Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27891 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by any other 

state. Accordingly, we propose to 

conclude that the existing SIP is 

adequate to address the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and that additional 

control measures in North Dakota are 

not necessary for this purpose. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 USC 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve some state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

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 

USC 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 

USC 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L.104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 USC 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile Organic 

Compounds. 

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

Dated: May 2, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11295 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0724; FRL–9812–9] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Montana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission from the State of Montana to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers (mm) in diameter (PM2.5). 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that 

each state, after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, review their 

SIP to ensure that they meet 

infrastructure requirements. The State of 

Montana submitted a certification of 

their infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, dated February 10, 

2010. EPA does not propose to act in 

this notice on the State’s submissions to 

meet requirements relating to interstate 

transport of air pollution for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will act 

on those submissions in a separate 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0724, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ayala.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 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– 

0724. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27892 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6142, 

ayala.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we are 

giving meaning to certain words or initials as 

follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials AIRS mean or refer to 

national air quality database. 

(iii) The initials ARM mean or refer to 

Administrative Rules of Montana. 

(iv) The initials BACT mean or refer to best 

available control technology. 

(v) The initials BER mean of refer to Board 

of Environmental Review. 

(vi) The initials CBI mean or refer to 

confidential business information. 

(vii) The words or initials Department or 

DEQ mean or refer to the Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(viii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(ix) The initials EEAP mean or refer to 

Emergency Episode Avoidance Plan. 

(x) The initials FIP mean or refer to a 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

(xi) The initials GHG mean or refer to 

greenhouse gases. 

(xii) The initials QAPPs mean or refer to 

Quality Assurance Project Plans. 

(xiii) The initials QA/QC mean or refer to 

quality assurance/quality control. 

(xiv) The initials LAER mean or refer to 

lowest achievable emission rate. 

(xv) The initials MCA mean or refer to 

Montana Code Annotated. 

(xvi) The initials MT CAA mean or refer to 

the Clean Air Act of Montana. 

(xvii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

national ambient air quality standards. 

(xviii) The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

(xix) The initials NPRM mean or refer to 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

(xx) The initials NSR mean or refer to new 

source review. 

(xxi) The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter. 

(xxii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine 

particulate matter). 

(xxiii) The initials ppm mean or refer to 

parts per million. 

(xxiv) The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

(xxv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(xxvi) The initials SOP mean or refer to 

Standard Operating Procedures. 

(xxvii) The initials SSM mean or refer to 

start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

IV. What infrastructure elements are required 

under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

V. How did Montana address the 

infrastructure elements of Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on 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 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: 

Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register, date, and page number); 

Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

Explain why you agree or disagree; 

Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

Provide specific examples to illustrate 

your concerns, and suggest alternatives; 

Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

Make sure to submit your comments 

by the comment period deadline 

identified. 

II. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for PM2.5. Two new PM2.5

standards were added, set at 15 mg/m3, 

based on the 3-year average of annual 

arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentration 

from single or multiple communityoriented monitors, and 65 mg/m3, based 

on the 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area. In 

addition, the 24-hour PM10 standard 

was revised to be based on the 99th 

percentile of 24-hour PM10

concentration at each monitor within an 

area (62 FR 38652). 

On October 17, 2006 EPA 

promulgated a new NAAQS for PM2.5, 

revising the level of the 24-hour PM2.5

standard to 35 mg/m3 and retaining the 

level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15 

mg/m3. EPA also retained the 24-hour 

PM10 and revoked the annual PM10

standard (71 FR 61144). By statute, SIPs 

meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by 

states within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard. Section 110(a)(2) provides 

basic requirements for SIPs, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling, to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards. These 

requirements are set out in several 

‘‘infrastructure elements,’’ listed in 

section 110(a)(2). 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and 

the contents of that submission may 

vary depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27893 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. 

III. What is the scope of this 

rulemaking? 

This rulemaking will not cover four 

substantive issues that are not integral 

to acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that purport to permit 

revisions to SIP approved emissions 

limits with limited public process or 

without requiring further approval by 

EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA 

(‘‘director’s discretion’’); (iii) existing 

provisions for minor source NSR 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’); and, 

(iv) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Instead, EPA has indicated 

that it has other authority to address any 

such existing SIP defects in other 

rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed 

rationale for why these four substantive 

issues are not part of the scope of 

infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be 

found in EPA’s July 13, 2011, final rule 

entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ in the section entitled, 

‘‘What is the scope of this final 

rulemaking?’’ (see 76 FR 41075 at 

41076–41079). 

IV. What infrastructure elements are 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP 

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements include 

requirements such as modeling, 

monitoring, and emissions inventories, 

which are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are listed below. 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(E)(i): Adequate resources 

and authority. 

• 110(a)(2)(E)(ii): Compliance with 

CAA section 128 regarding state boards. 

• 110(a)(2)(E)(iii): State responsibility 

for local government implementation. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

A detailed discussion of each of these 

elements is contained in the next 

section. 

Element 110(a)(2)(D), Interstate 

transport of pollutants from Montana, 

which contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state will be 

acted upon in a separate action. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the 3-year 

submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 

and are therefore not addressed in this 

action. These elements relate to part D 

of Title I of the CAA, and submissions 

to satisfy them are not due within 3 

years after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, but rather are due at 

the same time nonattainment area plan 

requirements are due under section 172. 

The two elements are: (i) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment new source review 

(NSR)’’), required under part D; and (ii) 

section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure elements related 

to the nonattainment NSR portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 

110(a)(2)(I). 

V. How did Montana address the 

infrastructure elements of Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

1. Emission limits and other control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite Lincoln 

County Health and Environment 

Regulations approved by the BER on 

March 23, 2006 and submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP on June 26, 2006. 

The Libby control plan was effective in 

maintaining ambient PM2.5

concentrations at a level below both the 

annual and revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. On October 8, 2006, EPA 

notified the State of Montana that the 

Libby area was in attainment with the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In addition, to control plan 

implementation for the Libby area, 

Montana implemented a statewide 

program for permitting major and minor 

stationary sources of air pollution, 

including PM2.5. Montana’s permitting 

program(s) require affected sources to 

demonstrate that source emissions will 

not cause or contribute to a violation of 

the NAAQS. Affected sources are 

further required to utilize BACT and/or 

LAER, as applicable, for emissions of 

regulated pollutants. 

Montana also regulates major and 

minor open burning activities and 

subjects those conducting open burning 

to BACT requirements. 

Except for specific control measures 

adopted in BER orders, the emission 

limits and other air pollution control 

regulations are contained in the 

following subchapters of Title 17, 

Chapter 8, ARM: Subchapter 1—General 

Provisions (60 FR 36715); Subchapter 

3—Emission Standards (44 FR 14036); 

Subchapter 4—Stack Heights and 

Dispersion Techniques (60 FR 36715); 

Subchapter 6—Open Burning; 

Subchapter (60 FR 36715); Subchapter 

7—Permit, Construction and Operation 

of Air Contaminant Sources (60 FR 

36715); Subchapter 8—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

(60 FR 36715); Subchapter 9—Permit 

Requirements for Major Stationary 

Sources or Major Modifications Locating 

within Nonattainment Areas (60 FR 

36715); Subchapter 10—Preconstruction 

Permit Requirements for Major 

Stationary Sources or Major 

Modifications Locating within 

Attainment or Unclassified Areas (60 FR 

36715); and Subchapter 16—Emission 

Control Requirements for Oil and Gas 

Well Facilities Operating Prior to 

Issuance of a Montana Air Quality 

Permit. 

b. EPA analysis: Montana’s SIP meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27894 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation. Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (September 

20, 1999). 

2The State did submit a SIP revision to address 

the requirements of the phase 2 ozone 

implementation rule for the State’s nonattainment 

NSR program. As discussed above, the 

nonattainment NSR program is outside the scope of 

this infrastructure SIP action. We understand that 

NAAQS, subject to the following 

clarifications. First, this infrastructure 

element does not require the submittal 

of regulations or emission limitations 

developed specifically for attaining the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

Montana’s case, we have approved an 

attainment plan for Lincoln County, 

which was designated nonattainment 

for the annual PM2.5 standard. Outside 

of the Lincoln County PM2.5 attainment 

plan, Montana regulates emissions of 

PM2.5 in two ways: (1) Through its SIP 

approved open burning program; and (2) 

through its SIP approved major and 

minor source permitting programs. This 

suffices to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Second, in this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. A number of states have 

such provisions that are contrary to the 

CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 

45109, November 24, 1987), and the 

Agency plans to take action in the future 

to address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision which is contrary to 

the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps 

to correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

Finally, in this action, EPA is also not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing SIP provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of 

operations at a facility. A number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance 1 and the Agency is addressing 

such state regulations separately (78 FR 

12460). 

2. Ambient air quality monitoring/ 

data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to ‘‘(i) 

monitor, compile, and analyze data on 

ambient air quality, and (ii) upon 

request, make such data available to the 

Administrator.’’ 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite a 

statewide air quality monitoring 

network operated by the Department, 

including numerous monitoring 

activities dedicated specifically to 

PM2.5. 

On an annual basis, the Department 

evaluates trends in industrial and 

economic development, meteorology, 

and population growth and makes other 

scientific, social, and geographic 

observations regarding areas of the State 

which may be adversely affected by 

emissions of air pollutants, including 

PM2.5. The Department, with 

participation and input by local county 

air pollution control agencies and other 

interested parties, makes informed 

decisions regarding the type, location, 

and schedules for monitoring various air 

quality parameters, including PM2.5. 

The product of this decision-making 

process, the Air Monitoring Network 

Plan, is made available for public 

inspection and the Department annually 

submits the final document to EPA. 

All of the Department’s ambient air 

monitoring operations and resultant 

data is subject to strict QA/QC 

processes. The Department employs a 

variety of QAPPs, and SOPs to maintain 

the highest level of data quality. The 

Department’s air monitoring and data 

handling QAPPs and SOPs are routinely 

submitted to EPA for review and 

approval. The air monitoring data 

resulting from these rigorous QA/QC 

processes is uploaded and stored in 

EPA’s AIRS for further review and 

analysis. 

The provisions in State law for the 

collection and analysis of ambient air 

quality data is contained in the MT 

CAA, 75–2–101 et seq., MCA, Powers 

and Responsibilities of Department. 

b. EPA analysis: Montana’s air 

monitoring programs and data systems 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The 2012 Montana Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP), 

dated July 10, 2012, was approved by 

EPA Region 8 on April 8, 2013. 

3. Program for enforcement of control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

SIPs to include a program to provide for 

the enforcement of the measures 

described in subparagraph (A), and 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that NAAQS are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite 

Montana’s administrative rules which 

authorize enforcement activities 

sufficient to ensure enforceable 

emission control measures are 

implemented to protect the NAAQs. 

Congress directed states to develop 

and implement measures to prevent 

significant deterioration. Pursuant to 

ARM 17.8.130 (71 FR 3770), sources 

subject to the provisions of Title 17, 

Chapter 8, subchapters 8 (60 FR 36715), 

9 (60 FR 36715), and 10 (60 FR 36715), 

ARM (regulating construction of new or 

modified major stationary sources 

consistent with PSD and NSR 

requirements) shall be subject to 

enforcement. The Department is 

authorized to issue a notice of violation, 

complaint regarding the source 

violation, and an order to take corrective 

action. 

The provisions in state law for the 

enforcement of emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques are contained in the MT 

CAA, 75–2–101 et seq., MCA, and 

specifically, 75–2–111, MCA, Powers of 

the Board and 75–2–112, MCA, Powers 

and Responsibilities of Department. 

b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the 

State is required to have SIP-approved 

PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor 

NSR permitting programs adequate to 

implement the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. As explained above, in this 

action EPA is not evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D of the Act. In this 

action, EPA is evaluating the State’s 

PSD program as required by part C of 

the Act, and the State’s minor NSR 

program as required by 110(a)(2)(C). 

Montana has a SIP-approved PSD 

program that generally meets the 

requirements of part C of the Act. 

However, in order for the State’s SIP 

approved PSD program to satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

program must meet all requirements of 

part C of Title I of the Act, including 

proper regulation of ozone precursors. 

On November 29, 2005, EPA 

promulgated the phase 2 

implementation rule for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, which includes requirements 

for PSD programs to treat nitrogen 

oxides as a precursor for ozone (70 FR 

71612). The State’s approved PSD 

program does not satisfy the 

requirements of the phase 2 

implementation rule. Furthermore, the 

State has not submitted a revision to the 

program to address this deficiency.2 As 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27895 

the state has promulgated a rule that may satisfy 

this requirement and we will propose action on that 

SIP revision when it is submitted. 

a result, the SIP does not satisfy, for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

requirement of element 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the SIP to include a permit program as 

required in part C of Title I of the Act. 

EPA therefore proposes to disapprove 

the Montana infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for this 

requirement. 

Turning to minor NSR, EPA is 

proposing to approve Montana’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved, specifically the PM2.5

NAAQS. (See ARM Chapter 17.8, 

Subchapter 7.) The SIP approved minor 

NSR program addresses PM2.5, as any 

facility required to obtain a permit must 

demonstrate that it will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. 

(See ARM 17.8.749(3).) EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove the 

State’s existing minor NSR program 

itself to the extent that it is inconsistent 

with EPA’s regulations governing this 

program. A number of states may have 

minor NSR provisions that are contrary 

to the existing EPA regulations for this 

program. EPA intends to work with 

states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and it may be time to revisit 

the regulatory requirements for this 

program to give the states an 

appropriate level of flexibility to design 

a program that meets their particular air 

quality concerns, while assuring 

reasonable consistency across the 

country in protecting the NAAQS with 

respect to new and modified minor 

sources. 

4. Adequate resources and local and 

regional government: Section 

110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide: 

(i) necessary assurances that the State 

* * * will have adequate personnel, funding, 

and authority under State * * * law to carry 

out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of Federal or State law from 

carrying out [the SIP] or portion thereof) 

* * * 

(iii) necessary assurances that, where the 

state has relied upon a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality for 

the implementation of any plan provision, 

the state has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of such plan 

provision. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: According to the State’s 

submissions for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 infrastructure requirements, no 

state or federal provisions prohibit the 

implementation of any provision of the 

Montana SIP. Montana devotes adequate 

resources to SIP development and 

maintenance sufficient to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

The Department receives grant monies 

from EPA intended to fund programs to 

protect the NAAQS. The Department 

allocates a portion of the EPA grant 

money to fund SIP activities for 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. In addition, Montana imposes 

and collects fees from permitted 

sources. Montana allocates a portion of 

the permit fee revenue to activities 

associated with permitting and 

compliance for sources of regulated air 

pollutants, including PM2.5 emissions. 

Montana also receives state general 

funds to conduct state air quality 

program activities. Montana allocates a 

portion of state general funding to nonpermit air program activities, including 

SIP programs for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

The Air Resources Management 

Bureau has 50 fulltime equivalent 

positions with an annual budget of $6.3 

million for fiscal year 2010. The 

program funding is broken down as 

follows: $163,536 from state general 

funds, $1,643,940 from Federal grants, 

and $4,546,047 from stationary source 

fees. 

The provisions in state law which 

describe adequate implementation of 

local or regional implementation of any 

plan provision are provided in MCA 75– 

2–112, Power and Responsibilities of 

Department. 

The provisions in state law providing 

for adequate resources are contained in 

the MT CAA, 75–2–101 et seq., MCA. 

More specifically, those provisions are 

contained in 75–2–102, MCA, Intent— 

Policy and Purpose; 75–2–111, MCA, 

Powers of the Board and 75–2–112, 

MCA, Powers and Responsibilities of 

Department. 

b. EPA Analysis: The provisions 

contained in 75–2–102, MCA, 75–2– 

111, MCA, and 75–2–112, MCA, provide 

adequate authority for the State of 

Montana and the DEQ to carry out its 

SIP obligations with respect to the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The State 

receives sections 103 and 105 grant 

funds through its Performance 

Partnership Grant along with required 

state matching funds to provide funding 

necessary to carry out Montana’s SIP 

requirements. EPA therefore proposes to 

approve the Montana infrastructure SIP 

with regard to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

5. State boards: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requires that ‘‘the State comply with the 

requirements respecting State boards 

under section 128.’’ 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The Montana BER adopts 

regulations and the Montana DEQ 

implements and enforces those 

regulations, including those of the state 

air program. The composition and 

requirements of the BER are detailed in 

2–15–3502, MCA, 2–15–121, MCA, and 

2–15–124, MCA. Laws related to 

conflict of interest in Montana state 

government are found in 2–2–201, 

MCA, and 2–2–202, MCA. None of these 

Montana statutes are subject to approval 

by the federal government. 

b. EPA Analysis: The Montana SIP 

does not contain provisions that meet 

the requirements of CAA section 128. 

Section 128 must be implemented 

through SIP-approved, federally 

enforceable provisions. In particular, 

subsection 128(a)(2) requires that all 

SIPs must contain provisions for the 

adequate disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest. The Montana SIP 

does not currently contain any such 

provisions and is deficient with respect 

to the requirements of subsection 

128(a)(2). 

Furthermore, section 2–15–3502 of 

the Montana Code creates a Board of 

Environmental Review (‘‘Board’’). The 

Board consists of seven members 

appointed by the Governor and meeting 

certain statutory criteria. Under 75–2– 

211(10), MCA, a person who is directly 

and adversely affected by the Montana 

DEQ’s approval or denial of a permit to 

construct an air pollution source may 

(with certain exceptions) request a 

hearing before the Board. Similarly, 

under section 75–2–218(5) of the 

Montana Code, a person who 

participated in the comment period on 

DEQ’s issuance, renewal, amendment or 

modification of a title V operating 

permit may request a hearing before the 

Board. Finally, under 75–2–201(1), 

MCA, a person who receives an 

enforcement order from DEQ under 

Chapter 2 of Title 75, Air Quality, may 

request a hearing before the Board. 

Based on these State statutory 

provisions and our discussion above of 

the text of section 128(a)(1), we propose 

to conclude that the Board falls within 

the terms of subsection 128(a)(1). The 

Board is a multi-member body that has 

authority to approve permits and 

enforcement orders under the Act. The 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27896 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

term ‘‘permits under the Act’’ includes 

PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor 

NSR permits. These are all permits 

required to construct a new or modified 

stationary source, and, under 75–2– 

211(1), MCA, are potentially subject to 

a hearing before the Board. Permits 

under the Act also includes title V 

operating permits, which, under 75–2– 

218(5), MCA, are potentially subject to 

a hearing before the Board. Similarly, 

enforcement orders under the Act are, 

under Montana Code section 75–2– 

201(1), potentially subject to a hearing 

before the Board. In short, the Board has 

authority to hear appeals of permits and 

enforcement orders under the Act. 

The Board’s authority to hear appeals 

is ‘‘authority to approve’’ within the 

meaning of section 128, for two reasons. 

First, the Board’s authority falls within 

the plain meaning of the word 

‘‘approve.’’ To approve means, among 

other things, ‘‘to give formal sanction 

to.’’ This is precisely what, for example, 

an order from the Board upholding a 

permit does: It formally sanctions the 

permit. Second, the contrary 

interpretation, that ‘‘authority to 

approve’’ does not include the Board’s 

authority to hear appeals, would be 

inconsistent with the structure and 

purpose of section 128. It would limit 

the applicability of subsection 128(a)(1) 

to multi-member boards that issue 

permits in the first instance. As the 

purpose of section 128 is to promote 

disinterested decision-making on 

permits and enforcement orders, it is 

paramount that section 128 should 

apply to the entity with authority to 

make the final decision, and not merely 

to the initial decision maker. In 

addition, due to the language ‘‘with 

similar powers’’ in subsection 128(a)(2), 

the contrary interpretation would lead 

to the illogical result that a state director 

who issues permits and enforcement 

orders that are subject to administrative 

appeal would fall under the disclosure 

requirement, but a director that was the 

final decision maker on permits and 

enforcement orders would not. 

As the Board has authority to approve 

permits and enforcement orders under 

the Act, it is subject to subsection 

128(a)(1). However, the Montana SIP 

does not currently contain any 

provisions to meet the requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(1) and is therefore 

deficient for this requirement. 

Based on these deficiencies in the 

Montana SIP, we propose to disapprove 

Montana’s infrastructure SIP for this 

element. We do not consider it 

necessary to identify any particular 

instances in which the Board’s actual 

composition in practice has failed to 

meet the compositional requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(1) or in which Board 

members in practice have failed to meet 

the disclosure requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(2). The deficiency is 

in the Montana SIP itself, which simply 

fails to contain any provisions meeting 

the explicit legal requirements of these 

subsections. As a result, we propose to 

disapprove this element of the State’s 

infrastructure SIP. 

6. Stationary source monitoring 

system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: 

(i) the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary steps, by 

owners or operators of stationary sources to 

monitor emissions from such sources; 

(ii) periodic reports on the nature and 

amounts of emissions and emissions-related 

data from such sources; and 

(iii) correlation of such reports by the State 

agency with any emission limitations or 

standards established pursuant to [the Act], 

which reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite three 

State Rules: ARM 17.8.105 (66 FR 

42427); ARM 17.8.106 (66 FR 42427); 

and ARM 17.8.505 (State only rule). 

Montana’s administrative rules 

authorize the Department to require 

monitoring of emissions from stationary 

sources and annual submissions of all 

information necessary to complete a 

source emissions inventory. Affected 

permits require emissions monitoring 

from stationary sources of air pollution, 

including PM emissions. Further, on an 

annual basis, the Department compiles 

a state emissions inventory of all 

regulated sources for the evaluation of 

compliance with applicable standards 

and inclusion in EPA databases. 

b. EPA Analysis: The provisions cited 

by Montana (ARM 17.8.105 and 

17.8.106) pertain to testing requirements 

and protocols. Montana also 

incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 

51, appendix P, regarding minimum 

monitoring requirements. (See ARM 

17.8.103(1)(D)). In addition, Montana 

provides for monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements for sources 

subject to minor and major source 

permitting. EPA therefore proposes to 

approve Montana’s infrastructure SIP 

with regard to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

7. Emergency powers: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide 

for authority to address activities 

causing imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health, 

including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite EPA 

approved Montana’s Emergency Episode 

Avoidance Plan (EEAP) in 71 FR 19, 

January 3, 2006. Montana’s EEAP made 

provision for emergency control of all 

criteria pollutants. Under authority 

granted by the 75–2–402, MCA, and the 

Montana EEAP, the Department may 

order sources of pollution to limit or 

cease emissions. The MT CAA is not 

subject to approval by EPA. 

b. EPA analysis: Section 75–2–402 of 

the MCA provides the Department with 

general emergency authority comparable 

to that in section 303 of the Act. EPA 

last approved revisions to the EEAP on 

January 3, 2006 (71 FR 19). The SIP 

therefore meets the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

8. Future SIP revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide 

for revision of such plan: 

(i) from time to time as may be necessary 

to take account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air quality 

standard or the availability of improved or 

more expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard; and 

(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), 

whenever the Administrator finds on the 

basis of information available to the 

Administrator that the [SIP] is substantially 

inadequate to attain the [NAAQS] which it 

implements or to otherwise comply with any 

additional requirements established under 

this [Act]. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite 

provisions in state law providing for 

adoption of rules and regulations 

contained in the MT CAA, 75–2–101 et 

seq., MCA. More specifically, those 

provisions are contained in 75–2–102, 

MCA, Intent—Policy and Purpose; 75– 

2–111, MCA, Powers of the Board, and 

75–2–112, MCA, Powers and 

Responsibilities of Department. 

The MT CAA invests in the BER the 

authority to adopt, amend, and repeal 

rules for administering, implementing, 

and enforcing rules promulgated to 

regulate emissions of air pollutants, 

including rules necessary to establish 

measures to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. The Governor submits for 

inclusion into the SIP rules determined 

to be necessary to attain and maintain 

the NAAQS. 

b. EPA analysis: Montana’s statutory 

provisions in the Montana CAA at 75– 

2–101 et seq., give the BER sufficient 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27897 

authority to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(H). 

9. Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, PSD and 

visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the 

applicable requirements of section 121 

of this title (relating to consultation), 

section 127 of this title (relating to 

public notification), and part C of this 

subchapter (relating to [PSD] of air 

quality and visibility protection).’’ 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite the 

State Implementation Plan for Columbia 

Falls PM10 Nonattainment Area which 

was approved by EPA on April 14, 1994 

(59 FR 17700). Montana has not 

changed or revoked consultation 

processes since that time. Montana 

holds public meetings and hearings on 

all SIP revisions in accordance with 40 

CFR 51, appendix V and Montana’s 

open meeting laws 2–2–203, MCA. 

On January 3, 2006, EPA approved 

Montana’s EEAP at 71 FR 19. Montana’s 

EEAP provides for all criteria pollutants, 

including PM. The EEAP contains 

provisions for disseminating 

information regarding an exceedance of 

the NAAQS to appropriate news media, 

health officials, law enforcement, and 

others. The Department notice includes 

recommendations for actions citizens 

may take to reduce the impact of their 

activities. Montana also complies with 

40 CFR 51.930 during exceptional 

events. 

Congress directed states to develop 

and implement measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7471. Montana 

adopted permitting requirements for 

major sources proposing to modify or 

construct, PSD rules in subchapter 8 (60 

FR 36715), and nonattainment NSR 

rules in subchapter 9 (60 FR 36715) and 

10 (60 FR 36715) of Title 17, Chapter 8, 

ARM. Montana continues to implement 

and enforce these rules. Montana 

consults with Federal Land Managers as 

needed and/or required. 

The EPA promulgated a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP), which 

became final on September 18, 2012 (77 

FR 57864), to address regional haze 

requirements for the State of Montana. 

b. EPA Analysis: The State has 

demonstrated that it has the authority 

and rules in place to provide a process 

of consultation with general purpose 

local governments, designated 

organizations of elected officials of local 

governments and any Federal Land 

Manager having authority over federal 

land to which the SIP applies, 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 121. Furthermore, 

Montana’s EEAP, approved into the SIP, 

meets the general requirements of CAA 

section 127. 

Turning to the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I of the Act, EPA has evaluated this 

requirement in the context of 

infrastructure element (C) in section 

IV.3 above. As discussed there, EPA 

proposes to disapprove Montana’s 

infrastructure SIP for the requirement in 

110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP include a 

permit program as required in part C, on 

the basis that Montana’s SIP-approved 

PSD program does not properly regulate 

nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor. 

For the same reason, EPA proposes to 

disapprove Montana’s infrastructure SIP 

with regard to the requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I the Act. 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act. In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. 

We propose to find that the Montana 

SIP meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS with regard to sections 121 and 

127 of the Act, and does not meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with 

regard to meeting the applicable 

requirements of part C relating to PSD. 

10. Air quality and modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that each 

SIP provide for: 

(i) the performance of such air quality 

modeling as the Administrator may prescribe 

for the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of any 

air pollutant for which the Administrator has 

established a [NAAQS]; and 

(ii) the submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling to the 

Administrator. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite Title 17, 

Chapter 8, subchapters 7 (60 FR 3615), 

8 (60 FR 36715), 9 (60 FR 36715), and 

10 (60 FR 36715), ARM (regulating 

construction of new or modified major 

stationary sources consistent with PSD 

and NSR requirements). Sources subject 

to these provisions shall demonstrate 

the facility can be expected to operate 

in compliance with applicable law and 

that it will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of any NAAQS. 

Absent any privacy restrictions 

regarding the release of proprietary 

business information, all 

preconstruction data and analysis 

regarding the results of source 

predictive modeling for purposes of 

NAAQS compliance is public 

information available for anyone, 

including EPA, to review upon request. 

b. EPA Analysis: Montana’s SIP meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. In particular, Montana’s 

approved PSD program (see ARM 

17.8.821(1)) requires estimates of 

ambient air concentrations to be based 

on the applicable air quality models, 

databases, and other requirements 

specified in appendix W of 40 CFR part 

51, pertaining to the Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models. As a result, the SIP 

provides for such air quality modeling 

as the Administrator has prescribed 

with respect to the SIP outside of the 

nonattainment context. 

11. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) directs SIPs to: 

Require the owner or operator of each 

major stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of any 

permit required under this act, a fee 

sufficient to cover— 

(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and 

acting upon any application for such a 

permit, and 

(ii) if the owner or operator receives a 

permit for such source, the reasonable costs 

of implementing and enforcing the terms and 

conditions of any such permit (not including 

any court costs or other costs associated with 

any enforcement action), until such fee 

requirement is superseded with respect to 

such sources by the Administrator’s approval 

of a fee program under [title] V * * * 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite an 

approved Title V permitting program. 

Montana requires an applicant 

proposing to construct or modify an air 

pollution source to pay an application 

fee, ARM 17.8.504 (State rule only). 

Sources must also pay an annual 

operation fee, ARM 17.8.505 (State rule 

only). 

b. EPA Analysis: Montana’s approved 

title V operating permit program meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. As discussed in the Direct 

Final Rule approving the State’s title V 

program (65 FR 37049, June 13, 2000), 

the State demonstrated that the fees 

collected were sufficient to administer 

the program. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27898 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

12. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The State’s submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure requirements cite Section 

75–2–112(2)(j) of the MT CAA which 

requires the Department to ‘‘. . . advise, 

consult, contract, and cooperate with 

other agencies of the state, local 

governments, industries, other states, 

interstate and interlocal agencies, the 

United States, and any interested 

persons or groups; . . .’’ 

As a matter of practice, the 

Department consults with the local 

agencies when nec . . . essary to 

implement a control plan for a 

nonattainment area. The Department 

also meets with county/local air 

pollution control program staff and 

discusses monitoring issues, including 

monitoring for PM2.5, prior to making 

decisions regarding monitoring needs, 

monitor type, locations, and monitoring 

schedules. 

Parties affected by Department 

actions, including local political 

subdivisions, may petition the BER for 

a hearing and address of their 

grievances, see ARM 17.8.140 (66 FR 

42427), 17.8.141 (66 FR 42427), and 

17.8.142 (66 FR 42427). 

b. EPA Analysis: Montana’s submittal 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the following infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS: (A), (C) with respect to the 

requirement to have a minor NSR 

program that addresses PM2.5; (E)(i), 

(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to 

the requirements of sections 121 and 

127, (K), (L), and (M). EPA is proposing 

to disapprove the following 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (E)(ii) concerning 

requirements for state boards under 

section 128; and elements (C) and (J) 

with respect to the requirement to have 

a PSD program that meets the 

requirements of part C of Title I of the 

Act. Finally, in this action, EPA is 

taking no action on infrastructure 

element (D) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS as that element will be acted on 

separately. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; 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, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 2, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11293 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0726; FRL–9813–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Requirements 

for PM2.5 Increments and Major and 

Minor Source Baseline Dates; State 

Board Requirements; North Dakota 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission from the State of North 

Dakota to demonstrate that the SIP 

meets the infrastructure requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for particulate 

matter less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers (mm) in diameter (PM2.5) on 

July 18, 1997 and on October 17, 2006. 

The CAA requires that each state, after 

a new or revised NAAQS is 

promulgated, review their SIP to ensure 

that it meets the requirements of the 

‘‘infrastructure elements’’ necessary to 

implement the new or revised NAAQS. 

On May 25, 2012, North Dakota 

submitted a certification of their 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. On August 12, 2010 and May 

22, 2012, North Dakota submitted 

certifications of their infrastructure SIP 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are also 

proposing to approve two submissions 

from North Dakota that revise the SIP to 

address particular infrastructure 

elements. First, the State submitted 

revisions to the North Dakota Air 

Pollution Control Rules (NDAC) on 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS