[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30984-30988]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13129]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0304; FRL-9928-51-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Montana on March 17, 2010, August 1, 2011, November 22, 2011,
and September 19, 2014. The revisions are to the Administrative Rules
of Montana (ARM) and include minor editorial and grammatical changes,
updates to citations and references to federal and state laws and
regulations, revisions to open burning rules, changes to the process
for appealing air quality permits, and providing a process for
revocation of air quality permits when owners cannot be found by mail.
Also in this action, EPA is proposing to correct final rules pertaining
to Montana's SIP. On January 29, 2010, EPA took direct final action to
approve SIP revisions as submitted by the State of Montana on January
16, 2009 and May 4, 2009. EPA subsequently discovered an error in our
January 29, 2010 direct final action related to ``incorporation by
reference'' (IBR) materials and the associated regulatory text
numbering. EPA is proposing to correct this error with today's action.
This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2010-0304, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2010-0304. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I, General
Information, of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials ARM mean or refer to the Administrative Rules
of Montana.
    (iii) The initials BACT mean or refer to Best Available Control
Technology.
    (iv) The word or initials Board or BER mean or refer to the
Montana Board of Environmental Review.
    (v) The initials CAMR mean or refer to the Environmental
Protection Agency's Clear Air Mercury Rule.
    (vi) The initials CBI mean or refer to confidential business
information.
    (vii) The initials CFR mean or refer to the United States Code
of Federal Regulations.
    (viii) The initials DEQ mean or refer to the Department of
Environmental Quality.
    (ix) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (x) The initials IBR mean or refer to Incorporate by Reference.
    (xi) The initials MCA mean or refer to the Montana Code
Annotated.
    (xii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to national ambient air
quality standards.
    (xiii) The initials NESHAP mean or refer to National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
    (xiv) The initials NSPS mean or refer to New Source Performance
Standards.
    (xv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    (xvi) The word State means or refers to the State of Montana.

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and
page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    A. On March 17, 2010 the State of Montana submitted a SIP revision
containing amendments to IBR current federal regulations and other
material into air quality rules at ARM 17.8.102, 17.8.302, 17.8.767,
17.8.802, 17.8.822, 17.8.902, and 17.8.1002. The amendments update IBR
dates, make minor editorial and grammatical changes, and delete
references to EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) which was vacated in
February 2008. The Montana Board of Environmental Review (BER) adopted
the amendments on October 2, 2009.
    B. On August 1, 2011 the State submitted a SIP revision containing
amendments to IBR current federal regulations and other material into
air quality rules at ARM 17.8.102. The revisions update IBR dates and
associated references, make minor editorial and grammatical changes,
and delete the exclusion from IBR of 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 60, subpart DDDD--Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times
for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units. The BER
adopted the amendments on January 28, 2011.
    C. On November 22, 2011 Montana submitted a SIP revision containing
amendments to ARM 17.8.604, 17.8.610, 17.8.612, 17.8.613, 17.8.614,
17.8.615, and 17.8.763. The amendments allow certain open burning to
occur in areas other than where waste was generated, revise the process
for appealing air quality permits, provide a process for revocation of
air quality permits when owners cannot be found by mail, and make minor
editorial and grammatical changes. The Board adopted the amendments on
March 25, 2011.
    D. On September 19, 2014 the State of Montana submitted a SIP
revision containing amendments to IBR current federal regulations and
other material into air quality rules at ARM 17.8.102. The amendments
update IBR dates, make minor editorial and grammatical changes, and
delete references to certain subparts of 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. The
Montana BER adopted the amendments on May 30, 2014.
    E. On January 26, 2010, EPA took direct final action (75 FR 3993)
to approve revisions to ARM 17.8.102--Incorporation by Reference--
Publication Dates, with a State effective date of October 26, 2007. In
a subsequent action, EPA took final action on July 8, 2011 (76 FR
40237) and inadvertently approved revisions to ARM 17.8.102 with a
state effective date of June 17, 2005. This action provides notice that
language in ARM 17.8.102 with a State effective date of October 26,
2007 was in effect between January 26, 2010 and publication of this
notice. A copy of ARM 17.8.102 effective October 26, 2007 is available
within this docket.
    F. On January 29, 2010, EPA published a direct final rule in the
Federal Register approving Montana SIP revisions to the ARM. This
action proposes to correct an error in the regulatory language in 40
CFR 52.1370(c) of EPA's January 29, 2010 direct final rule (75 FR
4698).
    The State was delegated the authority for implementation and
enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) through a Federal Register notice on May 11, 1995 (60 FR
25143) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) by letter on January
9, 2004 (69 FR 43371, July 20, 2004). When a delegation of authority is
granted, EPA authorizes a state to implement and enforce a federal
regulation. Prior to receiving delegation, NESHAPs and NSPS were
enforced through Montana's SIP.\1\ Through this process, the State
IBR'd the Federal NESHAPs and NSPS in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 into
its SIP-approved regulations. However, since receiving program
delegation, many of the parts of the IBR referencing NESHAPs and NSPS
in parts 60, 61, and 63 no longer need to be approved into Montana's
SIP. EPA is working with the State to remove unnecessary parts of
NESHAPs and NSPS from its SIP. These amendments will be reflected in a
future Federal Register action. In the interim, we are proposing no
action on any SIP revisions referencing 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Douglas M. Ski, Chief of the Air Programs Branch, EPA
Region 8, Memorandum to Jeffery T. Chaffe, Chief of the Montana Air
Quality Bureau (October 9, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Review of the State of Montana's March 17, 2010; August 1,
2011; November 22, 2011; and September 19, 2014 Submittals, and CFR
Correction

A. March 17, 2010 SIP Submittal

    The State's March 17, 2010 SIP submittal contained amendments
adopted by the State on October 2, 2009 (effective October 16, 2009)
and includes the following types of amendments to the State's air
quality rules: Revisions to its IBR of documents and other statutory
references; and updated references to the July 1, 2008 edition of the
CFR and the December 31, 2008 edition of the ARM. The revisions also
make minor editorial and grammatical changes, and delete certain
references to rules which have been vacated.
    We are not acting on several of the State's amendments in the March
17, 2010 submittal that delete certain provisions from the State's
rules because we did not approve those provisions into the SIP when
they were part of a prior submittal from the State and they reference
an NSPS in 40 CFR part 60. On November 1, 2006, the State submitted
revisions to its SIP, including amendments to ARM 17.8.302, 17.8.767,
17.8.802, 17.8.902, and 17.8.1002. In our January 26, 2010 action (75
FR 3993), EPA did not act on revisions to ARM 17.8.302, 17.8.767,
17.8.802, 17.8.902, or 17.8.1002 because the revisions

referenced CAMR which was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit on February 8, 2008 (see New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F. 3d
574).
    In its March 17, 2010 submission, the State revisions delete
references to CAMR in ARM 17.8.302(1)(a)(ii), 17.8.767(1)(c),
17.8.802(1)(d), 17.8.902(1)(a), 17.8.1002(1)(a). Since EPA did not act
on revisions to these sections of the ARM in our January 26, 2010
action, references to CAMR were never approved into Montana's SIP.
Furthermore, as explained in the ``Background'' section of this notice,
we are proposing no action on revisions referencing 40 CFR parts 60,
61, and 63. Therefore, EPA is proposing no action on the 2010 revisions
to ARM 17.8.302(1)(a)(ii), 17.8.767(1)(c), 17.8.802(1)(d),
17.8.902(1)(a), and 17.8.1002(1)(a).
    The March 17, 2010 revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1), 17.8.102(1)(a),
and 17.8.102(1)(c) make minor grammatical changes and update the
citations and references to federal law and State rules. In subsequent
SIP submittals dated August 1, 2011 and September 19, 2014, the State
again updates IBR publication dates. We therefore propose to act on
revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), and 17.8.102(1)(c) from the September
19, 2014 submittal, as discussed below, and to approve the grammatical
changes to ARM 17.8.102(1) from the March 17, 2010 submittal. Since the
March 17, 2010 publication date revisions to these three rules were
superseded by the August 1, 2011 and September 19, 2014 submittals, we
are not acting on the publication date revisions in the March 17, 2010
submittal.
    The March 2010 submittal also makes minor editorial and grammatical
changes to ARM 17.8.102(2), 17.8.102(2)(a), and 17.8.102(3). ARM
17.8.102(2) and (3) list subparts of NSPS at 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAPs
at 40 CFR part 63 which are excluded from IBR. We therefore propose no
action on the revisions to ARM 17.8.102(2), 17.8.102(2)(a), and
17.8.102(3) from the August 1, 2011 submittal.
    Finally, the submittal deletes ARM 17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9),
which require compliance with the ambient monitoring requirements of 40
CFR part 58, Appendix B. EPA proposes to approve revisions to ARM
17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9) because that appendix no longer exists.

B. August 1, 2011 SIP Submittal

    The State's August 1, 2011 SIP submittal contained amendments
adopted by the State on January 28, 2011 (effective February 11, 2011)
and includes the following types of amendments to the State's air
quality rules: Revisions to its IBR of documents and other statutory
references contained in the State's air quality rules; an updated
reference to the July 1, 2009 edition of the CFR; and updated
references to the 2006 edition of the United States Code and Supplement
II (2009), and the December 31, 2009 edition of the ARM. The revisions
also make minor editorial and grammatical changes, and delete
references to a rule which has been vacated.
    The August 1, 2011 revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b),
and 17.8.102(1)(c) update the citations and references to federal law
and State rules. In a subsequent SIP submittal dated September 19,
2014, the State again updates IBR publication dates. We therefore
propose to act on revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b), and
17.8.102(1)(c) from the September 19, 2014 submittal, as discussed
below. Since the August 1, 2011 publication date revisions to these
three rules were superseded by the September 19, 2014 submittals, we
are not acting on the publication date revisions in the August 1, 2011
submittal.
    Additionally, the August 1, 2011 revisions makes a minor editorial
change to ARM 17.8.102(3)(b) which excludes 40 CFR part 63, subpart
KKKKK, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing from IBR and deletes ARM 17.8.102(3)(d)
which references portions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD--NESHAP for
Plywood and Composite Wood Products. As previously discussed, we are
not acting on revisions referencing 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, and
therefore propose no action on ARM 17.8.102(3)(b) and 17.8.103(d).

C. November 22, 2011 SIP Submittal

    The State's November 22, 2011 SIP submittal contained amendments
adopted by the State on March 25, 2011 (effective April 15, 2011) and
includes the following types of amendments to the State's air quality
rules: Revisions to open burning rules regarding burning locations,
permit appeal processes, grammatical changes, and revisions to the
notification process of intent to revoke Montana Air Quality Permits.
    Revisions to open burning rules in ARM section 17.8.604 specify the
circumstances under which moving wood waste from the location where it
was generated and burning it elsewhere may occur. The purpose of the
revisions are to provide an exception to the general prohibition to
allow wood waste generated in areas where burning would be unwise
(e.g., where burning wood waste on the premises where it is generated
would produce unacceptable amounts of smoke that could cause or
contribute to a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)) to be moved to areas where the burning could take place under
conditions protective of the NAAQS and other conditions applicable to
open burning.
    In our August 24, 2006 final rule (71 FR 49999), we took no action
on revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a) that were submitted by the State on
April 18, 2003 because language used in the rule revision was
considered a department discretion. However, the State's November 22,
2011 submittal removes previous discretionary language of ``or unless
approval is granted by the department on a case by case basis'' from
its April 18, 2003 submittal and replaces it with criteria that the
department applies when determining whether to issue a permit that
allows for burning of any wood waste at a location other than where the
wood waste was generated. The revisions ensure waste that is moved from
the premises where it is generated is still prohibited material and may
not be burned unless it is conducted pursuant to a landfill or
conditional open burning permit issued by the department. For
conditional air quality open burning, the State's rules require that
the department only issue a permit under its rules if the open burning
will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS and that the
open burn conform to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) (ARM
17.8.612). Among other things, BACT also requires that these additional
categories only burn during the time periods specified by the
department (ARM 17.8.601(1)). The revisions also ensure the movement
and burning is only an option for wood that is not already described as
prohibited and ensure other methods of disposal are considered.
    In our July 20, 2004 proposed notice (69 FR 43373) we explained
that the proposed changes would not impact the stringency of the rule.
In a letter to EPA dated August 19, 2004, the State clarified the
intent of proposed changes to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a) stating that the
purpose is to ``. . . allow open burning of material moved to an
alternative site for purposes of better attaining and maintaining the
NAAQS.'' ARM 17.8.604(1)(a) further allows ``. . . movement of material
for open burning to locations that minimize health effects caused by
exposure to smoke emissions. For example, when municipalities
experience massive tree damage, disposal of material by open burning
within city limits would expose

populations to smoke emissions. However, if material is relocated to an
alternate site, populations are better protected from adverse health
effects caused by exposure to smoke emissions'' (comment letter from
Jan Sensibaugh, Director, Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) to EPA Air & Radiation Program Director Richard Long, contained
within this docket).
    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirements of
the Act. The proposed revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1) do not interfere
with the maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement
of the Act. The November 22, 2011 submittal revises the open burning
rules; however, as discussed earlier, we do not believe the changes
will impact the NAAQS. Therefore, section 110(l) requirements are
satisfied and we consequently propose to approve revisions to ARM
17.8.604(1)(a).
    We propose to approve the revision to ARM 17.8.610(2) which
corrects a grammatical error.
    Revisions to ARM 17.8.612, 17.8.613, 17.8.614, and 17.8.615 reflect
the Montana Legislature's revision of the process for appealing air
quality permits pursuant to 75-2-211, Montana Code Annotated (MCA). The
2003 Legislature amended 75-2-211, MCA, to eliminate an automatic stay
of the department's decision to issue a permit upon a permit appeal.
Instead, during a 15-day delay before the department decision on the
permit application becomes final, a permit decision may be stayed only
following a petition and a finding that the person requesting the stay
is entitled to the relief demanded in the request for hearing or that
continuation of the permit would cause the petitioner great or
irreparable injury. After 15 days, the department's decision cannot be
appealed. If a stay is granted, but the appeal ultimately fails, the
petitioner is liable for costs and damages to the permit applicant.
    On March 11, 2003, EPA mailed a memorandum to the Director of the
Montana DEQ \2\ which expressed potential concern with legislation
(including revisions to 75-2-211, MCA) pending in the Montana
Legislature. As outlined in the memo, EPA was concerned that the
proposed legislation had the potential to create major impediments to
the public's ability to challenge air permits in state court as
required by the CAA. An important consideration before EPA approves
programs under the CAA is that the state must provide the same
opportunity for judicial review of the air permitting actions in state
court as would be available in federal court. The proposed bill (HB No.
700, available within this docket) contained provisions which would
have required citizens and organizations to file for a preliminary
injunction and then post a bond if such injunction was granted. The
appealing party's bond required coverage of the permittee's costs of
delay. Another provision required the person challenging the permit to
indemnify the permittee for the same items covered in the bond.
However, this language (see HB No. 700, Section 1. 75-2-211.(11)(d) and
(e) contained within this docket) was struck from the legislation prior
to approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Stephen S. Tuber, Acting Assistant Regional
Administrator for the Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance, Memorandum to Jan Sensibaugh, Director of Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (March 11, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We therefore conclude that the 2003 revisions made to 75-2-211, MCA
(contained within this docket) do not conflict with the CAA
requirements for judicial review of air permitting actions (see 42
U.S.C. 7607(b) \3\ and 7607(d) \4\) and consequently propose to approve
revisions to 17.8.612(10) and (11), 17.8.613(8) and (9), 17.8.614(8)
and (9), and 17.8.615(6) and (7). Finally, revision to ARM 17.8.763
provides a process for notice by publication of the department's intent
to revoke a Montana Air Quality Permit issued under Title 17, chapter
8, subchapter 7 when an owner or operator cannot be found for service
by certified mail. We propose to approve the revision to ARM
17.8.763(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Environmental Appeals Board Practice Manual, EPA,
(September 2010) http://www.epa.gov/eab/pmanual.pdf.
    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) states: ``Only an objection to a
rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment (including any public hearing)
may be raised during judicial review . . .'' ``If the Administrator
refuses to convene such a proceeding, such person may seek review of
such refusal in the United States court of appeals for the
appropriate circuit (as provided in subsection (b) of this section).
Such reconsideration shall not postpone the effectiveness of the
rule. The effectiveness of the rule may be stayed during such
reconsideration, however, by the Administrator or the court for a
period not to exceed three months.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. September 19, 2014 SIP Submittal

    The State's September 19, 2014 SIP submittal contained amendments
adopted by the State on May 30, 2014 (effective June 12, 2014) and
includes the following types of amendments to the State's air quality
rules: Revisions to its IBR of documents and other statutory references
contained in the State's air quality rules; an updated reference to the
July 1, 2013 edition of the CFR; and an updated reference to the 2012
edition of the United States Code as it existed on December 31, 2013.
The revisions also make minor editorial and grammatical changes; delete
references to NSPS and NESHAPs which are excluded from IBR; delete
references to a rule which has been vacated; and add information on how
to obtain IBR materials referenced in the ARM.
    The September 19, 2014 revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1)(a),
17.8.102(1)(b), and 17.8.102(1)(c) update the citations and references
to federal law and State rules. We propose to approve these revisions.
    The September 19, 2014 revisions delete ARM 17.8.102(2),
17.8.102(2)(a), and 17.8.102(2)(b) which reference subparts of 40 CFR
part 60 (NSPS) that are excluded from IBR. The revisions also make a
minor editorial change to ARM 17.8.102(3); delete certain language in
ARM 17.8.102(3)(a) and ARM 17.8.102(3)(b) which references 40 CFR part
63, subpart JJJJ, NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing and subpart KKKK, NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing,
respectively; and delete ARM 17.8.102(3)(c) which references 40 CFR
part 63, subpart DDDDD, NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. We propose no action on
these revisions since they are in reference to 40 CFR parts 60 and 63.
    Finally, the September 19, 2014 revisions add ARM 17.8.102(3) and
17.8.102(4)(a) through (d) which includes information on how to obtain
a copy of materials incorporated by reference in this chapter of the
ARM and copies of federal materials. We propose to approve language
added to ARM 17.8.102(3) and 17.8.102(4)(a) through (d).
Proposed Correction
    In the direct final rule published in the Federal Register on
January 29, 2010 (75 FR 4698), on page 4700, third column, we propose
to correct the amendatory instruction 2, in the second line, ``. . .
adding paragraph (c) (68) . . .'' to read: ``. . . Adding paragraph (c)
(69) . . ..''; and also propose the conforming change in the regulatory
text, changing paragraph (c)(68) to (c)(69). This proposed change is
necessary because of the inadvertent error made to this regulatory
language in our action at 75 FR 4698.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve grammatical changes made to ARM
17.8.102(1), and all revisions of 17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9) from
the March 17, 2010 submittal. We propose to approve November 22, 2011
revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a),17.8.610(2), 17.8.612(10) and (11),
17.8.613(8) and (9), 17.8.614(8) and (9), 17.8.615(6) and (7), and
17.8.763(3). We propose to approve the September 19, 2014 submittal's
citations and references to federal law and State rules superseding and
replacing all previous versions of ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b),
and 17.8.102(1)(c). Previous submittals were received on March 17, 2010
and August 1, 2011. We also propose to approve language added to ARM
17.8.102(3) and 17.8.102(4)(a) through (d) from the September 19, 2014
submittal. Our action also provides notice that language in ARM
17.8.102 was in effect between January 16, 2010 and publication of this
notice. Finally, EPA proposes to correct erroneous amendatory
instructions published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2010 (75
FR 4698).

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Administrative Rules of Montana regarding citations and
references to federal and State laws and regulations; open burning
rules; air quality permits appeal process; and revocation of air
quality permits discussed in section III, EPA's Review of the State of
Montana's March 17, 2010; August 1, 2011; November 22, 2011; and
September 19, 2014 Submittals, and CFR Correction, of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 13, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-13129 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                               November 17, 2017

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENVER, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/region08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
Ref: 8P-AR

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	PM10 24-hour Design Concentration for Sheridan Wyoming

FROM:	Ethan L. Brown
		Physical Scientist

TO: 		File

According to the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas (NAA) memo, in order to qualify for the LMP option, "an area should meet the following
applicability criteria. The area should be attaining the NAAQS and the average PM10 design value for the area, based upon the most recent 5 years of air quality data at all monitors in the area, should be at or below 40 μg/m[3] for the annual and 98 μg/m[3] for the 24-hr PM10 NAAQS with no violations at any monitor in the nonattainment area." Since the annual PM10 NAAQS has been revoked, it is no longer an appropriate metric, but the other two requirements must still be met.

The Sheridan NAA currently has two PM10 monitoring sites, the Sheridan Police Station located in the north of town, and the Meadowlark Elementary School farther to the south. Looking at the most recent five years of data from these sites, the Sheridan nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS each year and there have been no violations. Therefore, the only remaining requirement is that the Sheridan NAA must have an average PM10 design value at or below 98 μg/m[3] to quality for the LMP option.

The methods for calculating design values (or design concentrations) for PM10 are presented in a document entitled the "PM10 SIP Development Guideline", EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987. These guidelines state that the design concentration for a particular year is determined by analyzing three years of monitoring data. Therefore, for a five-year period, one is able to calculate three design concentrations, the average of which will be compared to the 98 μg/m[3] threshold for LMP eligibility.

There are multiple methods for calculating PM10 design concentrations presented in the PM10 SIP Development Guideline. The "Table Look-up" method is the simplest method, and is adequate for this exercise considering the availability of data in the Sheridan NAA, as well as the low concentrations observed over the past five years.

Using data from 2012 through 2016, the Sheridan Police station has three valid design concentrations. These design concentrations are 60, 57, and 72 μg/m[3] in 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively. The Meadowlark School monitor was installed in July 2012, and therefore is missing the first two quarters of data in 2012. As a result, the Meadowlark School Site only has two valid design concentrations, one in 2015 and one in 2016. These design concentrations are 72 μg/m[3] for both years.

Considering each site separately, the average design concentration at the Police Station for 2012-2016 was 63 μg/m[3]. Ordinarily, design concentrations are calculated for each monitor separately, but because there are multiple design values for 2015 and 2016 (one from the Police Station and one from the Meadowlark site for each year), the highest design concentration for each year was also selected for averaging purposes. The resulting average PM10 design concentration is 68 μg/m[3] (the average of 60, 72, and 72 μg/m[3]) for the area. Both these calculations give average design concentrations over the most recent 5 years well below the 98 μg/m[3] threshold to quality for the LMP option.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56770-56771]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0688]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Youth for the Future Fireworks, St. Clair River;
Algonac, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters on the St. Clair River in Algonac, MI. The safety zone
is necessary and intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards associated with fireworks displays
created by the Youth for the Future organization. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 through 10:30 p.m. September 16,
2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0688 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Tracy Girard, Waterways Department, Sector Detroit, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the event sponsor notified the Coast
Guard with insufficient time to publish an NPRM and immediate action is
necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment on
the St. Clair River. It is impracticable and contrary to the public
interest to publish a NPRM because we must establish this safety zone
by September 16, 2023.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, delaying the effective date of this rule would
be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the
potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Detroit
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks
displays will be a safety concern for anyone within a 280-yard radius
of the launch site. The likely combination of recreational vessels,
darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris
falling into the water presents risks of collisions which could result
in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is necessary to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
within the safety zone during the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on
September 16, 2023. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters of the St. Clair River within a 280-yard radius of the fireworks
launch site located 42[deg]39.038' N, 082[deg]31.67' W, in Algonac, MI.
The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks
display. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated representative. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able
to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small,
designated area of the St. Clair River for approximately one and a half
hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover,
the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
Marine Channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to
seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions

concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or
email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it 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. If you believe this
rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only 1.5 hours that will prohibit entry within 280-
yard radius of where the fireworks display will be conducted. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60] of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--Regulated Navigation Areas and Limited Access Areas

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0688 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0688  Safety Zone; Youth for the Future Fireworks, St.
Clair River; Algonac, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all
U.S. navigable waters of the St. Clair River within a within a 280-yard
radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42[deg]39.038'
N, 082[deg]31.67' W. All geographic coordinates are North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement Period. This regulation will be enforced from 9
p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on September 16, 2023. The Captain of the Port
Detroit, or a designated representative may suspend enforcement of the
safety zone at any time.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (d) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated representative.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated
representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated representative. The COTP Detroit or his designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: August 15, 2023.
Richard P. Armstrong,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2023-17882 Filed 8-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 62631]
[DOCID:fr30no09-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Mohawk Adirondack and Northern Railroad Corporation

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0063]

    The Mohawk Adirondack and Northern Railroad (MHWA), a Class III
railroad, seeks a waiver of compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR
223.11 Requirements for existing locomotives. Specifically, MHWA has
petitioned FRA for a waiver for one 80-ton, 470 horsepower diesel
electric locomotive numbered 1670. This locomotive was built for the
United States Air Force by General Electric in March 1952.
    MHWA operates this locomotive on a terminal/switching railroad at
the former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, New York, presently called
the Griffiss Industrial Park. MHWA operates at speeds of 10 miles per
hour (or less) and hauls 1-3 cars on a twice weekly basis. The
locomotive is equipped with safety laminate glass (AS-1, AS-2) and is
serviced & maintained by MHWA at Rome, New York. MHWA states that the
railroad is private and will occasionally interchange to the general
system which is accomplished with CSX Railroad interchange tracks at
Rome, NY.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0063) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 23, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-28483 Filed 11-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P