59338 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: September 13, 2011. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24696 Filed 9–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0100; FRL–9471–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Montana; Revisions to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana—Air 

Quality, Subchapter 7, Exclusion for 

De Minimis Changes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Montana on 

June 25, 2010 and May 28, 2003. The 

revisions contain new and amended 

rules in Subchapter 7 (Permit, 

Construction, and Operation of Air 

Contaminant Sources) that pertain to the 

issuance of Montana air quality permits, 

in addition to other minor 

administrative changes to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana. The 

intended effect of this action is to 

propose to approve the rules that are 

approvable and to propose to 

disapprove the rules that are 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA.) This action is being taken under 

section 110 and 112 of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0100, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0100. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 

8P–AR, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What Authorities Apply to EPA’s 

Proposed Action 

IV. EPA’s Analysis and Proposed Actions on 

SIP Revisions 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

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

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State or Montana 

mean the State of Montana, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59339 

1Facilities or emitting units that emit airborne 

lead must obtain a Montana air quality permit if 

they are new and emit greater than five tons per 

year of airborne lead, or if they are an existing 

facility or emitting unit and a modification results 

in an increase of airborne lead by an amount greater 

than 0.6 tons per year. 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

In response to Montana legislation 

adopted in 1995, (House Joint 

Resolution No. 22, Montana’s June 25, 

2010 SIP Submittal Package, Tab 15, 

Attachment 2), on August 9, 1996, the 

Montana Board of Environmental 

Review (Board) adopted the initial de 

minimis rules, Administrative Rules of 

Montana (ARM) 16.8.1102, 16.8.1113 

and 16.8.1121 as part of Montana’s air 

quality preconstruction permit program 

rules. These rules created an exemption 

from the requirement to obtain an air 

quality permit modification for certain 

changes at a permitted facility that did 

not increase the facility’s potential 

emissions of an air pollutant by more 

than 15 tons per year, when conditions 

specified in the rule were met. On 

December 9, 1996, the Board recodified 

its rules, including the following 

recodification of the de minimis rules: 

ARM 16.8.1102 became 17.8.705; 

16.8.1113 became 17.8.733 and 

16.8.1121 became 17.8.708. On May 14, 

1999, the Board revised ARM 17.8.705 

and 17.8.733 and repealed 17.8.708. The 

Governor of Montana submitted the 

Board’s August 9, 1996 and May 14, 

1999 rulemaking actions to EPA on 

August 26, 1999, for inclusion in the 

SIP. On December 6, 2002, the Board 

repealed ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733, 

which the Board incorporated into a 

new rule, ARM 17.8.745, the State’s 

current de minimis rule. On May 28, 

2003, the Governor submitted the new 

rule to EPA for inclusion in the SIP and 

rescinded the previous submissions of 

ARM 17.8.705 and 17.8.733. 

During the State’s 1996 and 1999 

rulemaking process we expressed 

concerns with the de minimis level 

specified in the earlier versions of the 

regulation we are proposing action on 

today (see letters from EPA to the State 

of Montana dated July 25, 1996, April 1, 

1999 and October 9, 2002 in the docket). 

ARM 17.8.745 created an exemption 

from the requirement to obtain an air 

quality permit or permit modification 

for certain changes at a permitted 

facility that did not increase the 

facility’s potential emissions of an air 

pollutant by more than 15 tons per year, 

when conditions specified in the rule 

were met. Since this new rule reduced 

the stringency of the current SIP 

approved regulations, EPA indicated 

that the State must provide an analysis 

showing that the new rule will not 

interfere with compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) or Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) increments. Section 

110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot 

approve a SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

reasonable further progress (RFP), as 

defined in section 171 of the CAA, or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. Montana’s May 28, 2003 submittal 

did not provide any analysis or 

demonstration that the new rule (ARM 

17.8.745) meets these requirements. In 

EPA’s final July 8, 2011 rulemaking (76 

FR 40237) which approved revisions to 

ARM 17.8.7, no action was taken on 

Montana’s de minimis provision in 

ARM 17.8.745. Since EPA took no 

action on ARM 17.8.745 in our 76 FR 

40237 notice, we took no action on all 

references to ARM 17.8.745 in ARM 

17.8.7. 

On June 25, 2010, the Governor of 

Montana submitted the Board’s May 14, 

2010 rulemaking action to EPA for 

inclusion in the SIP. This revision 

request for ARM 17.8.745, which 

supercedes the State’s May 28, 2003 

submittal for ARM 17.8.745, created an 

exemption from the requirement to 

obtain an air quality permit or permit 

modification for certain changes at a 

permitted facility that did not increase 

the facility’s potential emissions of an 

air pollutant by more than five tons per 

year, when conditions specified in the 

rule were met. In this action EPA 

proposes to act on two submittals: (1) 

The May 28, 2003 SIP revision request; 

and (2) the June 25, 2010 SIP revision 

request, which amended the 2003 

submittal. 

The State’s May 28, 2003 submittal 

also included ARM 17.8.743, which was 

a new rule. ARM 17.8.743(1) describes 

those sources that are required to obtain 

a Montana air quality permit. ARM 

17.8.743(1) provides that any new or 

modified facility or emitting unit that 

has the potential to emit more than 25 

tons per year of any airborne pollutant, 

except lead,1 must obtain a Montana air 

quality permit except as provided in 

ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 17.8.745 before 

constructing, installing, modifying or 

operating. ARM 17.8.431(1)(b) also 

requires asphalt concrete plants, 

mineral crushers, and mineral screens 

that have the potential to emit more 

than 15 tons per year of any airborne 

pollutant, other than lead, to obtain a 

Montana air quality permit. 

This notice also contains EPA’s 

proposed action on Montana rules 

relating to the permitting threshold for 

asphalt concrete plants and mineral 

crushers. In our July 8, 2011 

rulemaking, EPA approved of all of new 

section ARM 17.8.743(1), except for the 

phrase ‘‘asphalt concrete plants and 

mineral crushers’’ where the de minimis 

permitting threshold for those sources 

was changed from five tons per year to 

15 tons per year. During the State’s 

rulemaking process we expressed 

concerns with the new permit threshold 

for asphalt concrete plants and mineral 

crushers. (See October 9, 2002, letter 

from EPA to the State of Montana in the 

docket.) Since for asphalt concrete 

plants and mineral crushers this 

revision (ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)) reduces 

the stringency of the current SIP 

approved regulations, which has a 

threshold of 5 tons, we stated that 

Montana must provide an analysis 

showing that this new rule will not 

interfere with compliance with the 

NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 

110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot 

approve a SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

reasonable further progress, as defined 

in Section 171 of the CAA, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Montana did not provide any analysis or 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

demonstration that the increased permit 

threshold, from five tons per year to 15 

tons per year, for asphalt concrete plants 

and mineral crushers meets these 

criteria. At the request of the State, we 

took no action on the phrase ‘‘asphalt 

concrete plants, mineral crushers’’ in 

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

EPA is proposing action on the May 28, 

2003, SIP revision request for 

17.8.743(1)(b) in this action. 

III. What Authorities Apply to EPA’s 

Proposed Action 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states: Each 

revision to an implementation plan 

submitted by a State under this Act 

shall be adopted by such State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision to a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act. 

The States’ obligation to comply with 

each of the NAAQS is considered as 

‘‘any applicable requirement(s) 

concerning attainment.’’ A 

demonstration is necessary to show that 

this revision will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS, including those for ozone, 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide 

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

nitrogen oxides (NOX) or any other 

requirement of the Act. 

The CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requires states to include a minor New 

Source Review (NSR) program in their 

SIP to regulate modifications and new 

construction of stationary sources 

within the area as necessary to assure 

the NAAQS are achieved. EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

51.160–164 are intended to ensure that 

new source growth is consistent with 

maintenance of the NAAQS and 40 CFR 

51.160(e) requires states to identify 

types and sizes of facilities which will 

be subject to review under their minor 

NSR program. For sources identified 

under 40 CFR 51.160(e), section 

51.160(a) requires that the SIP include 

legally enforceable procedures that 

enable a state or local agency to 

determine whether construction or 

modification of a facility, building, 

structure or installation, or combination 

of these will result in a violation of 

applicable portions of the control 

strategy; or interference with attainment 

or maintenance of a national standard in 

the state in which the proposed source 

(or modification) is located or in a 

neighboring state. Section 110(i) of the 

CAA specifically precludes states from 

changing the requirements of the SIP 

except through SIP revisions approved 

by EPA. SIP revisions will be approved 

by EPA only if they meet all 

requirements of section 110 of the CAA 

and the implementing regulations at 40 

CFR part 51. See CAA section 110(l); 40 

CFR 51.104. 

EPA recognizes that, under the 

applicable Federal regulations, states 

have broad discretion to determine the 

scope of their minor NSR programs as 

needed to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. The states have significant 

discretion to tailor minor NSR 

requirements that are consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 51. 

States may also provide a rationale for 

why the rules are at least as stringent as 

the 40 CFR part 51 requirements where 

the revisions are different from those in 

40 CFR part 51. For example, states may 

exempt from minor new source review 

certain categories of changes based on 

de minimis or administrative necessity 

grounds in accordance with the criteria 

set out in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 

636 F.2d 323, 360–361 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 

De minimis sources are presumed not to 

have an impact and their emissions 

would not prevent or interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS, even within 

nonattainment areas. 

Since there are no ambient air quality 

standards for air toxics, the area’s 

compliance with any applicable 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards, as well 

as any Federal mobile source control 

requirements under CAA sections 112 

or 202(l) would constitute an acceptable 

demonstration of noninterference for air 

toxics. 

Section 110(l) does not require a 

demonstration of noninterference for 

changes to Federal requirements that are 

not included in the SIP. A revision to 

the SIP, however, cannot interfere with 

any federally mandated program such as 

a MACT standard (or related section 112 

requirements) or Reid Vapor Pressure. 

The following is a table of the NAAQS 

that were in place at the time Montana 

submitted its new section ARM 17.8.745 

and all references to ARM 17.8.745 for 

Federal approval on May 23, 2003, as 

well as the current NAAQS levels: 

Criteria pollutant NAAQS level as of 2003 Current NAAQS level Date of revision 

Carbon Monoxide .................................. 35 ppm 1-hr Average ...........................

9 ppm 8-hr Average .............................

35 ppm 1-hr Average ...........................

9 ppm 8-hr Average .............................

August 31, 2011. 

Lead ....................................................... 1.5 ug/m3 Quarterly Average ............... 0.15 ug/m3 Rolling 3-month Average .. Nov. 12, 2008. 

Nitrogen Dioxide .................................... 0.53 ppm Annual Mean ........................ 0.53 ppm Annual Mean ........................

100 ppb 1-hour Avg .............................

Feb. 9, 2010. 

Particulate Matter (PM10) ....................... 150 ug/m3 24-hr Avg ...........................

50 ug/m3 Annual Mean ........................

150 ug/m3 24-hr Avg ........................... Oct. 17, 2006. 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) ...................... 65 ug/m3 24-hr Avg .............................

15 ug/m3 Annual Mean ........................

35 ug/m3 24-hr Avg .............................

15 ug/m3 Annual Mean ........................

Oct. 17, 2006. 

Ozone .................................................... 0.12 ppm 1-hour Avg ...........................

0.08 ppm 8-hour Avg ...........................

0.075 ppm 8-hour Avg ......................... Mar. 27, 2008. 

Sulfur Dioxide, Primary Standard .......... 0.14 ppm 24-hour Avg .........................

0.030 ppm Annual Mean ......................

75 ppb 1-hour Average ........................ June 22, 2010. 

Sulfur Dioxide, Secondary Standard ..... 0.5 ppm 3-hour Avg ............................. 0.5 ppm 3-hour Avg ............................. May 22, 1996. 

For this proposal EPA is using 

indicators such as ambient air quality 

analysis, air quality trends including air 

monitoring and air modeling and 

findings from past EPA-approved rules 

and attainment demonstrations to show 

noninterference. In this proposal we are 

taking into consideration the nature of 

the permitting requirement, its potential 

impact on the air quality in the area and 

the air quality of the area in which the 

permitting requirements apply. 

CAA Section 193, also referred to as 

the ‘‘General Savings Clause’’ requires 

that ‘‘[n]o control requirement in effect 

or required to be adopted by an order, 

settlement agreement, or plan in effect 

before November 15, 1990, in any area 

which is a nonattainment area for any 

air pollutant may be modified after 

November 15, 1990, in any manner 

unless the modification ensures 

equivalent or greater emission reduction 

of such air pollutant.’’ This proposed 

rulemaking and associated Technical 

Support Document (TSD) demonstrates 

that the requirements of CAA Section 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59341 

193 have been met through consistent 

emission reductions in nonattainment 

areas compared to the current EPA 

approved SIP. 

IV. EPA’s Analysis and Proposed 

Actions on SIP Revisions 

In this proposed rulemaking, we are 

proposing to approve new section ARM 

17.8.745 submitted by Montana on June 

25, 2010. We are also proposing to 

approve all references to ARM 17.8.745, 

submitted by Montana on May 28, 2003. 

Specifically, the following phrases in 

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

‘‘except when a permit is not required 

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

provided in ARM 17.8.745’’, the phrase 

‘‘and 17.8.745’’ in ARM 17.8.743(1) and 

the phrase ‘‘the emission increase meets 

the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a de 

minimis change not requiring a permit 

in ARM 17.8.864(1)(b). We are also 

proposing to disapprove the phrase 

‘‘asphalt concrete plants and mineral 

crushers’’ in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) 

submitted by Montana on May 28, 2003. 

ARM 17.8.745 

De minimis Exemptions from minor 

NSR. The Montana permit to construct 

rules exempt non-major sources from 

permitting requirements if they meet all 

of several criteria. These criteria are: 

(1) Any construction or changed 

conditions of operation at a facility that 

would violate any condition in the 

facility’s existing Montana air quality 

permit or any applicable rule contained 

in this chapter is prohibited, except as 

allowed in (2); 

(2) any construction or changed 

conditions of operation at a facility that 

would qualify as a major modification of 

a major stationary source under 

subchapters 8, 9, or 10 of this chapter; 

(3) any construction or changed 

conditions of operation at a facility that 

would affect the plume rise or 

dispersion characteristics of the 

emissions in a manner that would cause 

or contribute to a violation of an 

ambient air quality standard or an 

ambient air increment, as defined in 

ARM 17.8.804; 

(4) any construction or improvement 

project with a potential to emit more 

than 5 tons per year may not be 

artificially split into smaller projects to 

avoid permitting under this subchapter; 

and 

(5) emission reductions obtained 

through offsetting within a facility are 

not included when determining the 

potential emission increase from 

construction or changed conditions of 

operation, unless such reductions are 

made federally enforceable. 

ARM 17.8.745(1)(b) states that an 

owner or operator shall notify the 

department for specific changes, with 

exceptions listed in ARM 17.8.745(1)(c); 

ARM 17.8.745(1)(d) includes the 

information the owner or operator must 

submit to the department if a notice is 

required under ARM 17.8.745(1)(b); 

ARM 17.8.745(1)(e) states that the notice 

requirements under ARM 17.8.745(1)(d) 

shall not supercede any requirements 

under 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63 (New 

Source Performance Standards and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants.) 

We evaluated ARM 17.8.745 using the 

Federal regulations under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(c) and 40 CFR 51.160, 

including section 51.160(b), which 

requires states to have legally 

enforceable procedures to prevent 

construction or modification of a source 

if it would violate any SIP control 

strategies or interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

We also evaluated the new rules using 

CAA section 110(l). Section 110(l) 

provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP 

revision if the revision would interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and RFP, or any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. Therefore, EPA will approve a SIP 

revision only after a state has 

demonstrated that such a revision will 

not interfere (‘‘noninterference’’) with 

attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of 

Progress (ROP), RFP or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

EPA retains the discretion to adopt 

approaches on a case-by-case basis to 

determine what the appropriate 

demonstration of noninterference with 

attainment of the NAAQS, ROP, RFP or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA should entail. In this instance, 

EPA asked the State to submit an 

analysis showing that the approval of 

new section ARM 17.8.745 would not 

violate section 110(l) of the CAA (see 

docket number EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0100); this is also referred to as a 

‘‘demonstration of noninterference’’ 

with attainment and maintenance under 

CAA section 110(l). In addition to the 

State’s demonstration, EPA conducted 

its own analysis utilizing SIP-approved 

attainment plans, past rulemakings, 

stipulations, consent decrees, air 

modeling data and air monitoring data. 

The scope and rigor of the 

demonstration of noninterference 

conducted in this notice is appropriate 

given the air quality status of the State, 

and the potential impact of the revision 

on air quality and the pollutants 

affected. 

We interpret section 110(l) to apply to 

all requirements of the CAA and to all 

areas of the country, whether 

attainment, nonattainment, 

unclassifiable, or maintenance for one 

or more of the six criteria pollutants. 

The scope and rigor of an adequate 

section 110(l) demonstration of 

noninterference depends on the air 

quality status of the area, the potential 

impact of the revision on air quality, the 

pollutant(s) affected, and the nature of 

the applicable CAA requirements. 

As described above, the changes to 

ARM 17.8.745 (the de minimis rule) that 

would occur with EPA approval of this 

SIP revision submittal affect the entire 

State of Montana for all criteria 

pollutants, with the exception of lead. 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(a) already limits a 

modification to an existing facility or 

emitting unit that results in an increase 

in the facility or emitting unit’s 

potential to emit airborne lead by an 

amount greater than 0.6 tons per year. 

Therefore, EPA needs to review the 

effect of the exemption statewide for all 

criteria pollutants, except lead, before 

we can determine whether we can 

approve the SIP revisions under CAA 

section 110(l). 

The Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has 

been implementing the de minimis rule 

for more than 13 years as a State 

approved rule. This State approved rule 

established a 15 tons per year de 

minimis threshold for requiring a 

Montana air quality permit when a 

facility is modified. As stated earlier in 

this notice, Montana’s June 25, 2010 SIP 

revision request revises the federally 

approved SIP de minimis level from 

zero to a five tons per year threshold. 

MDEQ submitted a statewide 

demonstration of noninterference, 

which includes an air quality analysis, 

showing the effects of the de minimis 

rule on each criteria pollutant related to 

SIP control strategies or interference 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS, as well as all other related 

requirements of the CAA. The air 

quality analysis displayed past air 

quality trends and provided information 

regarding future implications of the de 

minimis rule (predictive analysis). We 

find that MDEQ used reasonable 

methods and appropriate data in 

estimating the emissions effects of the 

new exemption. The following is a 

summary of Montana’s air quality for 

criteria pollutants: 

1. Ozone 

A review of Montana’s past 

monitoring data show no violations of 

the ozone NAAQS standard since 2001 

(See TSD, pages 4–5.) Montana 

currently has no ozone nonattainment 

areas; and consequently, no 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

nonattainment area control plans with 

respect to ozone. On November 27, 2008 

Montana submitted to EPA assurances 

certifying Montana’s SIP was adequate 

for addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

revision (see docket). On July 22, 2011 

EPA partially approved ‘‘Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard; Montana’’. 

In March 2008, EPA again 

promulgated revisions to the NAAQS 

for ozone. The revision lowered the 

ambient standards from the previous 

level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 

0.075 ppm as averaged over an eighthour period. In addition, EPA’s analysis 

to support the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

revision consistent with EPA’s modeling 

of counties predicted to violate the new 

ozone standard in future years does not 

include any Montana counties. Using 

2004–2006 data, EPA conducted a 

national scale air quality modeling 

analysis to estimate future year 

attainment/nonattainment for ozone. 

Rural ozone monitoring currently 

occurs in Glacier National Park and near 

Sidney in eastern Montana. Glacier 

National Park data from 2001–2008 

shows continued attainment with the 

revised ozone standard (See TSD, 

Figures 1–3.) The Sidney monitor was 

located in proximity to oil and gas 

industry development activities. 

Monitoring began at the Sidney site in 

October, 2008, and initial data shows 

attainment with the revised 8 hour 

ozone standard. 

Data from Montana’s past monitoring 

in the Billings area (the area in which 

conditions conducive to ozone 

formation are most likely to occur) does 

not show a violation of the revised 2008 

NAAQS. Montana conducted three 

years of ozone monitoring (June– 

September, 2007–2010) in the Billings 

area (Shepherd Bard site) and two years 

of ozone season monitoring in the 

Missoula area (Frenchtown site) (See 

TSD, Figures 2–3.) Based on factors 

including, but not limited to, population 

density, area-wide vehicle miles 

traveled, and existing industrial activity 

(including oil and gas industry 

development), Montana determined 

these locations represent the areas with 

the highest potential for ozone 

formation. The design value for the 

Billings area was determined during 

2005–2007 to be 0.059 ppm or 78.7% of 

the revised ozone NAAQS. Data from 

Missoula indicated an even lower 

design value. 

Based on future estimates and 

projections of the number of de minimis 

notices (See TSD pages 36–41) and the 

minimal likely effect of the de minimis 

rule on VOC and NOX emissions and 

monitoring data that show the area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone and 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, we propose to find that 

approving the de minimus rule would 

not interfere with attainment of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the State of 

Montana. Montana has been 

implementing the de minimis level of 15 

tons since 1998 as a state-approved rule, 

and ozone levels have remained 

relatively stable. EPA proposes to find 

that raising the federally enforceable de 

minimis level from zero to five tons will 

not interfere with compliance with the 

ozone NAAQS standards. 

2. Carbon Monoxide 

The town of Billings, located in 

Yellowstone County, was designated 

nonattainment for the CO 8-hour 

NAAQS on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 9010) 

as a result of the 1977 CAA. Control 

plans were developed to bring Billings 

back into compliance following the 

nonattainment designation. The CO 

violation was attributed primarily to 

motor vehicle emissions (See TSD, 

pages 6 and 7.) 

The town of Missoula, in Missoula 

County, was designated as a 

nonattainment area for CO in 1978 

because of repeated violations of the CO 

8-hour NAAQS in 1977 and early 1978. 

Most of the problem focused on 

congested intersections and residential 

wood burning. Missoula took steps to 

reduce ambient levels of CO, including 

intersection changes, woodstove 

regulations, open burning regulations 

and the Federal motor vehicle emission 

reduction program. However, Missoula 

continued to violate the 8-hour CO 

NAAQS until 1992, when it was 

required to implement an oxygenated 

fuels program. Since the program began, 

Missoula has not recorded a violation of 

the 8-hour CO NAAQS (See TSD, Figure 

4.) 

Between 1990 and 2000, CO 

emissions in the Missoula area 

decreased by 40%. The biggest 

reductions were from on-road motor 

vehicles and woodstoves. In 2000, these 

sources represented 95% of the CO 

emissions in the Missoula 

nonattainment area. The remaining 

sources, industry, natural gas 

combustion and railroads were 

responsible for less than 5% of CO 

emissions on a typical weekday (see 72 

FR 46158; August 17, 2007). 

In 72 FR 46158, EPA approved a 

request submitted by the State of 

Montana requesting to redesignate the 

Missoula ‘‘moderate’’ CO nonattainment 

area to attainment for the CO NAAQS. 

EPA also approved the new CO 

maintenance plan, which was submitted 

on May 27, 2005 and includes 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEB) for 2000, 

2010, and 2020. 

The town of Great Falls, located in 

Cascade County, was designated 

nonattainment for CO on September 9, 

1980 (45 FR 59315). This designation 

followed sixteen violations of the 

NAAQS 8-hour CO standard. Following 

the nonattainment designation, control 

plans were developed, but none were 

EPA approved. Great Falls was 

reevaluated in September 1990, based 

on the 1990 CAA Amendments and the 

lack of exceedances in the CO 

monitoring data for 1988 and 1989. On 

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56799), Great 

Falls was listed as a ‘‘not classified’’ 

nonattainment area for CO. Great Falls 

was re-designated as attainment on May 

9, 2002 (67 FR 31143) (See TSD page 5 

for more details and Figure 5 for Great 

Falls CO monitoring data). 

A review of CO monitoring data statewide from 2002–2008 shows relatively 

constant levels of overall CO emissions 

and monitoring data shows that ambient 

CO levels remain well below the CO 

NAAQS (See TSD, Figure 5). None of 

the maintenance plans rely on Title 17, 

Chapter 8, subchapter 7 of the Montana 

Air Quality Program (MAQP) to attain 

and maintain the NAAQS, and CO 

levels in all three maintenance areas 

have fallen significantly over the years. 

Based on the minimal estimated 

increase in CO emissions due to the de 

minimis rule (See TSD pages 6–9 for 

basis and data), the relatively constant 

level of overall CO emissions, and 

monitoring data that shows that ambient 

CO levels remain well below the CO 

NAAQS, we propose to find that 

approving the de minimis rule would 

not interfere with continued attainment 

of the CO NAAQS in the State of 

Montana. 

3. Particulate Matter (PM10) 

Based on the minimal estimated 

increase in PM emissions due to the de 

minimis rule (See TSD pages 9–27), the 

relatively constant level of overall PM10

emissions, and monitoring data that 

shows that ambient PM10 levels remain 

below the PM10 NAAQS, we propose to 

find that approving the de minimis rule 

would not interfere with continued 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in the 

State of Montana. Montana does not 

have any areas with monitoring data 

showing nonattainment for PM10. (For 

supplemental information concerning 

PM10 monitoring data, refer to TSD, 

pages 9–27.) 

4. Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

Monitoring results show that Montana 

is currently in attainment for the 1997 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59343 

and 2007 PM2.5 NAAQS (See TSD, 

Figures 16–18.) Libby, Lincoln County, 

is Montana’s sole administratively 

designated PM2.5 nonattainment area 

(currently attaining the standard), that 

violated the 1997 annual standard. 

Montana does not have any other 

nonattainment areas for PM2.5.

Based on the minimal estimated 

increase in PM2.5 emissions due to the 

de minimis rule (See TSD pages 27–30 

for basis and data), the relatively 

constant level of overall PM2.5

emissions, and monitoring data that 

shows that ambient PM2.5 levels remain 

below the 24-hour and annual NAAQS 

for both the 1997 standard and the 2006 

standard, we propose to find that 

approving the de minimis rule would 

not interfere with continued attainment 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the State of 

Montana. 

5. Sulfur Dioxide 

The Billings/Laurel Federal 

Implementation Plan (73 FR 21418), and 

the portions of the Billings/Laurel SO2

Control Plan EPA approved, remain 

valid and enforceable, regardless of the 

existence of the de minimis rule. As 

such, we propose to find that approving 

the de minimis rule would not interfere 

with continued attainment of the SO2

NAAQS in the State of Montana (See 

TSD, pages 31–33 for basis and data.) 

Montana does not have any other 

nonattainment areas for SO2.

6. Nitrogen Dioxide 

Montana currently has no NO2

nonattainment areas; and consequently, 

no nonattainment area control plans 

with respect to NO2. Past monitoring of 

ambient NO2 reveals a history of 

exceedingly low concentrations (See 

TSD, Figures 20–22.) No discernable 

trend was observed during the 

monitoring period. 

MDEQ has installed monitoring 

equipment, including NO2 monitors, in 

response to the increase in oil and gas 

development in the eastern part of the 

State and in anticipation of the recently 

proposed revision to the NO2 NAAQS 

(See TSD, Figure 22.) EPA strengthened 

the NO2 NAAQS in January 2010 by 

establishing a new 1-hr standard at 100 

ppb (represented by the 3-yr average of 

the 98th percentile from the annual 

distribution of daily max 1-hr averages) 

and retained the previous annual 

standard of 53 ppb. 

EPA proposes to find that the de 

minimis rule will not interfere with 

continued attainment of the NO2

NAAQS in the State of Montana, even 

in areas with increased oil and gas 

development. 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) 

The May 28, 2003 SIP revision for 

ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) for asphalt concrete 

plants and mineral crushers reduces the 

stringency of the current SIP approved 

regulations. We commented that the 

State must provide an analysis showing 

that this new rule will not interfere with 

compliance with the NAAQS or PSD 

increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA 

states that EPA cannot approve a SIP 

revision that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress, as defined in section 171 of 

the CAA, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Montana did 

not provide any analysis or 

demonstration that the increased permit 

threshold for asphalt concrete plants 

and mineral crushers, from 5 tons per 

year to 15 tons per year, for any airborne 

pollutant, other than lead, regulated 

under Chapter 8 of the ARM meets these 

criteria. 

EPA has concerns about a 

modification size cutoff (15 tons per 

year) that the State proposes as de 

minimis. Fifteen tons per year 

represents the major modification 

significance level for one criteria 

pollutant (PM10) and exceeds the 

significance level for another criteria 

pollutant (PM2.5) as well as for several 

non-criteria pollutants. It also exceeds 

the major source threshold for 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 

Because of these reasons, EPA 

determines that the revision to ARM 

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

sense of having a trivial environmental 

effect. EPA has agreed in several 

rulemaking actions that certain 

activities with emissions of 5 tons per 

year or less may be considered 

‘‘insignificant.’’ However, EPA never 

before denoted emissions increases as 

high as 15 tons per year as de minimis. 

Since the State did not provide an 

analysis as to why emission increases as 

high as 15 tons per year should be 

considered as having a trivial 

environmental effect, EPA finds no basis 

for approving this revision. Therefore, 

EPA lacks sufficient available 

information to determine that the 

proposed SIP relaxation would not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS, PSD 

increment, or any other requirement of 

the Act. If the State submits a new SIP 

with the analysis, we would evaluate 

such an analysis. 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

Based on the above discussion, EPA 

proposes to find that the addition of 

new rule ARM 17.8.745 would not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any of the NAAQS in 

the State of Montana and would not 

interfere with any other applicable 

requirement of the Act (See TSD for 

basis); and thus, are approvable under 

CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we 

propose to approve ARM 17.8.745 as 

submitted on June 25, 2010 by the State 

of Montana. 

We are proposing to approve new 

section ARM 17.8.745; and thus, we are 

also proposing to approve all references 

to ARM 17.8.745. This includes: The 

phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), 

respectively, (1) ‘‘except when a permit 

is not required under ARM 17.8.745’’ 

and (2) ‘‘except as provided in ARM 

17.8.745’’ and the phrase ‘‘and 

17.8.745’’ in 17.8.743(1), submitted on 

May 28, 2003; and the phrase ‘‘the 

emission increase meets the criteria in 

ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change 

not requiring a permit’’ in 17.8.764(1)(b) 

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

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

phrase ‘‘asphalt concrete plants and 

mineral crushers’’ in ARM 

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

2003. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds, Incorporation by 

reference. 

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

Dated: September 16, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24697 Filed 9–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0631; FRL–9470–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Transportation Conformity 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by Maryland to 

establish transportation conformity 

regulations. In the Final Rules section of 

this Federal Register, EPA is approving 

the State’s SIP submittal as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by October 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0631 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0631, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Planning Programs, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011– 

0631. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI (or otherwise 

protected) through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin Kotsch, (215) 814–3335, or by 

e-mail at kotsch.martin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

Dated: August 29, 2011. 

W.C. Early, Acting 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24527 Filed 9–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS