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

economic reasonableness of State

actions. The CAA forbids the EPA to

base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. 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 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated today does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

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), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

42 U.S.C. 7607(b), petitions for judicial

review of this action must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 20, 1996.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 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.

Jack W. McGraw,

A ctin g Regional A dm inistrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations 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 7671q.

Subpart G-Colorado

2. Section 52.320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(73) to read as

follows:

§52.320 Identification of plan.

)* * ***

(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 of Air Pollution. This revisions

requires the implementation of a basic

motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program in the urbanized

areas of El Paso (Colorado Springs),

Larimer (Fort Collins), and Weld

(Greeley) Counties meeting the

requirements of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. This material is

being incorporated by reference for the

enforcement of Colorado's basic I/M

program only.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(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 6005 Filed 3 18 96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

40 CFR Part 52

[MT7-1-5487a; MT26-2-6874a; FRL-5438-

9]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of PM10 Implementation

Plan for Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA approves the state

implementation plan (SIP) for the

Kalispell, Montana nonattainment area,

the Flathead County Air Pollution

Program, and a Board Order setting

emission limits at nine Kalispell area

stationary sources, submitted with

letters dated November 25, 1991,

January 11, 1994, August 26, 1994 and

July 18, 1995, to achieve attainment of

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for particulate

matter with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers (PMio). The SIP was

submitted to satisfy certain federal

Clean Air Act requirements for an

approvable moderate nonattainment

area PM 10 SIP for Kalispell. In addition,

EPA also approves the SIP revisions

submitted by the State of Montana on

August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995, to

satisfy the Federal Clean Air Act

requirement to submit contingency

measures for the Kalispell and Columbia

Falls moderate PM 10 nonattainment

areas. The Columbia Falls submittal also

incorporates minor revisions to the

attainment and maintenance

demonstrations for the Columbia Falls

moderate PM 10 nonattainment area SIP

into the Montana SIP. Since the SIP still

adequately demonstrates timely

attainment and maintenance of the PM 1 o

standard, EPA approves these revisions.

EPA is also deleting an obsolete

section of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) which applied to

further requirements for the Butte total

suspended particulates (TSP) plan.

DATES: This action is effective on May

20, 1996 unless adverse comments are

received by April 18, 1996. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Richard R. Long, Director,

Air Program, EPA Region VIII, at the

address listed below. Copies of the

State's submittal and other information

are available for inspection during

normal business hours at the 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

of Health and Environmental Sciences,

Air Quality Bureau, 826 Front Street,

Helena, Montana 59620-0901. The

information may be 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) of the Clean Air Act, upon

enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990.1 See 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 81.327

(specifying designation for Flathead

County). The air quality planning

requirements for moderate PM 10

nonattainment areas are set out in

Subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the 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's preliminary

views on how EPA intends to review

SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under

Title I of the 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 a more detailed discussion

of the interpretations of Title I advanced

in this final action and the supporting

rationale. In this rulemaking action on

the Montana moderate PM 10 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, among other

things, the following provisions by

November 15, 1991:

1 The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act

made significant changes to the Act. See Public Law

No. 101 549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are

to the Clean Air Act, as amended ("the Act"). The

Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S.

Code at 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401, et seq. 2 Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to

nonattainment areas generally and Subpart 4

contains provisions specifically applicable to PM1 0

nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and

Subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to

clarify the relationship among these provisions in

the "General Preamble" and, as appropriate, 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, of reasonably 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

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994, or a demonstration

that attainment by that 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 of PM 10 also apply to

major stationary sources of PM10

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 of the Act.

Some provisions were due at a later

date. States with initial moderate

nonattainment areas were required to

submit a permit program for the

construction and operation of new and

modified major stationary sources of

PM 10 by June 30, 1992, [see section

189(a)]. States containing initial

moderate PM 10 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 of the Kalispell

PM 10 nonattainment area control plan

including the Flathead County Air

Pollution Control Program. (EPA earlier

took action on certain portions of the

Program with the approval of the

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 of the Kalispell PM 10

Contingency Measure Plan. 3) Approval

of the Columbia Falls PM 10 Contingency

Measure Plan. 4) Deletion of an obsolete

section of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) which applied to

further requirements for the Butte total

suspended particulates (TSP) plan. 5)

Approval of Montana's New Source

Review rules for Kalispell since

precursors are determined to not

contribute significantly. Below is a

description of each of these actions.

1. Kalispell PM 10 SIP. EPA is

approving the Kalispell PM10

nonattainment area control plan and

rules of the Flathead County Air

Pollution Control Plan found in the

Flathead County Air Pollution Control

Program originally submitted by the

Governor on November 25, 1991, with

revisions submitted on January 11,

1994, August 26, 1994 and July 18,

1995. Flathead County contains two

PM 10 nonattainment areas for which

SIPs were due in November 1991:

Columbia Falls and Kalispell. The

Flathead County Air Pollution 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 of the rules is

approved into the SIP. The July 18, 1995

submittal contained revised control

effectiveness calculations.

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out

provisions governing EPA's review of

SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566).

In today's action, EPA is granting

approval of those elements of the

Kalispell PM1 0 plan 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

of the Act.

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 11154 1996
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

A. Analysis of State Submission

1. Procedural Background. The Act

requires States to observe certain

procedural requirements in developing

implementation plans and plan

revisions for submission to EPA. Section

1 10(a)(2) of the Act provides that each

implementation plan submitted by a

State must be adopted after reasonable

notice and public hearing.3 Section

110(1) of the 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 further EPA review and action

(see section 1 10(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565).

The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP

submittals are set out at 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix V. The EPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60

days of receiving a submission.

However, a submittal is deemed

complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made

by EPA six months after receipt of the

submission.

To entertain public comment on the

PM 10 implementation plan for Kalispell,

the State of Montana held a public

hearing on November 15, 1991. The

State supplied evidence that adequate

public notice for these hearings was

provided. Following the public

hearings, the Board of Health 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 PM 10 SIP were signed by

the Governor on November 25, 1991.

The final plan was received by EPA on

December 4, 1991, as a proposed

revision to the SIP.

The SIP revision and subsequent

submittals from the Governor were

reviewed by EPA to determine

completeness in accordance with the

completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR

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 of the

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

a letter was forwarded to the Governor

of that 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) of the Act requires that

nonattainment plan provisions include

a comprehensive, accurate, current

inventory of actual emissions from all

sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area. The emission

inventory also should include a

comprehensive, accurate, and current

inventory of allowable emissions in the

area. Because the submission of such

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% of the

PM 10 emissions on an annual basis.

Annually, paved road dust accounts for

80.16% of the PM 10 emissions, with

unpaved road dust responsible for

7.45%. Industrial sources and

residential woodburning account for

5.54% and 4.69% of the total emissions

respectively. Re-entrained road dust is

the primary source of emissions 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 of the attainment

demonstration for this area consistent

with the requirements of sections

172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act. 4

For further details see the Kalispell

PM10 SIP TSD for this action.

3. RACM (Including RACT). As noted,

the initial moderate PM 10 nonattainment

areas must submit provisions to assure

that RACM (including RACT) 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 of EPA's

interpretation of the 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, their control

measures and associated emissions

reduction credit, and effective dates.

Source Control [ PM10 emissions reduction I Effective 5

Re-entrained road dust ............. Flathead County Rules:

501 Sanding & chip sealing standards and 505 Street Sweeping and Flushing.

502 Construction and Demolition Activity ..................................

503 Pavem ent 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 larger than 1/

4 acre).

Prescribed burning .................... Flathead County Rules:

201 (O pen Burning) D efinitions .................................................

202 M ate ria ls P ro hibited ............................................................

203 Minor Open Burning Source Requirements .......................

204 Major Open Burning Source Requirements .......................

205 Special O pen Burning Periods ...........................................

206 F ire Fighte r T ra ining ...........................................................

207 Conditional Air Quality Open Burning Permits ...................

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

2 0 9 P e rm it F e e s ........................................................................

3 Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that 4 EPA issued guidance on PM 10 emissions

plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the inventories prior to the enactment of the Clean Air

applicable provisions of Section 110(a)(2). Act Amendments in the form of the 1987 PM 10

SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided

62% (credit taken only for winter & spring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 PM10 emissions 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 or Coal 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)..

M otor vehicle exhaust ............... Federal tailpipe standards ......................................................... (no credit taken) ...................... O ngoing

due to fleet

turnover.

5 Note that the effective date of most of the following regulations is past the RACM/RACT implementation date of December 10, 1993. The ma- jority of these regulations were effective in 1991. However, as indicated elsewhere in this action, minor revisions were made to some of the regulations. The table lists the most recent effective date of these regulations.

A more detailed discussion of the

source/source category contributions

and their associated control measures

(including available 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 PM 10 nonattainment plan

resulted in the attainment of the PM10

NAAQS by December 31, 1994. By this

action EPA is approving the Kalispell

PM 10 plan'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) of the 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 40 CFR

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 are based

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, at the time of the 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 are removed,

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 of low stacks

and fugitive type emissions. The intent

of the dispersion modeling was to see if

violations of the standard would occur

in the immediate vicinity of the

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 o NAAQS 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

of 47.9 gLg/m 3 would be achieved by

1995,6 showing attainment of the

annual PMlo NAAQS. The annual

NAAQS was also demonstrated to be

maintained in future years. In the July

18, 1995 submittal, the Governor

provided a revised 24-hour attainment

demonstration which used a revised

6The Clean Air Act calls for attainment by

December 31, 1994. Section 188(c)(1). EPA

interprets the State's demonstration as providing for

attainment by January 1, 1995. EPA is approving the

State's demonstration on the basis of the de

minimis differential between the two dates. The

State should promptly inform EPA if EPA has in

any manner misinterpreted the date by which the

State has demonstrated attainment in 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the annual PM10

standard would result. Monitored

annual values reported through 1994

have shown attainment. EPA accepts

this analysis for demonstrating

attainment of the annual standard.

Dispersion Modeling: As pointed out

earlier, because of its concern that the

majority of the 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 of the PM10 standard. The

Montana Department of Health and

Environmental Services (MDHES)

conducted dispersion modeling using

stationary source allowable emission

rates to determine if violations of the

PM 10 NAAQS would result in future

years. Based upon the results of the

dispersion modeling, several stationary

source permits 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 of the

standard by December 31, 1994. The 24-

hour PM 10 NAAQS allows one expected

exceedance of the standard per year.

Thus, in modeling five years of data,

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 of the 24-hour standard of

150 gg/m 3. In addition, the Kalispell

dispersion modeling results indicated

attainment of the 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 of PM10 also

apply to major stationary sources of

PM 10 precursors, unless EPA determines

such sources do not contribute

significantly to PMlo levels over the

NAAQS in that area (see section 189(e)

of the Act). An analysis of air quality

and emissions data for the Kalispell

nonattainment area indicates that

exceedances of the 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 1 o or precursor emissions. Based

upon the types of sources in the area,

EPA believes that the overall

contribution of PMlo precursors 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 of this

determination is to exclude these

sources from the applicability of PMlo

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 NSR permitting

regulations for sources of PM10

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 of this

determination that PM 1 0 precursors are

insignificant is to exclude major

stationary sources of PM 10 precursors in

Kalispell from the applicability of PMlo

nonattainment area control

requirements, including nonattainment

NSR permitting. Thus, based on this

determination, the State's

nonattainment NSR regulations for

Kalispell are considered fully approved.

Further discussion of the analyses and

supporting rationale for EPA's finding

are contained in the TSD accompanying

this action. Note that while EPA is

making a general finding for this area,

this finding is based on the current

character of the area including, for

example, the existing mix of sources in

the area. It is possible, therefore, that

future growth could change the

significance of precursors in the area.

The EPA intends to issue future

guidance addressing such potential

changes in the significance of precursor

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 by December

31, 1994, (see section 189(c) of the Act).

The State of Montana's PM 1 0 SIP

indicates that the MDHES and the

Flathead County Health Department

(FCHD) will submit to EPA a reasonable

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 year by August 1st each year.

These annual progress reports shall

provide information on the effectiveness

of the control strategies.

To monitor the progress of the road

dust control rules, a report will be

completed on the type and amount of

de-icing and sanding material applied,

the number of applications of de-icing

and sanding materials, the dates of

application of each 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

will be submitted.

All exceedances of the PM10 standard

will be evaluated and a determination

made as to the source of the exceedance.

Changes in the air quality program to

prevent further exceedances and a

timetable for implementation will be

developed. Any other EPA 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 1 10(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 of control measures and

other elements in the SIP (see section

1 10(a)(2)(C) of the 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 of the 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

for submittal of this SIP. However, the de minimis

timing differential 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. Using December 31, 1994 as the first

milestone, EPA has identified March 31, 1995 as the

actual deadline for the submittal of the milestone

report (per section 189(c)(2) of the Act). The State

of Montana 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, if the FCHD fails to

administer the program. Since the

program has been approved by the

Montana Board of Health 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 of Montana, 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 of a 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 of a Board

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).

If a State relies on a local government

for the implementation of any plan

provision, then, according to section

1 10(a)(2)(E)(iii) of the 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 of the Montana Code

Annotated, as amended (1991). On

November 15, 1991, the MBHES issued

a Board 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 of the 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 by the 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

a hearing before the MBHES before such

an assumption of jurisdiction 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 TSD for

the Kalispell PM 10 plan contains further

information on enforceability

requirements, responsibilities, and a

discussion of the personnel and funding

intended to support effective

implementation of the control measures.

2. Contingency Measures. The Clean

Air Act requires states containing PM 1 o

nonattainment areas to adopt

contingency measures that will take

effect without further action by the State

or EPA upon a determination by EPA

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 of other 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 of the

NAAQS and the additional formal air

quality planning following the

determination (57 FR 13511).

Section 172(c)(9) of the 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 at 57 FR 13512) to

mean that no further rulemaking

activities by the State or EPA would be

needed to implement the contingency

measures. In general, EPA expects all

actions needed to effect full

implementation of the measures to

occur within 60 days after EPA notifies

the State of its failure to attain the

standard or make RFP.

EPA recognizes that certain actions,

such as notification of sources,

modification of permits, etc., may be

needed before some measures could be

implemented. However, States must

show that their contingency measures

can be implemented with minimal

further administrative action on their

part and with no additional rulemaking

action such as public hearing or

legislative review.

A. Kalispell PM 10 Contingency Measures

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 FIP clocks were

activated. In response to this finding,

the Governor of Montana 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 PM 10 nonattainment area SIP.

1. Procedural Background (see Section

II.1.A.1). The PM 1 o contingency

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 of sanding 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 of Environmental 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 of adopting the local rules and

technical analysis information into the

Montana SIP. The Governor

subsequently submitted the outstanding

portions of the Kalispell PM 10

contingency measure SIP revision to

EPA with a letter dated July 18, 1995.

After reviewing the submittal for

conformance with the completeness

criteria in 40 CFR 51, Appendix V, EPA

determined the submittal to be

administratively and technically

complete and notified the Governor of

such determination in a letter dated July

18, 1995.

2. Contingency Measures. The PM10

contingency measure plan for Kalispell

was submitted by the Governor to EPA

with letters dated August 26, 1994, and

July 18, 1995. 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 of County

Commissioners passed Resolution No.

867B which amended the Flathead

County Air Pollution Control Program.

The amendments include Rule 507

which is a contingency plan that

implements the mandatory use of liquid

de-icer on all roads, with the exception

of priority routes with extraordinary

circumstances, within the Kalispell Air

Pollution Control District. Rule 507

provides that within 60 days of

notification by EPA that the SIP for the

Kalispell moderate PM 10 nonattainment

area failed to timely attain the PM 1o

NAAQS or make reasonable further

progress the following will occur:

Within the Kalispell 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

circumstances, priority routes must use

sanding material which has a durability

(as defined by the Montana Modified

L.A. Abrasion test) of less than or equal

to seven or other testing method which

the Control Board deems suitable, and

has a content of material less than 200

mesh, as determined by standard wet

sieving methods, which is less than

three percent oven dry weight.

b. Effectiveness of the Contingency

Measure. If the re-entrained road dust

contingency measure is implemented,

the control efficiency of the re-entrained

road dust measures will be 81% in the

24-hour attainment demonstration. This

calculation takes into account the use of

liquid de-icer, the current requirements

for use of washed sand, and the existing

street sweeping measures (see the TSD

for the Kalispell PM 1 o SIP for further

details on the existing re-entrained road

dust strategies). Total reduction from

the contingency measure is calculated to

be 10632 more pounds of PM 10 reduced

per day than without the contingency

measure.

EPA believes this contingency

measure is approvable. The control

measures implemented in the PM 1 o SIP

are projected to achieve more emissions

reductions than needed to demonstrate

attainment of the 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 PM 10 NAAQS is 150 gg/m 3 , this

established safety margin further

supports the reasonableness of this

contingency measure.

3. Enforceability Issues. The Flathead

County Air Pollution Control Program

was established in accordance with the

requirements of Section 75-2-301 of the

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 PM1 0

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 of Montana has a program that will

ensure that the contingency measures

contained in the Kalispell PM 10 SIP are

adequately enforced. EPA believes 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 of the

personnel and funding intended to

support effective implementation of the

control measures.

B. Columbia Falls PM 10 Contingency

Measures, Control Strategy and

Attainment Demonstration Revisions

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 FIP clocks were

activated. In response to this finding,

the Governor of Montana 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 PM 10 nonattainment area SIP.

1. Procedural Background (see Section

II.1.A.1)

The PM 1 0 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 a public hearing

and adopted the contingency measures

(Resolution 867A). This county

resolution also had included expanding

the Columbia Falls area of sanding 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 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 in 40 CFR 51, Appendix V, EPA

determined the submittal to be

administratively and technically

complete and notified the Governor of

such determination in a letter dated

November 1, 1994.

The Governor of Montana submitted

revisions to the SIP for Columbia Falls

with a letter dated August 26, 1994. The

revisions address contingency measures

and incorporate minor modifications 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 for the

implementation of RACM, including

RACT. The measures targeted reentrained road dust, residential wood

burning, prescribed burning, industry,

and motor vehicle 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 of the 24-

hour standard. EPA approved Montana's

attainment and maintenance

demonstrations for the Columbia Falls

moderate PM 10 nonattainment area on

April 14, 1994 (59 FR 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 the background particulate

emissions prior to applying reductions

due to the street sweeping program. The

revised calculation yields a minor

increase of 32 lbs per day PM10

emissions over the original

demonstration, an amount

approximately equal to 1% of the

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/m 3, and an annual

attainment value of 31.1 gg/m 3, both

well below the respective NAAQS. The

SIP continues to adequately

demonstrate timely attainment and

maintenance of the PM 10 NAAQS in

8 The Clean Air Act calls for attainment by

December 31, 1994. Section 188(c)(1). EPA

interprets the State's demonstration as providing for

attainment of the PM1 O NAAQS by January 1, 1995.

EPA approved the State's demonstration on the

basis of the de minimis differential between the two

dates.

Columbia Falls and satisfies the

requirement to provide for the

implementation of RACM (including

RACT). For further detail concerning the

calculations, see the TSD for this action.

4. Contingency Measures

The PM 1 0 contingency measure plan

for Columbia Falls was submitted by the

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 of County

Commissioners passed Resolution No.

867B which amended the Flathead

County Air Pollution Control Program.

The amendments include Rule 607

which is a contingency plan that

implements the mandatory use of liquid

de-icer on all roads, with the exception

of priority routes with extraordinary

circumstances, within the Columbia

Falls Air Pollution Control District. Rule

607 provides that within 60 days of

notification by EPA that the SIP for the

Columbia Falls moderate PM 10

nonattainment area failed to timely

attain the PM 10 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, of less than

or equal to 7, or other testing method

which the Control Board deems

suitable, and has a content of material

less than 200 mesh, as determined by

standard wet sieving methods, which is

less than 3.0% oven dry weight.

b. Effectiveness of the Contingency

Measure. If the re-entrained road dust

contingency measure is implemented,

the control efficiency of the re-entrained

road dust measures will be 58% in the

24-hour attainment demonstration (an

increase of 28% over the control

efficiency of the re-entrained road dust

measures in the original SIP attainment

demonstration). This calculation takes

into account the use of the 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, of the Columbia Falls PM 10 SIP,

available at the EPA address at the

beginning of this document, for further

details on the existing re-entrained road

dust strategies). Total reduction from

the contingency measure is calculated to

be 605 more pounds of PMlo reduced

per day than without the contingency

measure.

EPA believes that this contingency

measure is approvable. The control

measures implemented in the PMlo SIP

are projected to achieve more emissions

reductions than needed to demonstrate

attainment of the PM 10 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 150 jag/m 3 , this

established safety margin further

supports the reasonableness of these

contingency measures.

5. Enforceability Issues

The Flathead County Air Pollution

Control Program was established in

accordance with the requirements of

Section 75-2-301 of the 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 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 PM 1 0 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 Program is in

effect now. The State of Montana 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 will be adequate.

The TSD for this action contains further

information on enforceability

requirements, responsibilities, and a

discussion of the personnel and funding

intended to support effective

implementation of the control measures.

3. Deletion of Butte TSP Requirement.

40 CFR 52.1380 contains a conditional

approval of a 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, a revised 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 of the PM 10 NAAQS for the

Butte moderate PM 10 nonattainment

area (March 11, 1994, 59 FR 11550).

Thus, since TSP is no longer the

regulated form of particulate matter and

has been replaced by PM 1 o, and since

Montana has a federally approved SIP

meeting all requirements of the CAA for

the Butte PM 10 nonattainment area, EPA

finds 40 CFR 52.1380 obsolete and is

deleting the section.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving Montana's Kalispell

SIP revision 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 of Montana has

demonstrated that the Kalispell

moderate PM 10 nonattainment area will

attain the PM 10 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 by the Governor with a

letter dated August 26, 1994 with

additional materials submitted on July

18, 1995. The plan for the Columbia

Falls PM 10 nonattainment area was

submitted by the Governor with a letter

dated August 26, 1994. This submittal

also included minor revisions 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 of its

publication, adverse or critical

comments are received.

If such comments are received, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing 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.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this action will be

effective on May 20, 1996.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to a SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

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, et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any 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 of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

Approvals of SIP 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 of the Federal-state relationship

under the Clean Air Act, preparation of

a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. 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) 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 May 20, 1996.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review 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), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

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

must undertake 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 of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under Section 110

and subchapter I, part D, of the Clean

Air Act. 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 of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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,

A ctin g Regional Administrator.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations 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 7671q.

Subpart BB-Montana

2. Section 52.1370 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(40) to read as

follows:

§52.1370 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(40) The Governor of Montana

submitted a PM 10 plan for Kalispell,

Montana in a letter dated November 25,

1991. The Governor of Montana 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 PM 10 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 by reference.

(A) Stipulations signed September 15,

1993 between the Montana Department

of Health and Environmental Sciences

and the following industries: A-1

Paving; Equity Supply Company;

Flathead Road Dept. (two stipulations

issued); Klingler Lumber Co.; McElroy

and Wilkins; and Montana Mokko.

(B) Stipulations signed September 17,

1993 between the Montana Department

of Health 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 of Health 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 of Health 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 6004 Filed 3 18 96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

40 CFR Part 52

[VA 0054-5006b; FRL-5441-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

Interim Final Determination that the

Richmond, Virginia Ozone

Nonattainment Area is Exempt From

NO× RACT Requirements for Purposes

of Staying 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 of the 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) of the 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

of attainment of the ozone national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS),

has corrected the deficiency which was

the basis for the sanctions clock . This

action will stay the application of the

offset sanction which was imposed

January 8, 1996 and, if final action is not

taken by July 8, 1996, defer the

application of the highway sanction.

Although this action is effective upon

publication, EPA will take comment on

this interim final determination as well

as EPA's proposed approval of the

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.

Comment date. Comments must be

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 at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher H. Cripps, (215) 597-0545,

at the EPA Region III address

above or via e-mail at

cripps.christopher @epamail.epa.gov.

While information may be requested via

e-mail, comments must be submitted in

writing to the EPA Region III address

above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On July 8, 1994, EPA sent a letter to

the Governor of Virginia stating that,

under section 179 of the Act, EPA made

a finding that Virginia failed to submit

a state implementation plan (SIP)

revision for NOx 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 of January 8, 1996 as a result of the

July 8, 1994 finding of failure to submit.

On December 18, 1995, the Director of

the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality (VA DEQ)

submitted on behalf of the

Commonwealth of Virginia a petition

pursuant to section 182(f) of the Act to

exempt the Richmond moderate ozone

nonattainment area from the NOx RACT

requirement. The petition is based upon

ambient air monitoring data for 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