[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 EPA is also updating out-of-date sections 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