[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68034-68038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[SIP NOS. MT-001-0012a; MT-001-0013a; MT-001-0014a; MT-001-0015a; FRL-
6482-76]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Emergency Episode Plan, Columbia Falls, Butte and Missoula
Particulate Matter State Implementation Plans, Missoula Carbon Monoxide
State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Montana.
The revisions update the State of Montana's Emergency Episode Plan;
Columbia Falls, Butte and Missoula's Particulate Matter (particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM-10)) Plans; and the Missoula carbon monoxide (CO) Plan.
The intended effect of this action is to make the federally approved
SIP consistent with the State adopted SIP with respect to the Emergency
Episode Plan, Columbia Falls, Butte and Missoula's PM-10 SIPS and
Missoula's CO SIP. EPA is taking this action under sections 110 and 179
of the Clean Air Act (Act). EPA is also updating out-of-date sections
in 40 CFR part 52, subpart BB--Montana.
DATES: This rule is effective on February 4, 2000 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 5, 2000. 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 500, 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 500, Denver, Colorado 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: Laurie Ostrand, EPA, Region VIII,
(303) 312-6437.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean EPA. On July 8, 1997, the Governor
of Montana submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The SIP revision consists of minor modifications to the Butte,
Columbia Falls and Missoula PM-10 control plans, the Missoula CO
control plan, and an update to the Montana Emergency Episode Plan.
I. Summary of SIP Revision
A. Columbia Falls PM-10 Control Plan
The July 8, 1997 SIP submittal revised the State's SIP narrative
page numbering for the Columbia Falls PM-10 control plan and Table
15.11.14A, Columbia Falls 24-hour Demonstration of Compliance
Implementation of Contingency Measure, and Table 15.11.15B, Columbia
Falls 24-hour Demonstration of Compliance. The Tables are contained in
the SIP narrative.
The revisions to the above tables make minor modifications to the
attainment, maintenance and contingency measures demonstrations. In a
recent review of the Columbia Falls attainment demonstration the State
believed that the 24-hour attainment
[[Page 68035]]
demonstration contained in the SIP revisions EPA approved in 1994 and
1996 1 had incorrectly labeled the source categories. The
revised tables correct this error. With these minor revisions, Columbia
Falls still demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We initially approved the Columbia Falls PM-10 control plan
on April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17700) and the Columbia Falls PM-10
contingency measures and minor revisions to the attainment and
maintenance demonstrations on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11153).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe the revisions to the Columbia Falls PM-10 SIP are minor.
We are approving the revisions to the Columbia Falls PM-10 SIP.
B. Butte PM-10 Control Plan
The July 8, 1997 SIP submittal revises the State's PM-10 attainment
demonstration for Butte. Specifically, the SIP revision modifies the
following tables contained in the SIP narrative: Table 47.10.14.3C,
Contingency Measure Demonstration--24-Hour; Table 47.10.15A, Control
Strategy Credit; Table 47.10.15.2A, Butte 24-Hour Demonstration of
Compliance and the SIP narrative in sections 47.10.10.3, Rhone-Poulenc
Basic Chemicals, Co. (Rhone-Poulenc) Control Efficiency, and
47.10.15.2, 24-Hour Demonstration of Attainment and Maintenance.
Rhone-Poulenc, a contributor of PM-10 to the Butte area, requested
an increase in its permitted PM-10 emissions limit. In our review
comments on the draft permit we indicated that the State would need to
revise the Butte PM-10 SIP and submit documentation to support the
Department's conclusion that although there was an increase in
allowable emissions there would be no change in the PM-10 attainment
and maintenance demonstrations for Butte.
In the earlier Butte PM-10 SIP revisions we approved in 1994 and
1995,2 the allowable PM-10 emissions for Rhone-Poulenc was
determined by multiplying the 1987-88 base year actual emissions by 1.2
(the allowable PM-10 emissions were 20% higher than the actual PM-10
emissions). Rhone-Poulenc's actual emissions were determined to be
117.7 tons of PM-10/year and the allowable PM-10 emissions were limited
to 141.2 tons of PM-10/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We initially approved the Butte PM-10 SIP on March 11, 1994
(59 FR 11550). On March 22, 1995 (60 FR 15056) we approved the PM-10
contingency measures for Butte and revisions to the attainment and
maintenance demonstration due to the inclusion of a new emissions
limit in a revised air quality permit for Montana Resources, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 22, 1996, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
issued Air Quality Permit #1636-06 to Rhone-Poulenc. This permit
increases the PM-10 emission limitations on the #1 and #2 coke dryers
and the silo scrubbers, as well as the total PM-10 emission limitation
for the facility. The permit indicates:
The department has determined that the limits for the scrubbers
controlling the #1 and #2 coke dryers, which also control emissions
from the nodule sizing, crushing and handling activities, were
established incorrectly. The Butte SIP outlines a control strategy
which sets the Rhone-Poulenc's allowable emissions at 120% of the
actual levels during the SIP base year of 1987-1988. The previous
calculation of the actual base year emissions for the scrubbers
controlling the coke dryers/nodule crushing and the scrubber
controlling the silos was based on a source test performed by Rhone-
Poulenc personnel in 1979. The department has determined that the
use of data from these stack tests for establishing base-year
emissions was not appropriate * * *. Because the calculations of
base year emissions used inappropriate data, the limits established
for the #1 and #2 coke dryer scrubbers and the silo scrubber were
set at abnormally low levels. Rhone-Poulenc has demonstrated that
these three emission limits are not achievable even after completely
rebuilding the scrubber internals.
This permit alteration will set limits for these sources based
on source testing performed in 1992. The department feels that,
because of more stringent QA/QC procedures and documentation of
production levels as well as inlet particulate loadings to the
control device, the testing performed in 1992 is a better source of
data to use in estimating the base year actual emissions * * *
The new permit's PM-10 emission limitation for Rhone-Poulenc is 242
tons/year. The base year actual PM-10 emissions are assumed to be 201.7
tons/year (242/1.2=201.7).
With the July 8, 1997 SIP revision, the State has shown that Rhone-
Poulenc's PM-10 contribution to the attainment and maintenance
demonstration and contingency measure control does not change from the
SIP revisions EPA approved in 1994 and 1995 and that the area still
demonstrates attainment and maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS. Therefore,
EPA is approving the 1997 revision to the Butte PM-10 SIP.
C. Missoula PM-10 and CO Control Plans
The July 8, 1997 SIP submittal revises the State's Table of
Contents for the Missoula PM-10 Control Plan and updates the CO Control
Plan.
With the July 8, 1997 submittal, the State is updating the Missoula
PM-10 SIP Table of Contents by removing a reference to section
``32.10.15 Maintenance Plan'' and in its place putting a new section,
``32.10.15 PM-10 Commitments.'' Previously the Table of Contents
indicated that the Maintenance Plan was in section 32.10.15 and the PM-
10 Commitments were in section 32.10.16. The July 8, 1997 submittal
does not appear to be making any revisions to the Missoula PM-10 SIP
narrative that we already approved.
In reviewing previously submitted and federally approved Missoula
PM-10 SIP revisions 3, we found that although the previous
Table of Contents referenced section ``32.10.15 Maintenance Plan,'' we
could not find that a corresponding section in the SIP narrative was
ever submitted or federally approved. In discussions with staff at the
DEQ, however, we learned that their Missoula PM-10 SIP documents do
contain a section 32.10.15 Maintenance Plan which is basically a
``place holder'' for a future PM-10 maintenance plan required for
redesignating the area to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We originally approved the Missoula PM-10 SIP on January 18,
1994 (59 FR 2537) with revisions approved on December 13, 1994 and
August 30, 1995 (59 FR 64133 and 60 FR 45051, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the PM-10 Commitments, our records show that on
November 30, 1992, the Governor of Montana submitted PM-10 Commitments
to be included as part of the Missoula PM-10 SIP. The commitments were
in the form of a letter. (It does not appear, however, that the final
SIP narrative was ever submitted which incorporated the PM-10
Commitments.) EPA addressed the PM-10 commitments in its January 18,
1994 action. The State has since fulfilled these commitments. See EPA's
December 13, 1994 and August 30, 1995 actions mentioned in footnote 3.
Since the July 8, 1997 submittal makes the Table of Contents
consistent to what we believe is contained in the federally approved
SIP, we are approving the revision to the Table of Contents.
The CO Control Plan revision consists of an update to the existing
SIP narrative, adopted by the State in 1981 and approved by us on
January 16, 1986 (51 FR 2397). With the 1997 revision, the State is
updating the SIP narrative to reflect changes in emissions and
monitored air quality values, and the addition of new control
strategies since the original SIP was adopted. The SIP revision does
not include a new attainment demonstration (none is required for the
area under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments), nor does it include any
new control strategies that we have not already approved.
The original CO SIP relied upon the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program (FMVCP) and reconstruction of the
[[Page 68036]]
Brooks/South/Russell intersection to bring the Missoula area into
compliance with the CO NAAQS. The FMVCP is our ongoing nationally-
implemented program to control motor vehicle emissions; the Brooks/
South/Russell intersection reconstruction was completed in 1985. The
revised SIP narrative discusses additional measures that have been
implemented to control CO emissions in Missoula, including the
woodburning control program (Rule 1428, Solid Fuel Burning Devices,
approved by us on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2537) with revisions approved
on December 13, 1994 and August 30, 1995 (59 FR 64133 and 60 FR 45051,
respectively)), the Reserve Street project to provide an alternative
route to Brooks Avenue (not included in the SIP), and the oxygenated
fuels program (approved by us on November 8, 1994 (59 FR 55585)).
The State submitted this update to the Missoula CO SIP narrative
with the intention that it supersede the 1981 SIP narrative and
incorporate the already-existing CO control strategies for Missoula
into one document. The requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments for CO that apply to Missoula have already been satisfied by
the State in other submittals, and this document does not revise any of
those SIP elements. We are approving this revision to the Missoula CO
SIP.
D. Emergency Episode Plan
The July 8, 1997 SIP submittal revises the State's Emergency
Episode Plan. The submittal, for the most part, revises the priority
classification of several of the Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR)
based on more current ambient data. The submittal also revises the
discussion of the episode surveillance system and data acquisition for
Priority I and II Regions. Specifically, the prior Emergency Episode
Plan identified the specific ambient monitors to be used to identify
emergency episodes and the frequency at which these monitors should be
operated during different types of emergency episodes. The recently
submitted Emergency Episode Plan indicates that the episode
surveillance system will consist of all the air monitoring equipment
determined annually in the network review. Additionally the Emergency
Episode Plan indicates that during an emergency episode, PM-10, sulfur
dioxide and CO concentrations will be determined by continuous
monitors.
We last approved revisions to the State's Emergency Episode Plan on
January 20, 1994 (59 FR 2988). In reviewing the current revisions to
the Emergency Episode Plan we had several concerns. On September 7,
1999, we sent a letter to Mark Simonich, Director, Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), identifying the following concerns and
requesting that the State address these concerns in its next revision
to the Plan:
We believe that AQCR 140 (Billings) should be a Priority
II area for sulfur dioxide. Ambient data from 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996
place the Billings/Laurel area in Priority II.
We believe that AQCR 142 (Helena) should be a Priority II
area for particulate matter due to PM-10 concentrations measured in
1998.
Based on State's draft revisions to its Open Burning rules
it appears that the National Weather Service (NWS) no longer provides
certain weather forecasting information (e.g., ventilation). If the NWS
no longer provides the information mentioned in the Emergency Episode
Plan then the plan should be revised to indicate who is providing this
information.
In a letter dated December 4, 1996, we suggested that the
Department change the sulfur dioxide significant harm level from 2620
g/m3 to 2.620 g/m3 as this was the value shown in 40
CFR 51.151. The State made the requested change with the July 1997
submittal of the Emergency Episode Plan. We now believe the CFR is
incorrect and the value should remain 2620 g/m3.
On October 22, 1999, Mark Simonich, Director, Department of
Environmental Quality agreed to address our concerns with the next
revision to the Emergency Episode Plan. Mr. Simonich indicated that
priority classifications will be updated based upon the most recent
three years of monitoring data (1997-1999). Based on the State's
agreement to revise the Plan, we are approving the 1997 submittal of
the State's Emergency Episode Plan. In this notice we are updating 40
CFR 52.1371 to indicate the current emergency episode priority
classifications for the AQCRs.
E. Updates to 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart BB--Montana
At this time we are also updating 40 CFR part 52, subpart BB--
Montana. We recently reviewed this subpart and found some of the
sections to be out of date or found errors made when regulatory text
was added to this subpart. The items below identify the changes we are
making.
1. On November 3, 1995 (60 FR 55792) we approved revisions to
Montana's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations. We
inadvertently codified these revision into 40 CFR 52.1320(c)(42) in
lieu of 40 CFR 52.1370(c)(42). We are removing these revisions from 40
CFR 52.1320(c)(42) and adding them to 40 CFR 52.1370(c)(42).
2. Prior Clean Air Act (Act) requirements were superceded following
the 1990 amendments to the Act. Pursuant to the 1990 amended Act, on
March 30, 1994 the Governor of Montana submitted a primary sulfur
dioxide (SO2) SIP for the East Helena area. We approved the primary SO2
SIP on January 27, 1995 (60 FR 5313). See also 40 CFR 52.1370(c)(37).
Since EPA has approved the primary SO2 SIP for the East Helena area, 40
CFR 52.1373 Control Strategy: Sulfur oxides is no longer applicable.
Since 40 CFR 52.1373 is no longer applicable we are replacing 40 CFR
52.1373 with another entry. The 1990 amended Act also modified the
attainment dates for the SO2 NAAQS.4 As a result, 40 CFR
52.1375 is not no longer applicable. We are removing 40 CFR 52.1375
from 40 CFR part 52, subpart BB--Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See our General Preamble published on April 16, 1992 at 57
FR 13546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. On December 21, 1992 (57 FR 60485) we disapproved portions of
the State's open burning regulations. Later the State submitted
revisions to the open burning regulations which we approved on October
23, 1996 (61 FR 54946). At that time we should have removed 40 CFR
52.1384(b). Since 40 CFR 52.1384(b) is no longer applicable we are
removing it from 40 CFR part 52, subpart BB--Montana.
4. On March 4, 1980 (45 FR 14036) and September 23, 1980 (45 FR
62982) we conditionally approved the State's source surveillance
requirements. The State later submitted revisions which we approved on
January 16, 1986 (51 FR 2397). At that time we should have removed 40
CFR 52.1385. Since 40 CFR 52.1385 is no longer applicable we are
removing it from 40 CFR part 52, subpart BB--Montana.
II. Final Action
We are approving the minor revisions to the Columbia Falls, Butte
and Missoula PM-10 SIPS, Missoula CO SIP and the Montana Emergency
Episode Plan submitted on July 8, 1997. We are also updating 40 CFR
part 52, subpart BB as identified above. A separate Technical Support
Document (TSD) has not been prepared for this notice.
We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register publication, we are publishing
[[Page 68037]]
a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP
revision if adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
February 4, 2000 without further notice unless the Agency receives
adverse comments by January 5, 2000. If we receive adverse comments, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule will not 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements
[[Page 68038]]
under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly,
no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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 rule 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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
I. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 February 4, 2000. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: November 22, 1999.
William P. Yellowtail,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
40 CFR part 52, subparts AA and BB of chapter I, title 40 are
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 AA--Missouri
Sec. 52.1320 [Removed and reserved]
2. Section 52.1320(c)(42) is removed and reserved.
Subpart BB--Montana
3. Section 52.1370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(42) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1370 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(42) On May 22, 1995, the Governor of Montana submitted revisions
to the prevention of significant deterioration regulations in the
Administrative Rules of Montana to incorporate changes in the Federal
PSD permitting regulations for PM-10 increments.
(i) Incorporation by reference
(A) Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), rules
16.8.945(3)(c), 16.8.945(21)(d), 16.8.945(24)(d), 16.8.947(1),
16.8.953(7)(a), and 16.8.960(4), effective 10/28/94.
4. Section 52.1371 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1371 Classification of regions.
The Montana Emergency Episode Plan was revised with a July 8, 1997
submittal by the Governor. The July 8, 1997 Emergency Episode Plan
classifies the Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality control regions (AQCR) Particulate Nitrogen Carbon
matter Sulfur oxide dioxide monoxide Ozone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billings Intrastate AQCR 140....................................... III III III III III
Great Falls Intrastate AQCR 141.................................... III III III III III
Helena Intrastate AQCR 142......................................... III II III III III
Miles City Intrastate AQCR 143..................................... III III III III III
Missoula Intrastate AQCR 144....................................... II III III III III
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Section 52.1373 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1373 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.
On July 8, 1997, the Governor of Montana submitted revisions to the
SIP narrative for the Missoula carbon monoxide control plan.
6. Section 52.1374 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1374 Control strategy: Particulate matter.
On July 8, 1997, the Governor of Montana submitted minor revisions
to the Columbia Falls, Butte and Missoula PM-10 SIPS.
Sec. 52.1375 [Removed and reserved]
7. Section 52.1375 is removed and reserved.
Sec. 52.1384 [Removed and reserved]
8. Section 52.1384(b) is removed and reserved.
Sec. 52.1385 [Removed and reserved]
9. Section 52.1385 is removed and reserved.
[FR Doc. 99-31536 Filed 12-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
