28934 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and in installments that are consistent 

with the progress of the project, as the 

Director of the Veterans Cemetery 

Grants Service may determine and 

certify for payment to the appropriate 

Federal institution. Funds paid under 

this section for an approved Operation 

and Maintenance Project shall be used 

solely for carrying out such project as 

approved. As a condition for the final 

payment, the State or Tribal 

representative must submit to VA each 

of the following: 

* * * * * 

(d) Evidence that the State or Tribal 

Organization has met its responsibility 

for an audit under the Single Audit Act 

of 1984 (31 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.) and 

§ 39.122. 

* * * * * 

§§ 39.102 through 39.119 [Reserved] 

32. Add reserved §§ 39.102 through 

39.119 to subpart C. 

33. Revise § 39.120 to read as follows: 

§ 39.120 Documentation of grant 

accomplishments. 

Within 60 days of completion of an 

Operation and Maintenance Project, the 

State or Tribal Organization must 

submit to VCGS a written report 

regarding the work performed to meet 

VA’s national shrine standards. This 

report must be based on the original 

justification for the grant as noted in 

§ 39.81(b)(10) and must include 

statistical data and detailed pictures of 

the work accomplished. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2408) 

34. Amend § 39.121 by: 

a. Revising the section heading. 

b. Revising paragraph (a). 

c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text. 

d. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 39.121 State or Tribal Organization 

responsibilities following project 

completion. 

(a) A State or Tribal Organization that 

has received an Establishment, 

Expansion, and Improvement Project 

grant or an Operation and Maintenance 

Project grant shall monitor use of the 

cemetery by various subgroups and 

minority groups, including women 

veterans. If VA determines that underutilization by any of these groups exists, 

the State or Tribal Organization shall 

establish a program to inform members 

of these groups about benefits available 

to them. If a significant number or 

portion of the population eligible to be 

served or likely to be directly affected 

by the grant program needs benefits 

information in a language other than 

English, the State or Tribal Organization 

shall make such information available 

in the necessary language. 

(b) A State or Tribal veterans cemetery 

that has received an Establishment, 

Expansion, and Improvement Project 

grant or an Operation and Maintenance 

Project grant shall be operated and 

maintained as follows: 

* * * * * 

(c) VA, in coordination with the State 

or Tribal Organization, shall inspect the 

project for compliance with the 

standards set forth in subpart B of this 

part for Establishment, Expansion, and 

Improvement Projects and with the 

standards set forth in subpart C of this 

part for Operation and Maintenance 

Projects at the project’s completion and 

at least once in every 3-year period 

following completion of the project 

throughout the period the facility is 

operated as a State or Tribal veterans 

cemetery. The State or Tribal 

Organization shall forward to the 

Director, Veterans Cemetery Grants 

Service, a copy of the inspection report, 

giving the date and location the 

inspection was made and citing any 

deficiencies and corrective action to be 

taken or proposed. 

(d) Failure of a State or Tribal 

Organization to comply with any of 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section 

shall be considered cause for VA to 

suspend any payments due the State or 

Tribal Organization on any project until 

the compliance failure is corrected. 

* * * * * 

35. Revise § 39.122 to read as follows: 

§ 39.122 Inspections, audits, and reports. 

(a) A State or Tribal Organization will 

allow VA inspectors and auditors to 

conduct inspections as necessary to 

ensure compliance with the provisions 

of this part. The State or Tribal 

Organization will provide to VA 

evidence that it has met its 

responsibility under the Single Audit 

Act of 1984 (see part 41 of this chapter). 

(b) A State or Tribal Organization will 

make an annual report on VA Form 40– 

0241 (State Cemetery Data) signed by 

the authorized representative of the 

State or Tribal Organization. These 

forms document current burial activity 

at the cemetery, use of gravesites, 

remaining gravesites, and additional 

operational information intended to 

answer questions about the status of the 

grant program. 

(c) A State or Tribal Organization will 

complete and submit to VA a VA Form 

40–0895–13 (Certification Regarding 

Documents and Information Required 

for State or Tribal Government Cemetery 

Construction Grants-Post Grant 

Requirements) to ensure that the grantee 

is aware of and complies with all grant 

responsibilities and to properly and 

timely close out the grant. 

(The Office of Management and Budget 

has approved the information collection 

requirements in this section under 

control number 2900–0559) 

[FR Doc. 2011–12285 Filed 5–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0298; FRL–9308–5] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone 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 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires that each state, after a new or 

revised NAAQS is promulgated, review 

their SIPs to ensure that they meet the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure 

elements’’ of section 110(a)(2). The State 

of Montana submitted two certifications 

of their infrastructure SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, dated November 28, 

2007, which was determined to be 

complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 

16205), and December 22, 2009. 

EPA does not propose to act on the 

State’s November 28, 2007 and 

December 22, 2009, submissions to meet 

the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, relating to 

interstate transport of air pollution, for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved 

the State’s interstate transport SIP 

submission on February 26, 2008 (73 FR 

10150). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0298, by one of the 

following methods: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28935 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.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 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–2010– 

0298. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I, 

General Information, of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, 

dolan.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 words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What infrastructure elements are required 

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

IV. How did the State of Montana address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

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

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. 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 e-mail. 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 ozone based on 8-hour 

average concentrations. The 8-hour 

averaging period replaced the previous 

1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 

FR 38856). 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

28936 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, ‘‘Guidance on 

SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (Oct. 2, 

2007). 

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. In 

the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. In a guidance issued 

on October 2, 2007, EPA noted that, to 

the extent an existing SIP already meets 

the section 110(a)(2) requirements, 

states need only to certify that fact via 

a letter to EPA.1

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a 

final rule entitled, ‘‘Completeness 

Findings for Section 110(a) State 

Implementation Plans for the 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS’’ (73 FR 16205). In the 

rule, EPA made a finding for each state 

that it had submitted or had failed to 

submit a complete SIP that provided the 

basic program elements of section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In 

particular, EPA found that the State of 

Montana had submitted a complete SIP 

to meet these requirements. 

III. 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)(D)(ii): Interstate and 

international pollution. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority. 

• 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 prevention of 

significant deterioration (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. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the three 

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 three 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). 

This action also does not address the 

‘‘interstate transport’’ requirements of 

element 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In a separate 

action, EPA approved the State’s 

submission to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS (73 FR 10150). 

IV. How did the State of 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: Enforceable control 

measures exist to protect the ozone 

NAAQS throughout the State. Montana 

implements a stationary source permit 

program which requires subject sources 

to demonstrate emissions will not cause 

or contribute to a violation of any 

NAAQS (Administrative Rules of 

Montana (ARM) 17.8.749). Subject 

sources are further required to utilize 

best available control technology 

(BACT) when installing emission 

controls (ARM 17.8.752). Montana also 

regulates open burning and subjects 

those conducting open burning to BACT 

requirements as well (Title 17, Chapter 

8, Subchapter 6). 

Except for specific control measures 

adopted in Montana Board of 

Environmental Review (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; Subchapter 2—Emission 

Standards; Subchapter 4—Stack Heights 

and Dispersion Techniques; Subchapter 

6—Open Burning; Subchapter 7— 

Permit, Construction and Operation of 

Air Contaminant Sources; Subchapter 

8—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality; Subchapter 

9—Permit Requirements for Major 

Stationary Sources or Major 

Modifications Locating within 

Nonattainment Areas; Subchapter 10— 

Preconstruction Permit Requirements 

for Major Stationary Sources or Major 

Modifications Locating within 

Attainment or Unclassified Areas; 

Subchapter 16—Emission Control 

Requirements for Oil and Gas Well 

Facilities Operating Prior to Issuance of 

a Montana Air Quality Permit. 

State rule(s) Federal action 2 Action reference 

ARM 17.8.101 et seq ........................................................................................................................... approved ................. 60 FR 3615. 

ARM 17.8.301 et seq ........................................................................................................................... approved ................. 44 FR 14036. 

ARM 17.8.401 et seq ........................................................................................................................... approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.601 et seq ........................................................................................................................... approved ................. 61 FR 54947. 

ARM 17.8.701 et seq ........................................................................................................................... approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.801 et seq ........................................................................................................................... approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.901 et seq ........................................................................................................................... approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.1001 et seq ......................................................................................................................... approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28937 

2 In its certification, Montana noted here and 

elsewhere that EPA has subsequently approved 

revisions to the cited provisions and in some 

instances Montana has submitted revisions to the 

provisions but EPA has not yet taken action on 

them. 

3Steven 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.’’ (Sept. 20, 

1999). 

State rule(s) Federal action 2 Action reference 

ARM 17.8.1601 et seq ......................................................................................................................... approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

b. EPA analysis: Montana’s SIP meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone 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 ozone 

NAAQS. Furthermore, Montana has no 

areas designated as nonattainment for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Montana 

primarily regulates emissions of ozone 

and ozone precursors through its SIPapproved major and minor source 

permitting programs. The SIP also 

contains limitations for emissions of 

hydrocarbons from storage and 

processing of petroleum products. See 

ARM 17.8.324. This suffices, in the case 

of Montana, to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone 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 which are contrary to 

the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 

FR 45109, Nov. 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 3 and the Agency plans to 

address such state regulations in the 

future. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a deficient 

SSM provision to take steps to correct 

it as soon as possible. 

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: On an annual basis, the 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(‘‘Department’’ or ‘‘DEQ’’) 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 the 

impact of criteria pollutants. Based on 

this information, the Department 

identifies potential air pollution 

‘‘hotspots.’’ The Department, with 

participation and input from local 

control program staff and other 

interested persons, makes decisions 

regarding monitor type, location, and 

schedules for monitoring air quality in 

these hotspots. The Department makes 

the product of this decision making 

process, the annual monitoring network 

plan, available for public inspection 

prior to submission to EPA. 

Pursuant to its Quality Assurance 

Project Plans, the Department makes 

arrangements to operate and maintain 

Federal reference monitors and 

establishes Federally-approved 

protocols for sample collection, 

handling, and analysis. Ambient air 

monitoring data is subject to strict 

quality assurance/quality control 

processes. Air monitoring data is 

included in the AIRS database. 

Montana has monitored the Billings 

area for ambient ozone levels since June 

2005. No exeedences have been 

recorded. 

The provisions in state law for the 

collection and analysis of ambient air 

quality data are contained in the CAA 

of Montana (MT CAA), 75–2–101 et 

seq., MCA, and, specifically, 75–2–112, 

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 ozone NAAQS. 

The 2009–2010 Montana Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP), 

dated June 2009, was approved by EPA 

Region 8 on August 24, 2010. 

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: Congress directed states to 

develop and implement measures to 

prevent significant deterioration (PSD) 

of air quality pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

7470, et seq. and 7501, et seq. Pursuant 

to ARM 17.8.130, sources subject to the 

provisions of Title 17, Chapter 8, 

subchapters 8, 9, and 10, ARM, 

regulating construction of new or 

modified stationary sources consistent 

with PSD and NSR requirements, shall 

be subject to enforcement. The 

Department has the authority to issue a 

notice of violation, complaint regarding 

the source violation, and an order to 

take corrective action. 

State rule(s) Federal action Action reference 

ARM 17.8.130 ........................................................................................................ Approved ............................................... 71 FR 3770. 

ARM 17.8.801 et seq ............................................................................................. Approved ............................................... 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.901 et seq ............................................................................................. Approved ............................................... 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.1001 et seq ........................................................................................... Approved ............................................... 60 FR 36715. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

28938 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4 In particular, the State’s definitions of ‘‘major 

stationary source,’’ ARM 17.8.801(22)(b), ‘‘net 

emissions increase,’’ ARM 17.8.801(24), and 

‘‘significant,’’ ARM 17.8.801(27)(a), do not meet the 

corresponding requirements in, respectively, 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)(c)(ii), 51.166(b)(2)(ii), and 

51.166(b)(23)(i) with regard to treating nitrogen 

oxides as an ozone precursor. In addition, the 

definition of ‘‘air pollutant’’ used in the State’s PSD 

program does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.166(49)(i)(a) regarding identifying nitrogen 

oxides as an ozone precursor. See 72 FR at 71699. 

The provisions in state law for the 

enforcement of emission limitations and 

other control measures, means or 

techniques is 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 8-hour ozone 

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 

addition, Montana has no 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS and is therefore not required at 

this point to have a corresponding 

nonattainment NSR program. 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 SIPapproved PSD program to satisfy the 

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

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the program 

must properly regulate 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 (72 FR 

71612). The State’s approved PSD 

program does not satisfy the 

requirements of the phase 2 

implementation rule.4 Furthermore, the 

State has not submitted a revision to the 

program to address this deficiency. As 

a result, the SIP does not satisfy, for the 

1997 ozone 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 

ozone NAAQS for this requirement. 

Turning to minor NSR, EPA is 

proposing to approve Montana’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

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. (See ARM Chapter 17.8, 

Subchapter 7.) 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. Interstate transport: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting, 

consistent with the provisions of this 

title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will (I) contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state, with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard, 

or (II) interfere with measures required 

to be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other state 

under part C to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility. 

a. EPA Analysis: EPA approved the 

State’s Interstate Transport provisions 

for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

on February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10150). 

EPA is taking no action relevant to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this proposal. 

5. Interstate and International 

transport provisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP 

shall contain adequate provisions 

insuring compliance with applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 

(relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement). 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: Although Montana 

certified that its SIP met the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) generally and 110(a)(2)(D) 

specifically, Montana did not identify 

particular provisions to meet this 

requirement. 

b. EPA Analysis: Section 126(a) 

requires notification to affected, nearby 

states of major proposed new (or 

modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and 

(c) pertain to petitions by affected states 

to the Administrator regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 115 similarly pertains to 

international transport of air pollution. 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(iv), Montana’s SIPapproved PSD program requires notice 

to states whose lands may be affected by 

the emissions of sources subject to PSD. 

See ARM 17.8.826(2)(d). This suffices to 

meet the notice requirement of section 

126(a). 

Montana has no pending obligations 

under sections 126(c) or 115(b); 

therefore, its SIP currently meets the 

requirements of those sections. In 

summary, the SIP meets the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

6. Adequate resources and authority: 

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), (ii) requires that the 

state comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards under section 

128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, 

where the state has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any SIP provision, the state has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such SIP provision. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: 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 for ozone. 

Montana receives from EPA grant 

monies intended to fund programs to 

protect NAAQS. Montana allocates a 

portion of the EPA grant money to fund 

SIP activities for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Montana 

imposes and collects fees from permit 

applicants. Montana allocates all of the 

permit fee revenue to activities 

associated with permitting and 

compliance of regulated sources of air 

pollutants, including criteria pollutant 

emissions. Montana also receives state 

general funds to conduct state air 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28939 

quality program activities. Montana 

allocates all state general funding to 

non-permit 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 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. 

The Montana Board of Environmental 

Review (BER) oversees the Montana 

DEQ, including actions taken by 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. 

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 

ozone 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 regards to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

7. 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: Montana requires 

stationary sources subject to State 

regulation to annually submit all 

information necessary to complete a 

source emissions inventory. Affected 

permits require emissions monitoring 

from stationary sources of air pollution. 

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. 

State rule(s) Federal action Action reference 

ARM 17.8.105 ...................................................................................................................................... Approved ................. 66 FR 42427. 

ARM 17.8.106 ...................................................................................................................................... Approved ................. 66 FR 42427. 

ARM 17.8.505 ...................................................................................................................................... Not submitted .......... State only rule. 

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 regards to the requirements of 

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

NAAQS. 

8. 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: On January 3, 2006, EPA 

approved Montana’s Emergency Episode 

Avoidance Plan (EEAP) in 71 FR 19. 

Montana’s EEAP made provision for 

emergency control of all criteria 

pollutants. Under authority granted by 

section 75–2–402, MCA, Emergency 

Procedures, and the Montana’s EEAP, 

the Department may order sources of 

pollution to limit or cease emissions. 

The Montana CAA is not subject to 

approval by EPA. 

b. EPA analysis: Section 75–2–402 of 

the MCA provides DEQ 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 EEAP 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 

51, Subpart H. The SIP therefore meets 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G) for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

9. 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 

110(a)(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 under this Act. 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The Montana 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. 

The provisions in state law providing 

for adoption of rules and regulations are 

contained in the Montana 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: Montana’s statutory 

provisions in the Montana CAA at 75– 

2–101 et seq., give the BER sufficient 

authority to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(H). 

10. Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan 

Revision under Part D: Section 

110(a)(2)(I) requires that a SIP or SIP 

revision for an area designated as a 

nonattainment area must meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of title 

I of the Act (relating to nonattainment 

areas). 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: All control plans for nonattainment areas in Montana are 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

28940 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5Montana’s certification cited MCA 2–2–203, 

which appears to be a typographical error. 

prepared in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

7501–7505. There are no ozone 

nonattainment areas in Montana. 

b. EPA analysis for Section 

110(a)(2)(I): As noted above, the specific 

nonattainment area plan requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the 

timing requirement of section 172, not 

the timing requirement of section 

110(a)(1). This element is therefore not 

applicable to this action. EPA will take 

action on part D attainment plans 

through a separate process. 

11. 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 title 

I of the Act (relating to PSD of air 

quality and visibility protection). 

a. Montana’s response to this 

requirement: Montana satisfies EPA’s 

requirements for intergovernmental 

relations, see 59 FR 2988. 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 part 51, Appendix V and Montana’s 

open meeting laws. See 3–2–203, MCA.5

On January 3, 2006, EPA approved 

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

EEAP provides for all criteria pollutants, 

including ozone. The EEAP contains 

provisions for disseminating 

information regarding an exeedence 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 and reduce their exposure. 

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 

and nonattainment New Source Review 

rules in subchapter 10 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. 

State rule(s) Federal action Action reference 

ARM 17.8.801 et seq. .......................................................................................................................... Approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.1001 et seq. ........................................................................................................................ Approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

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 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 regards 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. 

In conclusion, the Montana SIP meets 

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

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with regards 

to sections 121 and 127 of the Act, and 

does not meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS with regards to meeting the 

applicable requirements of part C 

relating to PSD. 

12. 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: Montana requires an 

applicant proposing to construct or 

modify a source of criteria pollutants to 

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. Sources subject to the 

provisions of Title 17, Chapter 8, 

Subchapters 7, 8, 9, and 10, ARM 

(regulating construction of new or 

modified major stationary sources 

consistent with PSD and New Source 

Review (NSR) requirements) 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. 

State rule(s) Federal action Action reference 

ARM 17.8.701 et seq. .......................................................................................................................... Approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.801 et seq. .......................................................................................................................... Approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.901 et seq. .......................................................................................................................... Approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

ARM 17.8.1001 et seq. ........................................................................................................................ Approved ................. 60 FR 36715. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28941 

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 ozone NAAQS. 

In particular, Montana’s PSD program 

(see ARM 17.8.821(1)) requires 

estimates of ambient air concentrations 

to be based on the applicable air quality 

models, data bases, 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. 

13. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires 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: Montana has an approved 

Title V permitting program. Montana 

requires an applicant proposing to 

construct or modify an air pollution 

source to pay an application fee. See 

ARM 17.8.504. Pursuant to ARM 

7.8.505, Montana assesses an annual air 

quality operation fee against the owner 

or operator of any source issued a 

Montana air quality permit or an 

operating permit or which is registered 

with the Department as an oil and gas 

facility under ARM 17.8.1701, et seq. 

State rules(s) Federal action Action reference 

ARM 17.8.504 ...................................................................................................................................... Not Submitted ......... State only rule. 

ARM 17.8.505 ...................................................................................................................................... Not submitted .......... State only rule. 

ARM 17.8.1701, et seq. ....................................................................................................................... Pending ................... MT submitted 11/1/ 

06. 

b. EPA Analysis: Montana’s approved 

title V operating permit program meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone 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. 

14. 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: As a matter of practice, the 

Department consults with the local 

agencies when necessary to implement 

a control plan for a nonattainment area. 

The Department also meets with county 

air pollution control program staff and 

discusses monitoring issues, including 

ozone, prior to making decisions 

regarding monitoring needs, monitor 

type, locations, and monitoring 

schedules. 

Section 75–2–112(2)(j) of the Montana 

CAA 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; * * * ’’ 

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, 17.8.141, 

and 17.8.142. 

State rule(s) Federal action Action reference 

ARM 17.8.140 ...................................................................................................................................... Approved ................. 66 FR 42427. 

ARM 17.8.141 ...................................................................................................................................... Approved ................. 66 FR 42427. 

ARM 17.8.142 ...................................................................................................................................... Approved ................. 66 FR 42427. 

b. EPA Analysis: Montana’s submittal 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the following infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with regards to the 

requirement to have a SIP-approved 

minor NSR program, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J) with regards to the requirements 

of sections 121 and 127 of the Act, (K), 

(L), and (M). 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the following infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: 

(C) with regards to the requirement for 

the SIP to include a permit program as 

required in part C of title I of the Act, 

and (J) with regards to the requirement 

for the SIP to meet the applicable 

requirements of part C relating to PSD. 

In this action, EPA is taking no action 

on infrastructure elements (D)(i) and (I) 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

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 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.); 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

28942 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• 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, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 12, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12357 Filed 5–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0460; FRL–9309–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing both an 

approval and a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of permitting rules 

submitted for the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD or District) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). The District is required 

under Parts C and D of title I of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to adopt and 

implement SIP-approved New Source 

Review (NSR) and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

programs. These rules update and revise 

the District’s NSR and PSD permitting 

programs for new and modified major 

sources of air pollution. If EPA finalizes 

the limited approval and limited 

disapproval action, as proposed, then a 

sanctions clock would be triggered. We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

June 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0460, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under EPA–R09–OAR– 

2011–0460. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents are listed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., CBI). 

To inspect the hard copy materials, 

please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal, including the dates they 

were adopted by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS