23180 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

November 6, 2009, is conditionally 

approved for Clean Air Act sections 

110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), and (J)(iii) only 

as it relates to the aspect of the PSD 

program pertaining to providing adding 

NOX as a precursor for ozone, and 

addressing the changes made to 40 CFR 

part 51.116 in the October 20, 2010 

rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning 

emissions of fine particulate. On 

February 18, 2016, the State of Rhode 

Island supplemented this submittal with 

a commitment to address these 

requirements for PSD. 

(b) Disapprovals. (1) 1997 Ozone 

NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP submitted on December 14, 2007, is 

disapproved for Clean Air Act element 

110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation 

Plan is already in place at 40 CFR 

52.2080. 

(2) 2008 Ozone NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on January 

2, 2013, is disapproved for Clean Air 

Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A Federal 

Implantation Plan is already in place at 

40 CFR 52.2080. 

(3) 2008 Lead NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on October 

26, 2011, is disapproved for Clean Air 

Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A Federal 

Implantation Plan is already in place at 

40 CFR 52.2080. 

(4) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS: 

The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP 

submitted on January 2, 2013, is 

disapproved for Clean Air Act element 

110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation 

Plan is already in place at 40 CFR 

52.2080. 

(5) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on 

September 10, 2008, is disapproved for 

Clean Air Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A 

Federal Implantation Plan is already in 

place at 40 CFR 52.2080. 

(6) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on 

November 6, 2009, is disapproved for 

Clean Air Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A 

Federal Implantation Plan is already in 

place at 40 CFR 52.2080. 

§ 52.2078 [Amended] 

■ 7. Section 52.2078 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a). 

§ 52.2079 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 8. Section 52.2079 is removed and 

reserved. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08913 Filed 4–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0556, FRL–9945–14– 

Region 8] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 

Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Montana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions from the State of Montana to 

demonstrate the State meets 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for ozone on March 12, 

2008, lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008, 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 

2010, sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 

2010 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

on December 14, 2012. The EPA is also 

approving 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is 

conditionally approving CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J) with regard to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and element 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2, and 2006 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. The EPA is disapproving 

element 4 of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2006 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, the EPA is 

approving SIP revisions the State 

submitted to update Montana’s PSD 

program and provisions regarding state 

boards. 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 20, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0556. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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. The 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, 303–312–6563, 

fulton.abby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Infrastructure requirements for SIPs 

are provided in section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

specific infrastructure elements that a 

SIP must contain or satisfy. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are described in detail in our 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) published 

on January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4225). 

In our NPR, the EPA proposed to 

approve, conditionally approve, take no 

action on, and disapprove infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 1997, 2006 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State’s 

certifications. In this rulemaking, we are 

taking final action to approve 

infrastructure elements from the State’s 

certifications. We are also conditionally 

approving elements (C), D(i)(II) element 

3 and (J) with respect to the requirement 

to have a PSD program that meets the 

requirements of part C of Title 1 of the 

Act. The EPA is taking final action to 

disapprove (D)(i)(II) element 4 for the 

2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are 

also taking final action to approve 

revisions to the Administrative Rules of 

Montana (ARM) from the August 21, 

2012 submittal and conditionally 

approve a revision from the March 24, 

2015 submittal to bring Montana’s PSD 

program up to date with respect to 

current requirements for PM2.5. In this 

action, we are taking final action to 

approve new ARM and sections of the 

Montana Code Annotated submitted on 

December 17, 2015 to satisfy 

requirements of element (E)(ii), state 

boards. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received two comment letters 

during the public comment period. One 

comment letter was submitted 

anonymously and the other by Andrea 

Issod from the Sierra Club 

Environmental Law Program (Sierra 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 23181 

1See ‘‘Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements of the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 76 FR 81371 (Dec. 28, 2011). 

Club) and Anne Hedges from the 

Montana Environmental Information 

Center (MEIC). We also received a 

request for comment period extension 

from Andrea Issod from the Sierra Club. 

The EPA contacted the commenter and 

after a short discussion, the commenter 

decided not to follow through with their 

extension request. 

Comment 1: The EPA cannot approve 

the PSD portions of all these 

Infrastructure SIPs until EPA has finally 

approved the Class I and Class II PM2.5

increments into the Montana SIP. I 

appreciate EPA’s efforts to address this 

issue. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that adoption of PM2.5

increments is a necessary requirement 

when assessing a state’s PSD program 

for the purposes of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, and (J). 

In this action, we are approving the 

necessary portions of Montana’s August 

21, 2012 submission to satisfy the 

requirements of the October 20, 2010 

rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). 

Montana adopted 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1), 

which includes Class I and Class II 

increments, into ARM 17.8.804(1). By 

meeting this structural requirement for 

the PSD program in its SIP, the State has 

also met the relevant Infrastructure SIP 

elements relevant to the PSD program. 

Accordingly, the EPA concludes that the 

issue identified by the commenter has 

been properly addressed. 

Comment 2: The Sierra Club and 

Montana Environmental Information 

Center (MEIC) Comment Letter states 

the following on pages 2, 3, 26 and 27: 

Sierra Club and Montana Environmental 

Information Center (MEIC) submit to EPA 

that the Montana PSD program as 

implemented by MTDEQ fails to require PSD 

permits for all modified major sources that 

are required to be covered under the SIP PSD 

permitting program pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.166, due to MTDEQ’s policy 

interpretations of its PSD program that result 

in rules that are less stringent and thus less 

inclusive than the federal PSD program. 

Further, because the MTDEQ’s 

implementation of the Montana PSD program 

does not cover all PSD-subject modified 

major sources, MTDEQ’s implementation of 

its PSD program also fails to cover all 

regulated [New Source Review] NSR 

pollutants including GHG pollutants for 

which the PSD permitting requirements only 

apply to ‘‘anyway sources,’’ i.e., sources that 

would otherwise be subject to PSD 

permitting for other pollutants. 

MTDEQ is following policy interpretations 

that differ from its EPA-approved PSD rule 

incorporated into the Montana SIP (which 

tracks EPA’s 1980 PSD regulations) and as a 

result, Montana’s implementation of the PSD 

program is less inclusive and less stringent 

than the 1980 federal PSD rules because it 

fails to include all physical or operational 

changes that would be major modifications 

under the federal PSD requirements. Further, 

MTDEQ’s policy interpretations mean that its 

implementation of the PSD program is less 

stringent than the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002 

(67 Fed. Reg. 80186), as amended by EPA on 

June 13, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 32526) for 

physical or operational changes at existing 

major sources. 

Although EPA has stated in the proposed 

approval of the Montana infrastructure SIP 

approval that it ‘‘does not believe that an 

action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is necessarily the appropriate 

type of action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP’’ 

including existing provisions of the state’s 

PSD program that may be inconsistent with 

the current federal PSD rules reflecting NSR 

Reform, EPA has no basis for attempting to 

limit public comment and EPA review of this 

issue when a state’s policy interpretations of 

its PSD program result in a program that is 

less inclusive and less stringent than the 

current federal PSD program, and is therefore 

contrary to law. 

* * * * * 

EPA cannot assume that Montana’s minor 

source permitting program will ensure 

protection of these NAAQS for those 

modified sources that, pursuant to MTDEQ’s 

policy interpretations, do not trigger 

applicability under the Montana PSD 

program as major modifications. The 

Montana SIP includes an exemption from the 

requirement to obtain a Montana Air Quality 

Permit for ‘‘construction or changed 

conditions of operation’’ at a facility that 

does not increase the facility’s potential to 

emit by more than 5 tons per year. ARM 

17.8.743(1), ARM 17.8.745 ‘‘Exclusion for De 

Minimis Changes.’’ This rule allows a source 

to apply an emissions test comparing 

potential to emit pre- and post-change, and 

if the increase in potential to emit is less than 

5 tons per year, no Montana Air Quality 

Permit is required for the construction or 

changed operation. For those modifications 

to existing major sources that do not trigger 

PSD based on MTDEQ’s policy 

interpretations allowing the source to use an 

actual emissions to [an] estimated future 

actual emissions test, it is likely that such a 

modified source could avoid the requirement 

to obtain a Montana Air Quality permit under 

the potential-to[-]potential comparison of the 

de minimis exemption in Montana’s SIP. 

Even if a modified major source could not 

initially be exempt under the potential-topotential test of the Montana de minimis 

rule, the Montana rule also allows an existing 

source to revise the federally enforceable 

emission limitations (thus reducing its 

potential to emit) through an administrative 

process pursuant to ARM 17.8.764 (see ARM 

17.8.745(1)(a)(5) and (2). 

While the de minimis rule does not allow 

construction or changed conditions that 

would affect the plume rise or dispersion 

characteristics of emissions in a manner that 

would cause or contribute to a NAAQS 

violation (see ARM 17.8.745(1)(a)(iii)), this 

provision will not ensure protection of the 

NAAQS due to emissions from the modified 

major sources that avoid PSD permitting due 

to MTDEQ’s policy interpretations. To 

determine if a modified source will cause or 

contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, the 

de minimis rule requires notification to 

MTDEQ if the physical or operational change 

will change stack height, stack diameter, 

stack flow, stack gas temperature, or source 

location, but it does not require ambient air 

modeling. ARM 17.8.745(b). However, given 

that the majority of existing sources have 

never been modeled for compliance with the 

recent NAAQS for lead, ozone, 1-hour NO2, 

1-hour SO2, or PM2.5 NAAQS, it will be 

extremely difficult for MTDEQ to determine 

that a change in stack parameters or source 

location would cause or contribute to a 

violation of the NAAQS. Further, it is not 

evident that MTDEQ always requires 

submittal of such information to determine if 

construction or changed operating conditions 

at an existing source would affect the plume 

rise or dispersion characteristics of a 

modified source, given that MTDEQ allows 

certain emission sources to be excluded from 

notification requirements of the de minimis 

rule pursuant to ARM 17.8.745(c). 

Response: The commenters’ concerns 

are directed not to whether the existing 

SIP for Montana meets the relevant 

structural requirements for PSD 

programs, but rather to whether 

Montana is in fact faithfully 

implementing the existing provisions of 

its EPA-approved SIP. As the EPA has 

explained in other contexts, comments 

like these highlight an important 

distinction between whether an 

infrastructure SIP submission meets the 

applicable requirements of the CAA on 

its face (i.e., pertain to the facial 

sufficiency of the state’s SIP), and 

whether a state is actually complying 

with the requirements of that SIP (i.e., 

pertain to adequacy of the state’s 

implementation of the SIP).1 These 

comments implicate the question of the 

degree to which implementation 

concerns are relevant in the context of 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP. In 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

submission, the EPA interprets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require the Agency to focus on 

whether the state has a SIP that provides 

the requisite legal framework for 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. Generally 

speaking, the EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is 

limited to whether, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2), the submission 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
23182 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

facially meets the requirements of the 

statutory criteria outlined therein, as 

applicable. In the case of section 

110(a)(2)(C), for example, the statute 

requires a state to have a SIP that 

‘‘include[s] a program to provide for 

. . . regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary sources 

. . . including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D of this 

subchapter.’’ Thus, the EPA reviews a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission to 

assure that the structural elements of the 

state’s PSD permitting program meets 

current CAA requirements for such 

programs, e.g., that it addresses GHG 

emissions. 

This is not to say that the EPA has no 

role in reviewing whether a state is 

faithfully implementing its approved 

SIP, or otherwise complying with the 

CAA and its implementing regulations. 

To the contrary, there are multiple 

statutory tools that the EPA can use to 

rectify problems with state 

implementation of its SIP, and the 

existence of these tools is consistent 

with the EPA’s interpretation of section 

110(a)(2) with respect to the Agency’s 

role in reviewing infrastructure SIP 

submissions. For example, the CAA 

provides the EPA the authority to issue 

a SIP call, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5); make a 

finding of failure to implement, id. 

§§ 7410(m), 7509(a)(4); and take 

measures to address specific permits 

pursuant to the EPA’s case-by-case 

permitting oversight. See, e.g., 

§ 7661d(b). The appropriateness of 

employing these authorities depends on 

the nature and extent of the particular 

implementation problems at issue. 

With respect to Montana’s 

infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA 

analyzed the submission itself, and 

evaluated the text of its provisions for 

compliance with the relevant elements 

of section 110(a)(2). In the proposal, the 

EPA explicitly evaluated the State’s 

submission on a requirement-byrequirement basis and explained its 

views on the adequacy of the State’s SIP 

for purposes of meeting the 

infrastructure SIP requirements. 

The EPA appreciates and takes 

seriously the commenters’ assertions 

that Montana has adopted ‘‘policy 

interpretations’’ outside the context of 

the SIP that may undermine the State’s 

implementation of the SIP as approved 

by the EPA. However, because this 

action involves a review of the SIP 

itself, the EPA is not evaluating the 

merits of these assertions concerning 

implementation of the SIP in the context 

of this action. Instead, the EPA intends 

to evaluate the merits of these 

assertions, separate from this action, at 

a future time. In the meantime, the EPA 

is finalizing its proposed approval of the 

infrastructure SIP submission that is 

currently before the Agency. If the EPA 

later determines that there are indeed 

concerns with respect to the 

implementation of the PSD program in 

Montana, the Agency intends to take 

appropriate action to ensure those 

problems are rectified using whatever 

statutory tools are appropriate to the 

implementation problem identified. 

With respect to the requirements 

related to PSD relevant to this approval 

of the infrastructure SIP submission, the 

EPA has determined that the State’s SIP 

as previously approved, and as revised 

in this action, meets the relevant 

structural requirements for purposes of 

PSD in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) 

element 3, and (J). Some examples of 

these basic structural SIP requirements 

include having state law authority to 

carry out the SIP, an overarching 

permitting program in place, and a 

properly deployed monitoring network. 

As to the PSD program in particular, 

these basic structural requirements 

include those provisions necessary for 

the permitting program to address all 

federally regulated pollutants and the 

proper sources. The EPA considers 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submissions required by section 

110(a)(1) and (2) to be an evaluation of 

a state’s SIP to assure that it meets the 

basic structural requirements for the 

new or revised NAAQS, not a time to 

address all potential substantive defects 

in existing SIP provisions, or alleged 

defects in implementation of the SIP. 

[Therefore, EPA generally considers 

evaluations of a state’s implementation 

of its NSR program to be outside the 

scope of an infrastructure SIP review, 

rather than an unambiguous 

requirement of the EPA’s action on an 

infrastructure SIP with regard to section 

110(a)(2)(C).] 

Comment 3: The Sierra Club and 

MEIC comment letter gives a history of 

the Montana PSD program as well as a 

history of the corresponding federal PSD 

program with respect to how it is 

determined whether a physical or 

operational change at an existing major 

stationary source is subject to PSD 

permitting requirements. The comment 

discusses MTDEQ’s policy 

interpretations recently set forth in a 

citizen suit enforcement proceeding, 

stating that these interpretations ‘‘make 

Montana’s implementation of the PSD 

program less stringent’’. The Sierra Club 

and MEIC Comment Letter states the 

following on pages 4 and 5: 

The basic structure of Montana’s PSD 

permitting rules has been the same since the 

EPA’s initial SIP approval of Montana’s PSD 

rules. Specifically, Montana’s PSD rules 

define the applicability to PSD for physical 

or operational changes at an existing source 

based on the same regulatory language in 

EPA’s PSD regulations as of 1980. That is, to 

determine if a physical change or change in 

the method of operation at an existing major 

source is subject to PSD as a major 

modification, one evaluates changes in 

‘actual emissions [.] 

The comment evaluates the definition of 

‘‘actual emissions’’ and how Montana’s 

SIP has defined this term over the years, 

and notes two substantive revisions to 

the definition of ‘‘actual emissions’’ 

since 1980, stating on pages 6, 7, and 8: 

The first revision was made in 1992, where 

EPA modified the definition of ‘‘actual 

emissions’’ to allow electric utility steam 

generating units (EGUs) to use the 

‘‘representative actual annual emissions,’’ 

and adopted associated definitions including 

of ‘‘representative actual annual emissions’’ 

and emissions reporting provisions for EGUs. 

57 Fed. Reg. 32314 at 32335–6 (July 21, 

1992); 40 CFR 51.166(b)(21)(iv) and (v), 

(b)(30), and (b)(32). In addition, although 

EPA did not adopt any regulatory revisions 

regarding the actual emissions baseline 

before a physical or operational change, EPA 

set forth a presumption that it considers any 

2 year period in the 5 years immediately 

preceding the physical or operational change 

at an EGU to be representative of normal 

source operations for the EGU. 57 Fed. Reg. 

32325. The 1992 rulemaking is referred to as 

the ‘‘WEPCO Rule’’ because the rule changes 

came about as a result of the 7th Circuit 

Court decision in Wisconsin Electric Power 

Co. v. Reilly, 893 F.2d 901 (7th Cir. 1990) 

(‘‘WEPCO Decision’’). 

A review of the current SIP-approved 

Montana rules show that Montana did not 

revise its PSD regulations to incorporate any 

of the regulatory changes of the 1992 WEPCO 

rulemaking. 

In 2002, EPA again revised the definition 

of ‘‘actual emissions’’ and adopted new terms 

and definitions of ‘‘projected actual 

emissions’’ and ‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ 

along with numerous other revisions to its 

PSD regulations. 67 Fed. Reg. 80186–80289 

(Dec 31, 2002, also known as ‘‘NSR Reform’’ 

Rule). EPA adopted a two-step process for 

determining PSD applicability for physical or 

operational changes. First, it must be 

determined if a project will result in a 

significant emission increase of any regulated 

NSR pollutant and, if so, then second, it must 

be determined if the project will result in a 

significant net emissions increase of any 

regulated NSR pollutant. 67 Fed. Reg. 80260; 

40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(a)–(f). EPA essentially 

allowed all sources (not just EGUs as allowed 

in 1992) to use an actual-to-projected actual 

emissions increase test to determine whether 

a physical or operational change was a major 

modification, except in certain circumstances 

such as when a new emissions unit is added. 

67 Fed. Reg. 80260–2; 40 

CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(a)–(f), (b)(40) and (b)(47). 

In the NSR Reform rules, EPA adopted 

several new rules. EPA adopted a new 

definition of ‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ 

which codified the 2-in-5 year presumptive 

baseline that EPA announced in the 1992 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 23183 

2Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements Under the Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013). 

3 2013 Guidance at p. 28. 

4 ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director Air 

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X (October 2, 2007). 

WEPCO rule for EGUs, and also promulgated 

a provision for non-EGUs allowing them to 

look back ten years before a physical or 

operational change in determining baseline 

emissions. 67 Fed. Reg. 80263–4; 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(47). EPA also adopted a new 

definition of ‘‘projected actual emissions’’ 

which defines how modified sources are to 

project actual emissions when such 

modifications are not subject to the actual-topotential to emit test pursuant to the 

procedures identified in 40 CFR 

51.166(a)(7)(iv)(a)–(f). 67 Fed. Reg. 80262–3; 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(40). In addition, EPA 

adopted provisions for reporting to 

permitting authorities pre- and post-project 

when there is a reasonable possibility that a 

project that is not considered a major 

modification may result in a significant 

emissions increase. 67 Fed. Reg. 80264; 40 

CFR 51.166(r)(6) and (r)(7). There were 

numerous other revisions to the federal 

permitting rules adopted in the December 31, 

2002 rulemaking, such as requirements to 

establish PALs. Two other new provisions of 

the 2002 NSR Reform rule regarding 

pollutant control projects and clean units 

were later eliminated from the PSD 

regulations, after being vacated by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in New 

York v. EPA, 413 F. 3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 72 

Fed. Reg. 32526–9 (June 13, 2007). A review 

of the EPA-approved SIP for Montana shows 

that Montana did not adopt any of the 2002 

New Source Review Reform revisions as 

revisions to its PSD regulations. 

Although EPA has made some revisions to 

its rules regarding baseline emissions and 

how to project future emissions for physical 

or operational changes at existing sources, it 

is clear that, since 1986, the Montana SIP has 

continued to have the same definition of 

‘‘actual emissions’’ and the same 

applicability approach as applied under 

EPA’s 1980 PSD rules. On its face, Montana’s 

PSD rules track EPA’s PSD rules as they 

existed in 1980, and Montana’s rules do not 

implement the 1992 or 2002 federal rule 

revisions. Given that the 1992 and 2002 

federal rule revisions were intended to be 

less inclusive than the 1980 PSD rule, 

allowing for more modifications to not be 

considered as major modifications subject to 

PSD review, would be less stringent than the 

current federal PSD rules. 

Montana is implementing policy 

interpretations regarding the definition of 

‘‘actual emissions,’’ which pertain to both the 

determination of actual emissions before a 

physical or operational change and the 

determination of the future emissions 

expected after a physical or operational 

change, which are less stringent than EPA’s 

interpretation of the same language of its 

1980 PSD rules, resulting in Montana’s 

program as implemented being less stringent 

than EPA’s 1980 PSD requirements. In 

addition, those policy interpretations of 

Montana’s PSD program are less stringent 

than EPA’s current PSD requirements 

reflective of NSR Reform.’’ 

Response: The commenter’s assertion 

that Montana is, through policy 

interpretations, implementing its PSD 

program in a less-stringent manner than 

required by PSD rules is addressed in 

our response to comment 2. We note 

that, while Montana’s alleged ‘‘policy 

interpretations’’ of its SIP are outside 

the scope of the EPA’s review in the 

context of an infrastructure SIP 

submission, we evaluated the 

‘‘structural’’ requirements for a PSD 

program to fulfill the NAAQS 

infrastructure requirements as required 

in 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, and 

(J). In the context of the specific 

applicability issues raised by the 

commenter, we have determined that 

Montana’s PSD program provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS 

requirements being approved in this 

rulemaking by applying the EPA’s 1980 

PSD rules. In addition, EPA has 

evaluated the State’s SIP for compliance 

with other structural elements such as 

the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation 

Rule, 2008 PM2.5 NSR, and 2010 PM2.5

Increments (a complete discussion can 

be found in section VI. Program for 

enforcement of control measures of the 

proposed rule). 

While we agree with the history the 

commenter has provided with regard to 

what Montana has and has not adopted 

into the State’s EPA-approved PSD 

program, we note that Montana was not 

required to adopt any of the provisions 

of the 1992 WEPCO Rule. For example, 

the state of Utah adopted WEPCO 

revisions, which we acted on in 69 FR 

51368 (Aug. 19, 2004). In that 

rulemaking, we explained that states 

generally: ‘‘were not required to adopt 

revisions to implement these changes, 

although these changes are in effect in 

areas where the Federal PSD permitting 

regulations apply. Utah has opted to 

revise its NSR program to incorporate 

the changes to the EPA’s NSR rules 

promulgated on July 21, 1992.’’ 

We note that the commenter agrees 

with this premise. See, e.g., Sierra Club 

and MEIC Comment Letter at page 16 

(stating that ‘‘states were not required to 

adopt that new rule language’’ in 

reference to the 1992 WEPCO Rule). 

Because Montana was not required to 

adopt the 1992 WEPCO Rule, or to 

revise its SIP in response to that EPA 

action, the EPA need not review the 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission for 

consistency with the requirements of 

the 1992 WEPCO Rule. In the context of 

evaluating a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to PSD 

permitting program requirements, the 

EPA evaluates only whether the SIP 

meets structural requirements (e.g., 

having authority to address GHG 

emissions in such permits). Thus, the 

State’s decision whether or not to revise 

its PSD permitting program to 

incorporate the changes contemplated 

in the 1992 WEPCO Rule does not 

preclude the EPA from approving 

Montana’s infrastructure SIP in this 

action. 

This is consistent with the EPA’s 

September 13, 2013, ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements Under Clean Air 

Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 2

(2013 Guidance, contained within this 

docket), wherein we explain that: 

‘‘Structural PSD program provisions 

include provisions necessary for the 

PSD program to address all regulated 

sources and NSR pollutants, including 

GHG. Structural PSD provisions do not 

include provisions which under 40 CFR 

51.166 are at the option of the air 

agency.’’ 

In the EPA’s 2013 Guidance and in 

several EPA rulemakings, the Agency 

discussed the issue of addressing the 

2002 NSR Reform Rule, which followed 

the 1992 WEPCO Rule, within the 

context of infrastructure SIPs. 

Specifically, the EPA explained in the 

2013 Guidance that the issue of 

‘‘existing SIP provisions for PSD 

programs that have not addressed the 

NSR Reform Rules may be dealt with 

separately, outside of the context of 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP.’’ 3

The EPA explained its reasoning for this 

approach to the NSR Reform Rules in a 

2007 guidance document,4 which we 

further explained in our July 13, 2011 

rulemaking (76 FR 41078. See page 

41078, column three, first full paragraph 

through page 41079, first column). 

Comment 4 Sierra Club and MEIC 

Comment Letter 

The comment asserts that Montana’s 

‘‘policy interpretations’’ of the term 

‘‘actual emissions’’ as set forth in 

amicus briefs and appearances in a 

citizen suit PSD enforcement action 

against the Colstrip Power Plant are 

inconsistent and less stringent than the 

EPA’s interpretation of the same 

language in the 1980 federal PSD 

regulations and are less stringent than 

the current federal PSD regulations. The 

comment also states that MTDEQ’s 

interpretation of how to determine 

baseline emissions is inconsistent with 

and less stringent than the EPA’s 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
23184 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

historical and current PSD regulations. 

The comment states that the MTDEQ 

never informed the public of its policy 

interpretations set forth in the amicus 

briefs, and Montana does not have 

authority to implement policy without 

going through rulemaking. 

Response: In our response to 

comment 2, we discussed the difference 

between the legal sufficiency and the 

structural requirements of a PSD 

program within the context of 

evaluation of the infrastructure SIP 

submission and the implementation of 

the EPA approved SIP. The commenter’s 

assertion that Montana’s PSD 

regulations are less stringent than the 

1980 federal PSD regulations and the 

current federal PSD regulations is based 

upon allegations concerning how 

Montana interprets federal PSD 

regulations and the State’s own ‘‘policy 

interpretations.’’ As mentioned in our 

response to comment 2, these 

implementation concerns fall outside 

the scope of this action because the EPA 

is not evaluating the issue of how the 

state implements its PSD program in 

this context. In that same vein, the EPA 

does not consider this the appropriate 

context in which to evaluate whether 

MT DEQ’s interpretations of PSD 

applicability tests, or how the State 

defines ‘‘actual emissions’’ or ‘‘like-kind 

replacements,’’ etc., and whether these 

interpretations make Montana’s PSD 

program less stringent than the 1980 

federal PSD regulations and the current 

federal PSD regulations. As noted in our 

response above, the EPA has other 

authorities to take appropriate action to 

address alleged SIP implementation 

deficiencies. 

III. Final Action 

For reasons expressed in the proposed 

rule, the EPA is taking final action to 

approve infrastructure elements from 

the State’s certifications as shown in 

Table 1. We are also conditionally 

approving elements (C), D(i)(II) element 

3 and (J) with respect to the requirement 

to have a PSD program that meets the 

requirements of part C of Title 1 of the 

Act as shown in Table 2. Elements we 

are taking no action on are reflected in 

Table 4. The EPA is disapproving 

(D)(i)(II) element 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (Table 3). 

Finalization of this disapproval does not 

require further action from the State, 

and does not create a new FIP obligation 

for the EPA. We are also approving 

revisions to the ARM from the August 

21, 2012 submittal (Table 1) and 

conditionally approving a revision from 

the March 24, 2015 submittal (Table 2) 

to bring Montana’s PSD program up to 

date with respect to current 

requirements for PM2.5. If Montana does 

not submit a SIP revision to correct the 

language in ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) 

within one year of this action, 

conditional approvals will 

automatically revert to disapprovals for 

ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii), and elements 

(C), D(i)(II) element 3 and (J) with 

respect to PSD requirements. Finally, 

we are approving new ARM and 

sections of the Montana Code Annotated 

submitted on December 17, 2015 to 

satisfy requirements of element (E)(ii), 

state boards. 

A comprehensive summary of 

infrastructure elements, and revisions 

and additions to the ARM organized by 

the EPA’s final rule action are provided 

in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 

4. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS APPROVING

Approval 

February 10, 2010 submittal—1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(ii) for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

December 19, 2011 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) and (M). 

January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, 

(K), (L) and (M). 

June 4, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of 

sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) and (M). 

July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) 

and (M). 

December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) 

and (M). 

August 21, 2012 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

ARM 17.8.801(3), 17.8.801(21), 17.8.801(27), 17.8.804(1), 17.8.818(7)(a)(iv)–(xi), 17.8.822(9), 17.8.822(10), 17.8.822(11), 17.8.822(12) 

and 17.8.825(4). 

December 17, 2015 submittal—New Rules to ARM, CAA Section 128 

New Rule I (ARM 17.8.150), II (ARM 17.8.151), III (ARM 17.8.152), and Montana Code Annotated 2–2–121(2)(e) and 2–2–121(8). 

TABLE 2—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING

Conditional approval 

February 10, 2010 submittal—1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 3 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

December 19, 2011 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 

January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 

June 4, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 

July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 23185 

TABLE 2—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING—Continued 

Conditional approval 

December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. 

March 24, 2015 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii). 

TABLE 3—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS THAT THE EPA IS DISAPPROVING

Disapproval 

February 10, 2010 submittal—1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4. 

June 4, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4. 

July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4. 

December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) element 4. 

TABLE 4—LIST OF MONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS TAKING NO ACTION ON

No action 

Revised section 

Reason ‘‘No Action’’ 

Revision to 

be made in 

future rulemaking 

action 

Revision 

made in a 

separate 

rulemaking 

action (80 

FR 72937) 

Revision deletes section 

of the ARM 

never approved into 

State’s SIP 

Revision superseded by 

revision in 

March 24, 

2015 State 

submittal 

January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 ......................................................................................... .................... x .................... ....................

July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 ......................................................................................... x .................... .................... ....................

December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 ......................................................................................... x .................... .................... ....................

August 21, 2012 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) ............................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... x 

ARM 17.8.820(2) ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... x 

March 24, 2015 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: 

ARM 17.8.820(2) ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... x ....................

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the ARM 

and Montana Code Annotated discussed 

in section III, Final Action of this 

preamble. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, 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, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this final action 

merely approves some state law as 

meeting federal requirements; this final 

action does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this final 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
23186 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 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 CAA; and, 

• Does not provide the 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, Feb. 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 20, 2016. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 30, 2016. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart BB—Montana 

■ 2. Section 52.1370 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (c) adding in 

numerical order, the table entries for 

‘‘17.8.150’’, ‘‘17.8.151’’, and ‘‘17.8.152’’; 

and revising the table entries for 

‘‘17.8.801’’, ‘‘17.8.804’’, ‘‘17.8.818’’, 

‘‘17.8.822’’, and ‘‘17.8.825’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (e), under ‘‘(1) 

Statewide’’ adding three entries at the 

end of the table. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

State citation Rule title State effective 

date 

EPA final rule 

date Final rule citation Comments 

(1) Statewide 

(i) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 01, General Provisions 

*******

17.8.150 .................... Definitions ...................................................... 10/30/2015 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].

17.8.151 .................... Board Action .................................................. 10/30/2015 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].

17.8.152 .................... Reporting ....................................................... 10/30/2015 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].

(vi) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 08, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

*******

17.8.801 .................... Definitions ...................................................... 10/14/2011 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].

17.8.804 .................... Ambient Air Increments ................................. 10/14/2011 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].

17.8.818 .................... Review of Major Stationary Source and 

Major Modifications—Source Applicability 

and Exemptions.

10/10/2014 4/20/2016. [Insert Federal Register citation].

17.8.822 .................... Air Quality Analysis ....................................... 10/14/2011 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].

17.8.825 .................... Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas— 

Additional Requirements.

10/14/2011 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].

.


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 23187 

State citation Rule title State effective 

date 

EPA final rule 

date Final rule citation Comments 

*******

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Title/subject State effective 

date 

Notice of final 

rule date NFR citation 

(1) Statewide 

*******

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.

N/A 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 

Infrastructure Requirements, Interstate Transport of Pollution 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

N/A 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 

Montana Code Annotated 2–2–121(2)(e) and 2–2–121(8) ....................... N/A 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation]. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–08916 Filed 4–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0492; FRL–9945–34– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR97 

Clarification of Requirements for 

Method 303 Certification Training 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Because the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) received 

adverse comment, we are withdrawing 

the direct final rule for Clarification of 

Requirements for Method 303 

Certification Training, published on 

February 25, 2016. 

DATES: Effective April 20, 2016, the EPA 

withdraws the direct final rule 

published at 81 FR 9350, on February 

25, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Kim Garnett, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Assessment Division, 

Measurement Technology Group (Mail 

Code: E143–02), Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 

541–1158; fax number: (919) 541–0516; 

email address: garnett.kim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because 

the EPA received adverse comment, we 

are withdrawing the direct final rule for 

Clarification of Requirements for 

Method 303 Certification Training, 

published on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 

9350). We stated in that direct final rule 

that if we received adverse comment by 

March 28, 2016, the direct final rule 

would not take effect and we would 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register. We subsequently 

received adverse comment on that direct 

final rule. We will address those 

comments in any subsequent final 

action, which will be based on the 

parallel proposed rule also published on 

February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9407). As 

stated in the direct final rule and the 

parallel proposed rule, we will not 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. 

Dated: April 14, 2016. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09157 Filed 4–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES