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

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 EPA is also updating out-of-date sections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