the 1987 PM 10 SIPDevelopment Guideline.Theguidance provided 62% (credit taken onlyfor winter &spring. (no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... (no credit taken)

......................

(no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... (no credittaken)

...................... 5/20/94

5/20/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/20/94

5/20/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/20/94 5/20/94

in this document appears to be consistent with the revised Act. 

### 11155

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11155 1996

### 11156 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Source Control PM10emissions reduction Effective 5

Residential wood combustion

... Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program, CHAPTER (no credit taken)

...................... 5/20/94 VIII, Sub-chapter 3, Voluntary Solid Fuel Burning Device Curtailment Program and Sub-chapter 4, Prohibited Materials for Wood orCoal Residential Stoves Industry

..................................... Board Order, limiting allowable emissions, based upon signed (no credit taken)

...................... 9/17/93 stipulations between the following sources and the State: A-1 Paving; Equity Supply Company; Flathead Road Dept. (two stipulations issued); Klingler Lumber Co.; McElroy and Wilkins; Montana Mokko; Pack and Company, Inc.; Pack Concrete; and Plum Creek Inc. (Evergreen).. Motorvehicleexhaust

............... Federal tailpipe standards

......................................................... (no credit taken)

...................... Ongoing due tofleet

turnover.
5Note thatthe effective date of mostof the following regulations is pastthe RACM/RACT implementation date of December 10, 1993. The ma- jority ofthese regulationswere effective in 1991. However, as indicated elsewhere in this action, minor revisions were made to some ofthe regulations.The table liststhe most recent effective date ofthese regulations.

A more detailed discussion ofthe source/source category contributions 

### and their associated control measures (includingavailable control technology)

can be found in the Kalispell PM10 SIP TSD for this action. EPA has reviewed the State's documentation and concluded that it adequately justifies the control measures to be implemented. The implementation of Montana's PM10 nonattainment plan resulted in the attainment ofthe PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. By this action EPA is approving the Kalispell PM 10plan's RACM (including RACT) in its entirety.

4. Attainment and Maintenance Demonstrations. As noted, the initial moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas must submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 1994, or the State
must show that attainment by December 31, 1994, is impracticable (see section 189(a)(1)(B) ofthe Act). The 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic
meter (gLg/m 3), and the standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 gLg/m 3
is equal to or less than one (see 40CFR 50.6). The annual PMlo NAAQS is 50 gLg/m 3

, and the standard is attained when the expected annual arithmetic

mean concentration is less than or equal
to 50 gLg/m 3 (id.)

The Kalispell attainment and maintenance demonstrations arebased upon both CMB analysis with rollback for area sources and dispersion modeling for stationary sources. The 1991 SIP submittal contained an attainment and maintenance demonstration based upon CMB. However, atthe time ofthe CMB study, stationary sources were operating far below their allowable emission rates, and meteorological (wind) conditions did not allow for a reliable analysis of potential stationary source impacts. To supplement the receptor modelingbased analysis, the State agreed to evaluate industrial sources at their allowable emission rates using dispersion modeling.

The industrial sources areremoved, for the most part, from the downtown

area and are not believed to impact the monitors used for the CMB analyses. Significant concentrations from industrial sources are expected to occur only in the immediate area around the industrial sources because oflow stacks and fugitive type emissions. The intent ofthe dispersion modeling was to see if violations ofthe standard would occur in the immediate vicinity ofthe industrial sources. Therefore, the Kalispell attainment and maintenance demonstrations are based upon both CMB analysis for area sources and dispersion modeling for industrial

sources.

CMB: The attainment and maintenance demonstrations using CMB analysis for Kalispell indicate that the 24-hour PM1 oNAAQS would be attained by December 31, 1994, at 137.2 gLg/m 3

, and it would be maintained in future years. The demonstration indicated that an annual concentration of47.9 gLg/m 3 would be achieved by 1995,6 showing attainment ofthe annual PMlo NAAQS. The annual NAAQS was also demonstrated to be maintained in future years. In the July 18, 1995 submittal, the Governor provided arevised 24-hour attainment demonstration which used arevised

6The Clean AirAct callsfor attainmentby December 31, 1994. Section 188(c)(1).EPA interprets the State'sdemonstration asproviding for attainment byJanuary 1,1995. EPAis approvingthe State's demonstration on thebasis ofthede minimis differential between thetwo dates.The State should promptly inform EPAifEPAhas in any mannermisinterpreted thedatebywhich the State has demonstrated attainmentin the Kalispell nonattainment area. background concentration number and higher credits for the re-entrained road dust program based upon the expanded Kalispell Air Pollution Control District boundaries outlined in the August 26, 1994 submittal. Through the implementation ofthe controls in the expanded area, the attainment analysis indicated that the 24-hour value attained in the year 1995 would be 124.3 gg/m 3 instead ofthe 137.2 gg/m 3
calculated in the November 25, 1991 submittal.

As mentioned above, a maintenance demonstration was contained in the November 25, 1991, submittal which showed maintenance ofthe 24-hour standard through 1997. The July 18, 1995, submittal did not contain a revised maintenance demonstration. However,based upon the revised attainment year value of 124.3 gg/m 3
and the projected 2.1% annual population growth rate, EPA has calculated the maintenance demonstration to be 132.3 gg/m 3 in 1998. Monitored values reported through 1994 have shown attainment. EPA accepts this analysis for demonstrating attainment and maintenance ofthe 24-hour standard.

The July 18, 1995, submittal did not revise the attainment and maintenance calculations for the annual PM 10 standard which were contained in the original November 25, 1991, submittal. However, EPA expects that since the July 1995 revised 24-hour values are significantly lower than 1991 values, the annual values would show similar reductions and that attainment and maintenance ofthe annual PM10 standard would result. Monitored annual values reported through 1994 have shown attainment. EPA accepts this analysis for demonstrating attainment ofthe annual standard.

Dispersion Modeling: As pointed out earlier, because ofits concern that the majority ofthe stationary sources within

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11156 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

the Kalispell area were operating far below their allowable permit limits during the CMB study and thus their potential impact on air quality was not being properly calculated, EPA asked the State to perform dispersion modeling to demonstrate attainment and maintenance ofthe PM10 standard. The Montana Department ofHealth and Environmental Services (MDHES) conducted dispersion modeling using stationary source allowable emission
rates to determine if violations ofthe PM 10 NAAQS would result in future years. Based upon the results ofthe dispersion modeling, several stationary

sourcepermits were revised to reduce allowable emission rates.

Dispersion modeling, using stationary

source allowable emission rates, was used to determine maximum concentrations related to stationary

source emissions. The results were used
to demonstrate attainment ofthe standard byDecember 31, 1994. The 24- hour PM 10 NAAQS allows one expected exceedance ofthe standard per year. Thus, in modeling five years ofdata, attainment is demonstrated when the sixth highest predicted concentration is less than 150 gg/m 3

.The 6th highest modeled concentration in the 1998 maintenance run was 139 gg/m 3

.Total concentrations would be lower in 1995 owing to lower emissions from nearby background sources. This shows attainment ofthe 24-hour standard of 150 gg/m 3

.In addition, the Kalispell dispersion modeling results indicated attainment ofthe annual PM 10 standard. The predicted concentration in the maintenance year (1998) is 50.0 gg/m 3

. Because emissions from nearby background sources would be lower in 1995 than in 1998, predicted 1995 concentrations would be less than 50 jig/m 3

.

5. PM 10 Precursors. The control requirements that are applicable to major stationary sources ofPM10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 10precursors, unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute significantly to PMlo levels overthe NAAQS in that area (see section 189(e) ofthe Act). An analysis ofair quality and emissions data for the Kalispell nonattainment area indicates that exceedances ofthe NAAQS are attributable chiefly to direct particulate emissions from re-entrained road dust, with a small contribution from stationary sources and residential wood burning. The emission inventory for Kalispell revealed that industrial processes contributed 5.54% to the annual PM 10 emissions. However, the inventory did not differentiate between PM 1oorprecursor emissions. Based upon the types ofsources in the area, EPA believes that the overall contribution ofPMloprecursors is insignificant. Therefore, EPA is making the determination that PM 10 precursors do not contribute significantly to PMlo levels that exceed the standard in Kalispell. The consequences ofthis determination is to exclude these

sources from the applicability ofPMlo nonattainment area control requirements.

On July 18, 1995, EPA partially approved the State's nonattainment new
source review (NSR)permitting regulations for the Kalispell moderate PM 10 nonattainment area because the State did not submit NSRpermitting regulations for sources ofPM10 precursors in Kalispell and because EPA had not yet found that such sources did
not contribute significantly to PM10 exceedances in Kalispell (see 60 FR 36715-36722). The consequence ofthis determination that PM10precursors are insignificant is to exclude major stationary sources ofPM10 precursors in Kalispell from the applicability ofPMlo nonattainment area control requirements, including nonattainment NSRpermitting. Thus, based on this determination, the State's nonattainment NSRregulations for Kalispell are considered fully approved.

Further discussion ofthe analyses and supporting rationale for EPA's finding

are contained in the TSD accompanying this action. Note that while EPA is making ageneral finding for this area, this finding is based on the current character ofthe area including, for example, the existing mix of sources in the area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth could change the significance ofprecursors in the area. The EPA intends to issue future guidance addressing such potential changes in the significance ofprecursor emissions in an area. 6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress. The PMlo nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1), toward attainment byDecember 31, 1994, (see section 189(c) ofthe Act). The State ofMontana's PM10 SIP indicates that the MDHES and the Flathead County Health Department (FCHD)will submit to EPA areasonable further progress/milestone report consistent with federal guidelines by December 31, 1994.7

7Technically the first milestone would fall on November 15, 1994 three years after the deadline In addition, FCHD will prepare less detailed annual progress reports for the prior yearby August 1st each year. These annual progress reports shall provide information on the effectiveness ofthe control strategies.

To monitor the progress ofthe road dust control rules, areport will be completed on the type and amount of de-icing and sandingmaterial applied, the number ofapplications ofde-icing and sandingmaterials, the dates of application ofeach material, and where and when the street sweeping and flushing occurred during the winter

season. The sanding material test results for the percent silt and durability also willbe submitted.

All exceedances ofthe PM10 standard willbe evaluated and a determination made as to the source ofthe exceedance. Changes in the air quality program to prevent further exceedances and a timetable for implementation will be developed. Any otherEPA requirements for RFP reports will be incorporated as necessary.

7. Contingency Measures. See Section 11.2. below for requirements.

8. Enforceability Issues. All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by the State and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 57 FR 13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987, memorandum (with attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al.(see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions also
must contain a program to provide for enforcement ofcontrol measures and other elements in the SIP (see section 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe Act).

The specific control measures contained in the SIP are addressed above in Section 3, "RACM (including RACT)." The Flathead County Air Pollution Control regulations, as included in the SIP, are legally enforceable by FCHD. Any person who violates any provision or rule, with the exception ofthe voluntary solid-fuel burning device rule, or order under this program shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500.00.

The Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program and the associated

forsubmittal ofthis SIP. However, the de minimis timingdifferential between the first milestone submittal date and the attainment date (December 31, 1994) make it administratively impracticable to require separate submittals. See generally 57 FR 13539. UsingDecember 31, 1994 as the first milestone, EPA hasidentified March 31, 1995 as the actual deadline for the submittal ofthe milestone report (per section 189(c)(2) ofthe Act). The State ofMontana submitted the milestone report on April 12, 1995. 

### 11157

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11157 1996

### 11158 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

local regulations are also enforceable by the MDHES, ifthe FCHD fails to administer the program. Since the program has been approved by the Montana Board ofHealth and Environmental Sciences (MBHES) in accordance with section 75-2-301 of the Montana Code Annotated and effectuated by a MBHES Order, and since the MDHES can enforce MBHES Orders, the MDHES has independent enforcement powers. Enforcement provisions are found in the Clean Air Act ofMontana, sections 75-2-401 through 75-2-429, Montana Code Annotated.

The allowable emission limits for the stationary sources being regulated under this plan are enforceable by the MDHES through the issuance ofa Board Order. MDHES and the Kalispell sources agreed to emission limitations in stipulations which were enforceable upon approval and adoption by the MBHES through the issuance ofaBoard Order on September 17, 1993. The stipulations contained emission limitations for the following nine

sources: A-1 Paving;Equity Supply Company; Flathead Road Dept. (two stipulations issued); Klingler Lumber Co.; McElroy and Wilkins; Montana Mokko; Pack and Company, Inc.; Pack Concrete; and Plum Creek Inc. (Evergreen).

Ifa Staterelies on a local government for the implementation ofany plan provision, then, according to section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) ofthe Act, the State
must provide necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision. A State would have responsibility to ensure adequate implementation when, for example, the State has the authority and resources to implement the provision, and the local entity has failed to do so.

The Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program was established in accordance with the requirements of section 75-2-301 ofthe Montana Code Annotated, as amended (1991). On November 15, 1991, the MBHES issued

aBoard Order approving the local program and regulations. A stipulation between the MDHES and the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Board that delineates responsibilities and authorities between the MDHES and the local authorities was signed November 15, 1991. The regulations, Board Order, and stipulation were submitted to EPA

as a revision to the Montana SIP.

The State also submitted a state Attorney General's opinion interpreting the authority ofthe MDHES to enforce any state and local air quality provisions if a local air quality program fails to do so. In practice, the MBHES issues a Board Order when it approves a local program or amendments to a program. Since the Montana Clean Air Act authorizes the MDHES to enforce Board Orders issued bythe MBHES, the MDHES has the authority to assume jurisdiction over, and implement, a local program so approved. However, the Montana Clean Air Act also requires

ahearing before the MBHES before such

an assumption ofjurisdiction and authority can be taken.

The Flathead County rules are in effect now, as is the Board Order for the nine stationary sources. The State of Montana has a program that will ensure that the measures contained in the Kalispell PM10 SIP are adequately enforced. EPA believes that the State's and Kalispell's existing air enforcement program will be adequate. The TSDfor the Kalispell PM 10plan contains further information on enforceability requirements, responsibilities, and a discussion ofthe personnel and funding intended to support effective implementation ofthe control measures.

2. ContingencyMeasures.The Clean Air Act requires states containing PM1o nonattainment areas to adopt contingency measuresthat will take effect without further action by the State

or EPA upon a determination byEPA that an area failed to make reasonable further progress or to timely attain the applicable NAAQS, as described in section 172(c)(9). See generally 57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543-13544. Pursuant to section 172(b), the Administrator has established a schedule providing that states containing initial moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas shall submit SIP revisions containing contingency

measures no later than November 15, 1993. (See 57 FR 13543, n. 3.)

The General Preamble further explains that contingency measures for PM 10 should consist ofother available control measures, beyond those necessary to meet the core moderate

area control requirement to implement reasonably available control measures (see Clean Air Act sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). Based on the statutory structure, EPA believes that contingency

measures must, at a minimum, provide for continued progress toward the attainment goal during the interim period between the determination that the SIP has failed to achieve RFP/ provide for timely attainment ofthe NAAQS and the additional formal air quality planning following the determination (57 FR 13511). Section 172(c)(9) ofthe Act specifies that contingency measures shall "take effect * * * without further action by the State or the [EPA] Administrator." EPA has interpreted this requirement (in the General Preamble at57 FR 13512) to

mean that no further rulemaking activities by the State orEPA would be needed to implement the contingency

measures. In general, EPA expects all actions needed to effect full implementation ofthe measures to

occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State ofits failure to attain the standard or make RFP.

EPA recognizes that certain actions, such as notification ofsources, modification ofpermits, etc., maybe needed before some measures could be implemented. However, States must show that theircontingency measures
can be implemented with minimal further administrative action on their part and with no additional rulemaking action such aspublic hearing or legislative review.

A. KalispellPM10 ContingencyMeasures

The State failed to submit the contingency measures by the November 15, 1993, due date. On January 19, 1994, EPA made a finding that the State failed
to submit the contingency measures. Based upon that finding, the 18 month sanctions and 24 month FIPclocks were activated. In response to thisfinding, the Governor ofMontana submitted revisions to the SIP for Kalispell with letters dated August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995. The revisions address contingency measures for the Kalispell moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP.

1. Procedural Background (see Section II.1.A.1). The PM 1ocontingency

measures for Kalispell were developed by the FCHD and the MDHES. On October 18, 1993, after a local public hearing on October 4, 1993, the Kalispell City Council adopted the

measures. On October 12, 1993, the Flathead County Commissioners held a public hearing and adopted the contingency measures (Resolution 867A). This county resolution also had included expanding the Columbia Falls

area ofsanding and sweeping. Subsequent to further discussion, the County Commissioners held another public hearing on April 4, 1994, at which time they removed mention of this expanded area (Resolution 867B). After the May 20, 1994, MBHES public hearing, the Board adopted the local rules which constitute the contingency

measures. The Governor submitted the contingency measure rule 507 to EPA with a letter dated August 26, 1994. However, that submittal did not contain the necessary technical analysis and related information.

On July 10, 1995, the Montana Department ofEnvironmental Quality

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11158 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(MDEQ, formerly MDHES) held a properly noticed public hearing for the purpose ofadopting the localrules and technical analysis information into the Montana SIP. The Governor subsequently submitted the outstanding portions oftheKalispell PM10 

### contingency measure SIPrevision to EPA with a letter dated July 18, 1995. Afterreviewing the submittal for conformance with thecompleteness criteria in 40 CFR51, Appendix V,EPA determined the submittal tobe administratively and technically complete and notified the Governor of such determination in a letter dated July 18, 1995.

2. Contingency Measures. ThePM10 

### contingency measure plan for Kalispell

was submitted bythe Governor toEPA with letters dated August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995. The contingency measure requires mandatory use ofliquid de-icer instead ofsand, except under special circumstances.

a. Re-entrained Road Dust Contingency Measure. On April4, 1994, theFlathead County Board ofCounty Commissioners passed Resolution No. 867B which amended theFlathead County Air Pollution Control Program. The amendments include Rule 507 which is acontingency plan that implements themandatory use ofliquid de-icer on allroads, with the exception ofpriority routes with extraordinary circumstances, within the Kalispell Air Pollution Control District.Rule 507 provides thatwithin 60 days of notification byEPA thatthe SIP forthe Kalispell moderate PM10 

### nonattainment

area failed totimely attain the PM1

### o NAAQS or make reasonable further progress the following will occur:

Within theKalispell Air Pollution Control District,only liquid de-icer shallbeplaced on any road orparking lot with the exception ofpriority routes with extraordinary circumstances existing. During extraordinary circumstances, priority routes must use sandingmaterial which has a durability (asdefined by theMontana Modified L.A. Abrasion test) ofless than or equal to seven or other testing method which the Control Board deems suitable, and has a content ofmaterialless than 200 mesh, as determined by standard wet sievingmethods, which is less than three percent oven dry weight.

b. Effectiveness ofthe Contingency Measure. Ifthere-entrained road dust contingency measure is implemented, the control efficiency ofthe re-entrained road dust measures willbe 81% in the 24-hour attainment demonstration. This calculation takes into accounttheuse of liquid de-icer, the currentrequirements for use ofwashed sand, and the existing street sweeping measures (see the TSD for the Kalispell PM 1oSIP for further details on the existing re-entrained road dust strategies). Total reduction from the contingency measure is calculated to be 10632 more pounds ofPM 10 reduced per day than without the contingency

measure.

EPA believes this contingency

measure is approvable. The control

measures implemented in the PM 1oSIP

areprojected to achieve more emissions reductions than needed to demonstrate attainment ofthe PM 10 NAAQS, as indicated by the State's predicted 24- hour attainment concentration of 124.3 gg/m 3

.Furthermore, the predicted 24- hour ambient concentration resulting if the contingency measure is implemented is 94.0 gg/m 3

.Since the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 gg/m 3

,this established safety margin further supports the reasonableness ofthis contingency measure. 3. Enforceability Issues. The Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program

was established in accordance with the requirements ofSection 75-2-301 ofthe Montana Clean Air Act, as amended (1991). A stipulation between the MDHES, the Flathead County Commission, and the Kalispell and Columbia Falls City Councils was signed on November 15, 1991, to delineate responsibilities and authorities between the MDHES and the local authorities. On November 15, 1991, the MBHES issued a Board Order effectuating the program. On May 20, 1994, the MBHES issued a Board Order approving the Kalispell PM10 contingency measures. The related regulation, and the May 20, 1994, Board Order were submitted to EPA in the August 26, 1994, submittal as a revision
to the Montana SIP. The Flathead County regulation is in effect now. The State ofMontana has aprogram that will

ensure that the contingency measures contained in the Kalispell PM10 SIP are adequately enforced. EPAbelieves that the State's and Kalispells' existing air enforcement program will be adequate. The Kalispell Contingency Measure SIP TSD contains further information on enforceability requirements, responsibilities, and a discussion ofthe personnel and funding intended to support effective implementation ofthe control measures.
B. ColumbiaFallsPM10 Contingency Measures,ControlStrategyand AttainmentDemonstrationRevisions

The State failed to submit the contingency measures by the November 15, 1993, due date. On January 19, 1994, EPA made a finding that the State failed
to submit the contingency measures. Based upon that finding, the 18 month sanctions and 24 month FIPclocks were activated. In response to thisfinding, the Governor ofMontana submitted revisions to the SIP for Columbia Falls with a letters dated August 26, 1994. The revision addressed contingency

measures for the Columbia Falls moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP.

1. Procedural Background (see Section II.1.A.1)

The PM10 contingency measures for Columbia Falls were developed by the FCHD and the Montana (MDHES).After

a local public hearing on October 4, 1993, the Columbia Falls' City Council adopted the measures. On October 12, 1993, the Flathead County Commissioners held apublic hearing and adopted the contingency measures (Resolution 867A). Thiscounty resolution also had included expanding the Columbia Falls area ofsanding and sweeping. Subsequent to further discussion, the County Commissioners held anotherpublic hearing on April 4, 1994, at which time they removed mention ofthis expanded area (Resolution 867B). After the May 20, 1994, MBHES public hearing, the Board adopted the local rules which constitute the contingency measures and minor revisions to the attainment and maintenance demonstration for the SIP. The Governor submitted the contingency measure rule 607 to EPA with a letter dated August 26, 1994. After reviewing the submittal for conformance with the completeness criteria in40 CFR 51, Appendix V, EPA determined the submittal to be administratively and technically complete and notified the Governorof such determination in aletter dated November 1, 1994.

The Governor ofMontana submitted revisions to the SIP for Columbia Falls with a letter dated August 26, 1994. The revisions address contingency measures and incorporate minormodifications to the attainment and maintenance demonstrations into the State SIP for the Columbia Falls moderate PM 10 nonattainment area.
2. Control Strategy (see Section II.1.A.3 for general requirements)

On April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17700), EPA approved the control measures in the Columbia Falls moderate PM 10 nonattainment area SIP as satisfying the requirement to provide forthe implementation ofRACM, including RACT. The measures targeted reentrained road dust, residential wood burning, prescribed burning, industry, and motorvehicle exhaust. Please see 

### 11159

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11159 1996

### 11160 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

that final rule and associated Technical Support Document (TSD) for further details on the specific control measures in the approved SIP.
3. Revisions to Attainment and Maintenance Demonstrations (see Section II.1.A.4 for General Requirements)

CMB receptor modelling in combination with rollback was chosen

as the best tool for the attainment and maintenance demonstrations ofthe 24- hour standard. EPA approved Montana's attainment and maintenance demonstrations for the Columbia Falls moderate PM 10nonattainment area on April 14, 1994 (59FR 17700). The 24- hour attainment value (i.e., the ambient PM 10 air quality level expected to be achieved by 1995 8) was 136.28 gg/m 3, and the annual attainment value was 31.1 gg/m 3. The maintenance values (i.e., ambient PMlo air quality levels maintained through January 1, 1998) are equal to the attainment values.

As was discussed in the TSD accompanying EPA's approval action for the Columbia Falls SIP, technical corrections to the attainment demonstration were made subsequent to the Governor's submittal. With the August 26, 1994, contingency measure SIP submittal, the Governor is also incorporating the revised attainment demonstration (contained in the technical corrections noted above) into the SIP narrative. There is a minor additional revision to the street sweeping & sanding control calculation. The revised control credit calculation separates thebackground particulate emissions prior to applying reductions due to the street sweeping program. The revised calculation yields a minor increase of32 lbs per day PM10 emissions over the original demonstration, an amount approximately equal to 1% ofthe uncontrolled daily emissions from paved road dust re-entrainment. EPA has evaluated and approves the revised control efficiency calculations. The final attainment demonstration being incorporated and approved by this action predicts a 24-hour attainment value of 136.9 gg/m3, and an annual attainment value of31.1 gg/m3,both well below the respective NAAQS. The SIP continues to adequately demonstrate timely attainment and maintenance ofthe PM10 NAAQS in

8The Clean Air Act calls for attainment by December 31, 1994. Section 188(c)(1). EPA interprets the State's demonstration as providing for attainment ofthe PM1 O NAAQS by January 1, 1995. EPA approved the State's demonstration on the basis ofthe de minimis differential between the two dates. Columbia Falls and satisfies the requirement to provide for the implementation ofRACM (including RACT). For further detail concerning the calculations, see the TSD for this action.

4. Contingency Measures

The PM10 contingency measure plan for Columbia Falls was submitted bythe Governor to EPA with a letter dated August 26, 1994. The contingency

measure requires mandatory use of liquid de-icer instead of sand, except under special circumstances.

a. Re-entrained Road Dust Contingency Measure. On April 4, 1994, the Flathead County Board ofCounty Commissioners passed Resolution No. 867B which amended the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program. The amendments include Rule 607 which is acontingency plan that implements the mandatory use ofliquid de-icer on allroads, with the exception ofpriority routes with extraordinary circumstances, within the Columbia Falls Air Pollution Control District. Rule 607 provides that within 60 days of notification byEPA that the SIP for the Columbia Falls moderate PM 10 nonattainment area failed to timely attain the PM10 NAAQS or make reasonable further progress the following will occur:

Within the Columbia Falls Air Pollution Control District, only liquid de-icer shall be placed on any road or parking lot with the exception of priority routes with extraordinary circumstances existing.During extraordinary events, priority routes must use sanding material which has a durability, as defined by the Montana Modified L.A. Abrasion test, ofless than

or equal to 7, or other testing method which the Control Board deems suitable, and has a content ofmaterial less than 200 mesh, as determined by standard wet sievingmethods, which is less than 3.0% oven dry weight.

b. Effectiveness ofthe Contingency Measure. Ifthe re-entrained road dust contingency measure is implemented, the control efficiency ofthe re-entrained road dust measures will be 58% in the 24-hour attainment demonstration (an increase of28% over the control efficiency ofthe re-entrained road dust

measures in the original SIP attainment demonstration). This calculation takes into account the use ofthe liquid deicer, the current requirements for use of washed sand, and the existing street sweeping measures (see the TSD accompanying EPA's approval, 59 FR 17700, ofthe Columbia Falls PM 10 SIP, available at the EPA address at the beginning ofthis document, for further details on the existing re-entrained road dust strategies). Totalreduction from the contingency measure is calculated to be 605 more pounds ofPMloreduced per day than without the contingency

measure.

EPA believes that this contingency

measure is approvable. The control

measures implemented in the PMlo SIP

areprojected to achieve more emissions reductions than needed to demonstrate attainment ofthe PM10 NAAQS, as indicated by the State's predicted 24- hour attainment concentration of 135.9 gg/m 3 (see Section II.A.2. above and the TSD).Furthermore, the predicted 24- hour ambient concentration resulting if the contingency measure is implemented is 122.5 gg/m 3

. Since the 24-hour PMlo NAAQS is 150jag/m 3

, this established safety margin further supports the reasonableness ofthese contingency measures.
5. Enforceability Issues

The Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program was established in accordance with the requirements of Section 75-2-301 ofthe Montana Clean AirAct, as amended (1991). A stipulation between the MDHES, the Flathead County Commission, and the Kalispell and Columbia Falls City Councils was signed on November 15, 1991 to delineate responsibilities and authorities between the MDHES and the local authorities. On November 15, 1991, the MBHES issued a Board Order effectuating the program. On January 24, 1992, the MBHES approved the Columbia Falls PM10 plan and local program. The stipulation, Board Order, and resolution were incorporated into the SIP on April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17700).

On May 20, 1994, the MBHES issued

a Board Order approving the Columbia Falls PM10 contingency measures. The related regulation, and the May 20, 1994, Board Order were submitted to EPA in the August 26, 1994 submittal as
arevision to the Montana SIP.

The Flathead County Program is in effect now. The State ofMontana has a program that will ensure that the contingency measures contained in the Columbia Falls PM10 SIP are adequately enforced. EPA believes that the State's and Columbia Falls' existing air enforcement program willbe adequate. The TSDfor this action contains further information on enforceability requirements, responsibilities, and a discussion ofthe personnel and funding intended to support effective implementation ofthe control measures.

3. Deletion ofButte TSPRequirement. 40 CFR 52.1380 contains aconditional approval ofa total suspended particulate (TSP) plan for Butte. The condition required that the State submit,

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11160 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

by February 15, 1981, arevised airborne particulate regulation as specified in its October 4, 1979, submittal to EPA. Since the time that this requirement was put in place, EPA has revised the particulate
matter standard to be based on PM10 rather than TSP. Furthermore, Montana has submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision providing for attainment and maintenance ofthe PM10 NAAQS for the Butte moderate PM10 nonattainment

area (March 11, 1994, 59 FR 11550). Thus, since TSP is no longer the regulated form ofparticulate matter and has been replaced by PM 1o, and since Montana has a federally approved SIP meeting all requirements ofthe CAA for the Butte PM 10 nonattainment area, EPA finds 40 CFR 52.1380 obsolete and is deleting the section.

III. FinalAction

EPA is approving Montana's Kalispell SIPrevision submitted on November 25, 1991 with additional submittals, critical
to the Kalispell SIP, made on January 11, 1994, August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995. These submittals address PM10 requirements which were due on November 15, 1991. Among other things, the State ofMontana has demonstrated that the Kalispell moderate PM 10 nonattainment area will attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. EPA is also approving the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program submitted on November 25, 1991 and resubmitted on August 26, 1994. In addition, EPA is approving Montana's SIP revisions for Kalispell and Columbia Falls which address PM10 contingency measure plans, which were due on November 15, 1993. The plan for the Kalispell PM 10 nonattainment area
was submitted bythe Governor with a letter dated August 26, 1994 with additional materials submitted on July 18, 1995. The plan for the Columbia Falls PM10 nonattainment area was submitted by the Governor with a letter dated August 26, 1994. This submittal also included minorrevisions to the attainment and maintenance demonstrations for Columbia Falls.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be submitted. Under the procedures established in the May 10, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 24054), this action will be effective May 20, 1996 unless, within 30 days ofits publication, adverse or critical
comments are received. Ifsuch comments are received, this action will be withdrawn before the effective date bypublishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time. Ifno such comments arereceived, the public is advised that this action willbe effective on May 20, 1996.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing aprecedent for any future request for revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. 

### IV. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600, etseq., EPA must prepare

aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction over populations ofless than 50,000.

Approvals ofSIP submittals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on small entities. Moreover, due to the
nature ofthe Federal-state relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of

aregulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).


### V. Petition Language

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by May 20, 1996. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicialreview must 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)).
VI.Executive Order(EO) 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), asrevised by aJuly 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

VII.Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
mustundertake various actions in association with proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of$100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Through submission ofthis state implementation plan or plan revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program provided forunder Section 110 and subchapter I,part D, ofthe Clean AirAct. These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain duties. The rules being approved by this action will impose no new requirements; such

sources are already subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. EPA has also determined that this final action does not include a mandate that may result in estimated
costs of$100 million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, and Volatile organic compounds. 

## 11161

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11161 1996

### 11162 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: September 29, 1995. Jack W.McGraw,
ActingRegional Administrator. Chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 7671q.
Subpart BB-Montana

2. Section 52.1370 is amended by addingparagraph (c)(40) to read as follows:
§52.1370 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (40) The Governor ofMontana submitted aPM 10 plan for Kalispell, Montana in aletter dated November 25, 1991. The Governor ofMontana later submitted additional materials in letters dated January 11, 1994, August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995. The August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995 submittals also contain the Kalispell Contingency Measure Plan. The August 26, 1994, submittal also contains the Columbia Falls PM10 contingency measures and minor revisions to the attainment and maintenance demonstrations for the moderate PM 10 nonattainment area SIP for Columbia Falls.Finally, the August 26, 1994, submittal contains revisions to the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program regulations.

(i) Incorporation byreference. (A) Stipulations signed September 15, 1993 between the Montana Department ofHealth and Environmental Sciences and the following industries: A-1 Paving; Equity Supply Company; Flathead Road Dept. (two stipulations issued); KlinglerLumber Co.; McElroy and Wilkins; and Montana Mokko.

(B) Stipulations signed September 17, 1993 between the Montana Department ofHealth and Environmental Sciences and the following industries: Pack and Company, Inc.; Pack Concrete; and Plum Creek Inc. (Evergreen).

(C) Board Order issued on September 17, 1993, by the Montana Board of Health and Environmental Sciences enforcing emissions limitations specified by stipulations signed by both the Montana Department ofHealth and Environmental Services and participating facilities. The participating facilities included: A-1 Paving;Equity Supply Company; Flathead Road Dept. (two stipulations issued); Klingler Lumber Co.;McElroy and Wilkins; Montana Mokko; Pack and Company, Inc.; Pack Concrete; and Plum Creek Inc. (Evergreen).

(D)Flathead County Board of Commissioners Resolution No. 867B, dated April 4, 1994, adopting the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program. (E)Board Order issued May 20, 1994, by the Montana Board ofHealth and Environmental Sciences approving the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program. (F)Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program, including all regulations found in Chapter VIII, SubChapters 1-6, effective May 20, 1994. (ii) Additional material. (A) Montana Smoke Management Plan, effective April 28, 1988, which addresses prescribed burning requirements. (B) Federal tailpipe standards, which provide an ongoing benefit due to fleet
turnover.
§52.1380 [Removed and reserved]

3. Section 52.1380 is removed and reserved. [FR Doc. 96 6004Filed 3 18 96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

40 CFR Part 52 [VA0054-5006b; FRL-5441-2]
Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Interim Final Determination thatthe Richmond, Virginia Ozone Nonattainment Area is Exempt From NO× RACT Requirements for Purposes ofStaying Sanctions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing approval ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia's petition to exempt the Richmond ozone nonattainment area from the nitrogen oxides (NOx) reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirement under section 182(f) ofthe Clean Air Act (Act).Based

on the proposed approval, EPA is making an interim final determination by this action that, with respect to the NOx RACT requirement, the State, contingent upon continued monitoring ofattainment ofthe ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), has corrected the deficiency which was the basis for the sanctions clock

.This action will staythe application ofthe offset sanction which was imposed January 8, 1996 and, if final action is not taken by July 8, 1996, defer the application ofthe highway sanction. Although this action is effective upon publication, EPA will take comment on this interim final determination as well

asEPA's proposed approval ofthe State's submittal. EPA will publish a final action taking into consideration any comments received on EPA's proposed action and this interim final action. EFFECTIVE DATE. March 19, 1996.

Commentdate.Comments mustbe received by April 18, 1996. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air Programs, (3AT00), Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The state submittal and EPA's analysis for that submittal, which are the basis for this action, are available for public review atthe above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher H. Cripps, (215) 597-0545,
atthe EPA Region III address above or via e-mail at cripps.christopher@epamail.epa.gov. While information maybe requested via e-mail, comments must be submitted in writing to the EPA Region IIIaddress above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background

On July 8, 1994, EPA sent aletter to the Governor ofVirginia stating that, under section 179 ofthe Act, EPA made

a finding that Virginia failed to submit

a state implementation plan (SIP) revision forNOx RACT. This finding commenced the sanctions process outlined by section 179. The two to one (2:1) offset sanction has been in effect in the Richmond ozone nonattainment area
as ofJanuary 8, 1996 as aresult ofthe July 8, 1994 finding offailure to submit. On December 18, 1995, the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) submitted on behalf ofthe Commonwealth ofVirginia a petition pursuant to section 182(f) ofthe Act to exemptthe Richmond moderate ozone nonattainment area from the NOx RACT requirement. The petition is based upon ambient air monitoring datafor 1993, 1994 and 1995 ozone seasons which shows that the Richmond ozone nonattainment area is meeting the ozone NAAQS. This petition could not be submitted until the monitoring data for the entire 1995 ozone season was quality assured under the procedures of 40 CFR Part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). In the Proposed Rules

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11162 1996