Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100-0009
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Disapprovals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to Administrative Rules of Montana - Air Quality
Posted Date: 2012-02-13T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7531-7534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3245]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100; FRL-9495-9]

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana--Air Quality, 
Subchapter 7, Exclusion for De Minimis Changes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially 
disapprove State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions and new rules as 
submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010 and May 28, 2003. 
The revisions contain new rules in Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction, 
and Operation of Air Contaminant Sources) that pertain to the issuance 
of Montana air quality permits, in addition to other minor 
administrative changes to other subchapters of the Administrative Rules 
of Montana (ARM). In this action, EPA is approving those portions of 
the rules that are approvable and disapproving those portions of the 
rules that are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action 
is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective March 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, 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 you contact the individual 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard 
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday 
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless 
the context indicates otherwise.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
    A. Summary of Final Action
    B. Other Relevant Actions Related to the Montana SIP Revision 
Submittals
II. What is the background?
    A. Brief Discussion of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    B. Summary of the Submittals Addressed in This Final Action
III. Response to Comments
IV. What are the grounds for this approval action?
V. What are the grounds for this disapproval action?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

A. Summary of Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve new rule ARM 17.8.745 as 
submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010. Montana adopted 
this rule on May 14, 2010 and it became State effective on May 28, 
2010. We are also taking final action to approve all references to ARM 
17.8.745, submitted by Montana on May 28, 2003. Specifically, the 
following phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) ``except 
when a permit is not required under ARM 17.8.745'' and (2) ``except as 
provided in ARM 17.8.745,'' the phrase ``and 17.8.745'' in ARM 
17.8.743(1) and the phrase ``the emission increase meets the criteria 
in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change not requiring a permit in ARM 
17.8.864(1)(b). These references were adopted on December 6, 2002, and 
became State effective on December 27, 2002. EPA is also taking final 
action to disapprove the phrase ``asphalt concrete plants, mineral 
crushers'' in new rule ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) as submitted by the State of 
Montana on May 28, 2003. This rule was adopted on December 6, 2002, and 
became State effective on December 27, 2002.
    ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 
2010, and all references to ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the State of 
Montana on May 28, 2003, meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's 
minor New Source Review (NSR) regulations. ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), as 
submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003, does not meet the 
requirements of the Act and EPA's minor NSR regulations.
    EPA proposed an action for the above SIP revision submittals on 
September 26, 2011 (76 FR 59338). We accepted comments from the public 
on this proposal from September 27, 2011, until October 26, 2011. A 
summary of the comments received and our evaluation thereof is 
discussed in section III below. In the proposed rule, we described our 
basis for the actions identified above. The reader should refer to the 
proposed rule, and sections III and IV of this preamble, for additional 
information regarding this final action.
    EPA reviews a SIP revision submission for its compliance with the 
Act and EPA regulations. CAA 110(k)(3). We evaluated the submitted 
Program based upon the regulations and associated record that have been 
submitted and are currently before EPA. In order for EPA to ensure that 
Montana has a Program that meets the requirements of the CAA, the State 
must demonstrate the Program is as stringent as the Act and the 
implementing regulations discussed in this notice. For example, EPA 
must have sufficient information to make a finding that the new Program 
will ensure protection of the NAAQS, and noninterference with the 
Montana SIP control strategies, as required by section 110(l) of the 
Act.
    The provisions in these submittals were not submitted to meet a 
mandatory

[[Page 7532]]

requirement of the Act. Therefore, the final action to disapprove these 
submittals does not trigger a sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan 
clock. See CAA section 179(a).

B. Other Relevant Actions Related to the Montana SIP Revision 
Submittals

    The Amended Consent Decree in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 
09-cv-02148 (D. Col.), as amended, currently provides that EPA will 
take final action on the State's SIP revision submittals by October 31, 
2011. See Stipulation to Extend the Deadline for EPA's Final Action of 
Item Number 11 on Exhibit A to the Consent Decree, filed with the Court 
on March 30, 2011 (Doc. 33).

II. What is the background?

A. Brief Discussion of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 requires states to 
have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or 
modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies 
or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Such minor NSR programs are for pollutants 
from stationary sources that do not require Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment NSR permits. States may customize 
the requirements of the minor NSR program as long as their program 
meets minimum requirements.
    Section 110(l) of the CAA states: ``[e]ach revision to an 
implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be 
adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The 
Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision 
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any 
other applicable requirement of this chapter.''
    The States' obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is 
considered as ``any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.'' 
A demonstration is necessary to show that this SIP revision will not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those 
for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), lead, nitrogen oxides (NOX) or any other 
requirement of the Act. Montana's demonstration of noninterference (see 
docket), as submitted to EPA on June 25, 2010, and our Technical 
Support Document (see docket) provide sufficient basis that new section 
ARM 17.8.745 submitted by Montana on June 25, 2010, will not interfere 
with attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other 
applicable requirement of the CAA. Further details are provided in 
sections IV and V of this action.

B. Summary of the Submittals Addressed in This Final Action

    The State's May 28, 2003 submittal included ARM 17.8.743, which was 
a new rule. ARM 17.8.743(1) describes those sources that are required 
to obtain a Montana air quality permit. ARM 17.8.743(1) provides that 
any new or modified facility or emitting unit that has the potential to 
emit more than 25 tons per year of any airborne pollutant, except 
lead,\1\ must obtain a Montana air quality permit except as provided in 
ARM 17.8.744 and ARM 17.8.745 before constructing, installing, 
modifying or operating. ARM 17.8.431(1)(b) also requires asphalt 
concrete plants, mineral crushers, and mineral screens that have the 
potential to emit more than 15 tons per year of any airborne pollutant, 
other than lead, to obtain a Montana air quality permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Facilities or emitting units that emit airborne lead must 
obtain a Montana air quality permit if they are new and emit greater 
than five tons per year of airborne lead, or if they are an existing 
facility or emitting unit and a modification results in an increase 
of airborne lead by an amount greater than 0.6 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice contains EPA's final action on Montana rules relating 
to the permitting threshold for asphalt concrete plants and mineral 
crushers in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b). In our July 8, 2011 rulemaking, EPA 
approved of all of new section ARM 17.8.743(1), except for the phrase 
``asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers'' where the de minimis 
permitting threshold for those sources was changed from five tons per 
year to 15 tons per year. During the State's rulemaking process we 
expressed concerns with the new permit threshold for asphalt concrete 
plants and mineral crushers. (See October 9, 2002, letter from EPA to 
the State of Montana in the docket.) Since for asphalt concrete plants 
and mineral crushers this revision (ARM 17.8.743(1)(b)) reduces the 
stringency of the current SIP approved regulations, which has a 
threshold of five tons, we stated that Montana must provide an analysis 
showing that this new rule will not interfere with compliance with the 
NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA 
cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment or RFP, as defined in Section 171 of 
the CAA, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Montana did 
not provide any analysis or demonstration that the increased permit 
threshold, from five tons per year to 15 tons per year, for asphalt 
concrete plants and mineral crushers meets these criteria. At the 
request of the State, we took no action on the phrase ``asphalt 
concrete plants, mineral crushers'' in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) in 76 FR 
40237. EPA is taking final action to disapprove the May 28, 2003, SIP 
revision request for 17.8.743(1)(b) in this action. If the State 
submits a new SIP with the appropriate 110(l) analysis, we would 
evaluate such a new SIP and analysis.
    The State's June 25, 2010 submittal included new rule ARM 17.8.745. 
This revision request for ARM 17.8.745, which supercedes the State's 
May 28, 2003 submittal for ARM 17.8.745, creates an exemption from the 
requirement to obtain an air quality permit or permit modification for 
certain changes at a permitted facility that did not increase the 
facility's potential emissions of an air pollutant by more than five 
tons per year, when conditions specified in the rule were met.
    During the State's 1996 and 1999 rulemaking process we expressed 
concerns with the de minimis level specified in the earlier versions of 
the regulation we are proposing action on today (see letters from EPA 
to the State of Montana dated July 25, 1996, April 1, 1999 and October 
9, 2002 in the docket.) ARM 17.8.745 created an exemption from the 
requirement to obtain an air quality permit or permit modification for 
certain changes at a permitted facility that did not increase the 
facility's potential emissions of an air pollutant by more than 15 tons 
per year, when conditions specified in the rule were met. Since this 
new rule reduced the stringency of the current SIP approved 
regulations, EPA indicated that the State must provide an analysis 
showing that the new rule will not interfere with compliance with the 
NAAQS or PSD increments. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA 
cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment or RFP, as defined in section 171 of 
the CAA, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Montana's May 
28, 2003 submittal did not provide any analysis or demonstration that 
the new rule (ARM 17.8.745) meets these requirements. In EPA's final 
July 8, 2011 rulemaking (76 FR 40237), which approved revisions to ARM 
17.8.7, no action was taken on Montana's de minimis provision in ARM 
17.8.745.

[[Page 7533]]

Since EPA took no action on ARM 17.8.745 in our 76 FR 40237 notice, we 
took no action on all references to ARM 17.8.745 in ARM 17.8.7.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA did not receive comments on our September 26, 2011 Federal 
Register proposed action regarding the partial approval and partial 
disapproval of Montana's SIP revisions to ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by 
the State of Montana on June 25, 2010, all references to ARM 17.8.745 
as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003 and ARM 
17.8.743(1)(B) as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003.

IV. What are the grounds for this approval action?

    We evaluated ARM 17.8.745 using the following: (1) The statutory 
requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(c), which requires states to 
include a minor New Source Review (NSR) program in their SIP to 
regulate modifications and new construction of stationary sources 
within the area as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved; (2) the 
regulatory requirements under 40 CFR 51.160, including section 
51.160(b), which requires states to have legally enforceable procedures 
to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate 
any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance 
of the NAAQS; and (3) the statutory requirements under CAA section 
110(l), which provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the 
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. 
Therefore, EPA will approve a SIP revision only after a state has 
demonstrated that such a revision will not interfere 
(``noninterference'') with attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of Progress 
(ROP), RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    EPA retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case 
basis to determine what the appropriate demonstration of 
noninterference with attainment of the NAAQS, rate of progress, RFP or 
any other applicable requirement of the CAA should entail. In this 
instance, EPA asked the State to submit an analysis showing that the 
approval of new section ARM 17.8.745 would not violate section 110(l) 
of the CAA (see docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100); this is also 
referred to as a ``demonstration of noninterference'' with attainment 
and maintenance under CAA section 110(l). In addition to the State's 
demonstration submitted on June 25, 2010, EPA conducted its own 
analysis utilizing SIP-approved attainment plans, past rulemakings, 
stipulations, consent decrees, air modeling data and air monitoring 
data. In EPA's proposed notice (76 FR 59338), we considered the State's 
demonstration of noninterference, our own analysis, the nature of the 
permitting requirement, its potential impact on the air quality in the 
area and the air quality of the area in which the permitting 
requirements apply. We analyzed this information pollutant by pollutant 
in order to make a determination that new rule 17.8.745 is consistent 
with CAA requirements; in particular, it's impact on compliance with 
NAAQS standards. The scope and rigor of the demonstration of 
noninterference conducted in this notice is appropriate given the air 
quality status of the State, and the potential impact of the revision 
on air quality and the pollutants affected.
    The State's technical support document (TSD) (see docket) contains 
the State's regulatory history of the de minimis rule, effects of the 
de minimis rule on attainment and reasonable further progress of the 
NAAQS and assesses air quality trends, current air quality conditions 
and future projected air quality conditions. The demonstration analyses 
the effects of the new rule pollutant by pollutant in past and current 
nonattainment areas utilizing monitoring data, maintenance plans, 
modeling data, emission inventories, federal implementation plan 
requirements and past and future projected permits.

V. What are the grounds for this disapproval action?

    EPA is disapproving the phrase ``asphalt concrete plants and 
mineral crushers'' in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) submitted by the State of 
Montana on May 28, 2003. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that 
each implementation plan include a program to regulate the construction 
and modification of stationary sources, including a permit program as 
required by parts C and D of title I of the Act, as necessary to assure 
that the NAAQS are achieved. Parts C and D, which pertain to PSD and 
nonattainment, respectively, address major NSR programs for stationary 
sources, and the permitting program for ``nonmajor'' (or ``minor'') 
stationary sources is addressed by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. We 
generally refer to the latter program as the ``minor NSR'' program. A 
minor stationary source is a source whose ``potential to emit'' is 
lower than the major source applicability threshold for a particular 
pollutant defined in the applicable major NSR program.
    Therefore, we evaluated the submitted revisions and new rules using 
the federal regulations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which require 
each state to include a minor NSR program in its SIP.
    In addition, we reviewed the State's regulations for compliance 
with the Act. Generally, SIPs must be enforceable (see section 110(a) 
of the Act) and must not relax existing SIP requirements (see section 
110(l) and 193 of the Act).
    EPA is disapproving the revision to ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), which 
contains a modification size cutoff (15 tons per year) that the State 
proposes as de minimis for asphalt concrete plants and mineral 
crushers. Fifteen tons per year represents the major modification 
significance level for one criteria pollutant (PM10) and 
exceeds the significance level for another criteria pollutant 
(PM2.5) as well as for several non-criteria pollutants. It 
also exceeds the major source threshold for hazardous air pollutants 
(HAPs). Because of these reasons, EPA determines that the revision to 
ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) is not de minimis in the sense of having a trivial 
environmental effect. EPA has agreed in several rulemaking actions that 
certain activities with emissions of five tons per year or less may be 
considered ``insignificant.'' However, EPA never before denoted 
emissions increases as high as 15 tons per year as de minimis. Since 
the State did not provide an analysis as to why emission increases as 
high as 15 tons per year should be considered as having a trivial 
environmental effect, EPA finds no basis for approving this revision. 
Therefore, EPA lacks sufficient available information to determine that 
the requested revision to increase the de minimis permitting threshold 
for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers from five tons per 
year to 15 tons per year would not interfere with attainment and RFP of 
the NAAQS as required by CAA Section 110(l), or any other requirement 
of the Act.

VI. Final Action

    Based on the above discussion, EPA finds that the addition of new 
rule ARM 17.8.745 would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of 
any of the NAAQS in the State of Montana and would not interfere with 
any other applicable requirement of the Act (see proposed notice for 
this action and TSD for basis); and thus, are approvable under CAA 
section 110(l). Therefore, we are taking final action to approve ARM 
17.8.745 as submitted on June 25, 2010 by the State of Montana.

[[Page 7534]]

    We are approving new section ARM 17.8.745; and thus, we are also 
approving all references to ARM 17.8.745. This includes: The phrases in 
17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) ``except when a permit is not 
required under ARM 17.8.745'' and (2) ``except as provided in ARM 
17.8.745'' and the phrase ``and 17.8.745'' in 17.8.743(1), submitted on 
May 28, 2003; and the phrase ``the emission increase meets the criteria 
in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change not requiring a permit'' in 
17.8.764(1)(b) and (4), submitted on May 28, 2003.
    Based on the above discussion, EPA is finds no basis to determine 
that the addition of new rule ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) would not interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of 
Montana and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement 
of the Act; and thus, is not approvable under CAA section 110(l). 
Therefore, we are taking final action to disapprove the phrase 
``asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers'' in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) 
submitted on May 28, 2003.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this final action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2012. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

     Dated: October 28, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart BB--Montana

0
2. Section 52.1370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(72) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (72) On May 28, 2003 the State of Montana submitted revisions to 
the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), 17.8.740, Definitions; 
17.8.743, Montana Air Quality Permits--When Required; and 17.8.764, 
Administrative Amendment to Permit. On June 25, 2010, the State of 
Montana submitted revisions to the ARM, 17.8.745, Montana Air Quality 
Permits--Exclusion for De Minimis Changes.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Administrative Rules of Montana, 17.8.740, Definitions; 
17.8.743, Montana Air Quality Permits--When Required, except for the 
phrase in 17.8.743(1)(b), ``asphalt concrete plants, mineral crushers, 
and''; and 17.8.764, Administrative Amendment to Permit, effective 12/
27/2002.
    (B) Administrative Rules of Montana, 17.8.745, Montana Air Quality 
Permits--Exclusion for De Minimis Changes, effective 5/28/2010.

[FR Doc. 2012-3245 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P