Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32767

the orders, stipulations and exhibit A’s

and attachments to the stipulations.

(C) All portions of the October 20,

1998 East Helena Pb SIP submitted

other than the orders, stipulations and

exhibit A’s and attachments to the

stipulations.

(D) November 16, 1999 letter from Art

Compton, Division Administrator,

Planning, Prevention and Assistance

Division, Montana Department of

Environmental Quality, to Richard R.

Long, Director, Air and Radiation

Program, EPA Region VIII.

(E) September 9, 1998 letter from

Richard A. Southwick, Point Source SIP

Coordinator, Montana Department of

Environmental Quality, to Richard R.

Long, Director, Air and Radiation

Program, EPA Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 01–15142 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIP NO. MT–001–0030a; FRL–6985–8]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of Air Quality

Implementation Plan; Montana; East

Helena Lead State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final

action approving revisions to the East

Helena Lead (Pb) State Implementation

Plan (SIP) submitted by the Government

of Montana on November 27, 2000. The

revisions make minor modifications to

Asarco’s control strategy in the Pb SIP.

The intended effect of this action is to

make the revisions federally

enforceable. The EPA is taking this

action under sections 110 and 301 of the

Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August

17, 2001. without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comment by July

18, 2001. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, Air

and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P–

AR, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air and Radiation Program,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300,

Denver, Colorado, 80202 and copies of

the Incorporation by Reference material

are available at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Copies of the State documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection at the Montana Department

of Environmental Quality, Air and

Waste Management Bureau, 1520 E. 6th

Avenue, Helena, Montana 59620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kerri Fiedler, EPA, Region VIII, (303)

312–6493 or Laurie Ostrand, EPA,

Region VIII, (303) 312–6437.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we

are giving meaning to certain words as

follows:

(i) The words or initials Act of 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 Pb mean or refer to

the element lead.

(iv) The initials MDEQA mean or refer

to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality.

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to

State Implementation Plan.

(vi) The words State or Montana mean

the State of Montana, unless the context

indicates otherwise.

Background

On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694),

we designated the East Helena area as

nonattainment for Pb. This designation

was effective on January 6, 1992 and

required the State to submit a Part D SIP

by July 6, 1993. On August 16, 1995,

July 2, 1996 and October 20, 1998 the

Governor of Montana submitted SIP

revisions to meet the Part D SIP

requirements. On October 10, 2000 (65

FR 60144) we proposed to partially

approve and partially disapprove these

State submittals. In a separate action

published today we are finalizing our

proposal to partially approve and

partially disapprove the State

submittals.

Subsequent to our October 10, 2000

proposed rulemaking, the State of

Montana submitted another revision to

the East Helena Pb SIP on November 27,

2000. Since the State’s November 27,

2000 submittal revises portions of the

plan on which we proposed action, we

believe we should act on the new

provisions at the same time we take

final action on our proposed

rulemaking, so that the end result will

be a federally approved plan that is

consistent with the current State plan

(except for those provisions of the plan

that we are partially disapproving in a

separate action published today).

Review of State’s November 27, 2000

Submittal

With the November 27, 2000

submittal, the State is revising the

control strategy for the Asarco lead

smelter in East Helena, Montana, by

removing reference to the Pb bullion

granulating process in the Dross

Building from the control plan and by

renaming several emission points and a

process vessel at the Asarco facility. The

revisions were effective at the State

level on September 15, 2000.

Pb Granulating Process Changes

When the State developed the Pb SIP

for East Helena (SIP submitted on

August 16, 1995), at the request of

Asarco, the SIP referenced a new

granulating technology in the Dross

Building. We proposed approval of this

SIP on October 10, 2000 (65 FR 60144).

Subsequently, Asarco found that the

granulating technology did not work

well and discontinued its use, reverting

back to conventional drossing

technology in 1997. The MDEQ has

concluded that discontinuing the

granulating technology and reverting

back to the conventional technology

will not change any of the inputs or

assumptions in the modeling

demonstration used to demonstrate

compliance with the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Pb

in East Helena. Additionally, the MDEQ

has concluded that changing the

drossing process will not have an effect

on actual levels of fugitive Pb emissions

from the Dross Plant building or on

actual levels of Pb emissions from the

Dross Plant baghouse stack. The MDEQ

reached these conclusions based on the

following information:

• The subject drossing activities are

conducted entirely within the Dross

Plan building;

• The Dross Plant building is

completely enclosed and ventilated to

the Dross Plant baghouse;

• There will be no change in the

fugitive emission rate with the

conventional technology; and

• There will be no change in

emissions from the Dross Plant

baghouse stack.

We have reviewed the MDEQ’s

conclusions and supporting

documentation; we agree that there will

be no change in levels of emissions from

32768 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

the Dross Plant building or Dross Plant

baghouse stack and no changes in the

inputs and assumptions used in the Pb

NAAQS attainment demonstration.

Therefore, we are approving the

revisions to the SIP that remove all

references to the granulating process in

the Dross Plant. The specific sections of

exhibit A to Asarco’s stipulation that are

being revised thus include: Sections

3(A)(12)(a), 3(A)(12)(p), 3(A)(12)(q),

3(A)(12)(r), and 5(G)(4). These revisions,

which became effective on September

15, 2000, replace the same numbered

sections in previously approved SIP

revisions.

Renaming of Emission Points and

Process Vessel

The November 27, 2000 submittal also

renamed two emission points and a

process unit to better reflect the current

configuration of Asarco’s East Helena

facility. All references to the ‘‘Crushing

Mill Baghouses # 1 and #2’’ and

‘‘Crushing Mill Baghouse Stacks #1 and

#2’’ have been replaced with ‘‘Sinter

Plant Roof Baghouses #7 and #8.’’ We

understand that there is no change in

emissions from or in waste gas streams

vented to these baghouses. We are

approving the renaming of these

baghouses. The specific sections of

exhibit A to Asarco’s stipulation that are

being revised to reflect the new

baghouse names include: sections

1(B)(4), 1(B)(5), 3(A)(3), 3(A)(4),

3(A)(16)(a), 5(D)(1), 5(D)(2), 8(A)(3),

9(B)(2), and 9(B)(3). These revisions,

which became effective on September

15, 2000, replace the same numbered

sections in previously approved SIP

revisions.

Finally, the November 27, 2000

submittal also renamed the ‘‘60-ton

kettle’’ in the Dross Plant to the ‘‘#4

kettle.’’ Again, this was done to better

represent the current configuration at

the Asarco facility. We understand that

there is no change in emissions from the

‘‘60-ton kettle.’’ We are approving the

renaming of the ‘‘60-ton kettle’’ to the

‘‘#4 kettle.’’ The specific sections of

exhibit A to Asarco’s stipulation that are

being revised to reflect the new kettle

name include: sections 3(A)(12)(a),

3(A)(12)(i), 3(A)(12)(m), 3(A)(12)(o) and

3(A)(12)(p). These revisions, which

became effective on September 15, 2000,

replace the same numbered sections in

previously approved SIP revisions.

II. Final Action

We are approving the State’s

November 27, 2000 submittal, which

revised the part of the control strategy

related to the Asarco Pb smelter by

removing references to the Pb bullion

granulating process (in the Dross Plant)

and by renaming several emission

points and a process vessel at the

Asarco facility. The specific sections of

exhibit A to Asarco’s stipulation that are

being revised include: 1(B)(4), 1(B)(5),

3(A)(3), 3(A)(4), 3(A)(12)(a), 3(A)(12)(i),

3(A)(12)(m), 3(A)(12)(o), 3(A)(12)(p),

3(A)(12)(q), 3(A)(12)(r), 3(A)(16)(a),

5(D)(1), 5(D)(2), 5(G)(4), 8(A)(2), 8(A)(3),

9(B)(2), and 9(B)(3). These revisions,

which became effective on September

15, 2000, replace the same-numbered

sections in previously approved SIP

revisions.

We caution that if Asarco is subject to

more stringent requirements under other

provisions of the Act (e.g., section 111,

Part C, or SIP-approved permit programs

under Part A), our approval of this SIP

revision would not excuse Asarco from

meeting these other more stringent

requirements. Also, our approval of this

SIP revision is not meant to imply any

sort of applicability determination

under other provisions of the Act (e.g.,

section 111, Part C, or SIP approved

permit programs under Part A).

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments on this minor revision to the

Lead SIP. However, in the ‘‘Proposed

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal

Register publication, EPA is publishing

a separate document that will serve as

the proposal to approve the SIP revision

if adverse comments are filed. This rule

will be effective August 17, 2001,

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

July 18, 2001. If the EPA receives

adverse comments, EPA will publish a

timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register informing the public that the

rule will not take effect. EPA will

address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting must do so at this time.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse

comment on an amendment, paragraph,

or section of this rule and if that

provision may be severed from the

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt

as final those provisions of the rule that

are not the subject of an adverse

comment.

III. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

This rule also does not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it have substantial direct effects on

the States, on the relationship between

the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32769

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 17, 2001.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 16, 2001.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart BB—Montana

2. Section 52.1370 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(53) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1370 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(53) The Governor of Montana

submitted minor revisions to Asarco’s

control strategy in the East Helena Lead

SIP on November 27, 2000.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Board order issued on September

15, 2000, by the Montana Board of

Environmental Review adopting and

incorporating the stipulation of the

Montana Department of Environmental

Quality and Asarco dated July 18, 2000.

The July 18, 2000 stipulation revises the

following sections in the previously

adopted exhibit A to the stipulation:

1(B(4), 1(B)(5), 3(A)(3), 3(A)(4),

3(A)(12)(a), 3(A)(12)(i), 3(A)(12)(m),

3(A)(12)(o), 3(A)(12)(p), 3(A)(12)(q),

3(A)(12)(r), 3(A)(16)(a), 5(D)(1), 5(D)(2),

5(G)(4), 8(A),(2), 8(A)(3), 9(B)(2), and

9(B)(3). These revisions, which became

effective on September 15, 2000, replace

the same-numbered sections in

previously approved SIP revisions.

[FR Doc. 01–15143 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL204–2; FRL–6998–2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; State of

Illinois; Oxides of Nitrogen

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On April 3, 2001, the EPA

proposed to approve a draft statewide

rule to control the emissions of Oxides

of Nitrogen (NOX) from Electric

Generating Units (EGUs) in the State of

Illinois. Illinois submitted this rule for

parallel processing on October 20, 2000.

The adopted rule provides NOX

emission reductions to support

attainment of the one-hour ozone

standard in the Metro-East/St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area. In the April

3, 2001, proposed rule, EPA noted that

significant changes in the rule between

the version upon which EPA’s proposed

rule is based and the final adopted

version, other than those changes

resulting from issues discussed in the

April 3, 2001, proposed rule, would

require EPA to prepare and publish a

new EPA proposed rule on Illinois’

subsequent submittal of the adopted

rule. Because Illinois’ final rule

submitted on May 8, 2001, did not

contain any significant unforeseen

changes, EPA is responding to public

comments received in response to its

proposed rule and announcing final

approval of the State adopted rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective July

18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may obtain copies of

the State Implementation Plan revision

request at the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. Please telephone John

Paskevicz at (312) 886–6084 before

visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Paskevicz, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone

Number: (312) 886–6084, E-Mail

Address: paskevicz.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, the terms

‘‘you’’ and ‘‘me’’ refer to the reader of

this final rule and to sources subject to

the State rule, and the terms ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’

or ‘‘our’’ refers to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What is a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)?

B. What is the Federal approval process for

a SIP?

C. What does Federal approval of a State

regulation mean to me?

D. What Clean Air Act requirements apply

to or led to the State’s submittal of the

NOX emission control regulation?

E. What analyses and EPA rulemaking

actions support the need for the NOX

emission control regulation?

II. Summary of the State Submittal

A. When was the NOX emission control

regulation submitted to the EPA?

B. Has the regulation been adopted by the

State?

C. What are the basic components of the

State’s regulation?

D. What public review opportunities have

been provided by the State for this

regulation?

III. EPA Review of the Adopted Regulation

A. Does the regulation adequately support

the attainment of the ozone standard in

the Metro-East/St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area?

B. What other criteria were considered to

judge the approvability of the regulation

and does the regulation meet these

criteria?

C. Is the regulation approvable?

IV. Proposed Action Published on April 3,

2001 (64 FR 17641)