[Federal Register: June 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 125)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36485-36489]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jn08-26]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0040; FRL-8685-9]
Approval, Disapproval, and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Montana; Kraft Pulp Mill Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule and Visible Air Contaminants Rule that the
Governor of Montana submitted to us on April 14, 1999. EPA is also
proposing to partially approve the recodification of the Kraft Pulp
Mill Rule that the Governor submitted to us on September 19, 1997.
These revisions recodify and make changes to the State's Kraft Pulp
Mill Rule, including the establishment of certain new opacity
requirements for kraft pulp mills, and modify the Visible Air
Contaminant Rule requirements for recovery furnaces at kraft pulp
mills. The intended effect of this action is to approve and make
federally enforceable those portions of the rules that meet Clean Air
Act requirements, and to disapprove those portions of the rules that
are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The EPA is taking this action
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2006-0040, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and russ.tim@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 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-
2006-0040. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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 http://
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 http://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
[[Page 36486]]
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-AR,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6479, or russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background of the State Submittals
III. EPA Analysis of the State Submittals
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The word Act or initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials NAAQS means National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
I. General Information
a. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in 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:
A. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
B. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
C. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
D. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
E. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
F. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
G. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
H. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background of the State Submittals
On April 14, 1999 the Governor of Montana submitted a SIP revision
that contained changes to the State's Kraft Pulp Mill Rule, Visible Air
Contaminant Rule, and Incorporation by Reference Rule that had been
adopted by the Montana Board of Environmental Review (MBER) on May 19,
1995 and December 11, 1998 \1\. Montana's Kraft Pulp Mill Rule,
currently codified at ARM 17.8.321, applies to only one source,
Smurfit-Stone Container in Missoula, Montana. The SIP revision changes
opacity limits at Smurfit-Stone Container's recovery furnaces
3, 4, and 5, as described more fully below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On August 13, 2001 (66 FR 42427), we approved the changes to
the Incorporation by Reference Rule (ARM 17.8.302) that MBER adopted
on May 19, 1995; no further discussion of the Incorporation by
Reference Rule is included in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. MBER's May 19, 1995 Revisions
The revisions MBER adopted on May 19, 1995 added definitions for
``cross recovery furnace,'' ``recovery furnace,'' and ``straight kraft
recovery furnace,'' (ARM 16.8.1413(1)(b), (f) and (h)); made minor
revisions to ARM 16.8.1413(7); and added ARM 16.8.1413(8) through
(12).\2\ ARM 16.8.1413(8) through (12) contained opacity limits on
recovery furnaces as well as the compliance monitoring methods for the
opacity limitations and reporting requirements. The revised rule
resulted in a 35% opacity limit on recovery furnace 3 and a
30% opacity limit on recovery furnaces 4 and 5. The
revised rule also required Smurfit-Stone to install continuous opacity
monitors (COMS) on the three recovery furnace stacks. Additionally, on
May 19, 1995, the MBER adopted a new provision (ARM 16.8.1404(4)(f)
later recodified as ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) and submitted to us on September
19, 1997 \3\), which provided that Montana's general opacity
requirements in ARM 16.8.1404 did not apply to recovery furnaces at
kraft pulp mills. These general opacity requirements require sources
installed on or before November 23, 1968 to meet a 40% opacity
limitation and sources installed after November 23, 1968 to meet a 20%
opacity limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These rules were later recodified; ARM 16.8.1413(1) through
(12) were changed to ARM 17.8.321(1) through (12). This
recodification was submitted to us on September 19, 1997 as part of
a general recodification of Montana's air rules.
\3\ In a separate rulemaking action published on August 13, 2001
(66 FR 42427), we approved most of the recodification of the
Administrative Rules of Montana submitted on September 19, 1997. We
did not approve the codification of ARM 17.8.321, Kraft Pulp Mill
Rule, or ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) of the Visible Air Contaminants Rule. In
our August 13, 2001 action, we indicated that we would address the
revisions to ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) and 17.8.321 at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. MBER's December 11, 1998 Revisions
On December 11, 1998, MBER adopted further changes and additions to
the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule, including changes to the May 1995 opacity
limits applicable to recovery furnaces 4 and 5. These
changes and additions were codified at ARM 17.8.321(9) through (16).
ARM 17.8.321(9) (applicable to recovery furnace 4) requires
that, for recovery furnaces installed after November 23, 1968, no
person may cause or authorize emissions that exhibit 20% opacity or
greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes for more than 6% of the 6-
minute time periods during which a source is operating in a calendar
quarter. ARM 17.8.321(10) (applicable to recovery furnace 5)
requires that, for recovery furnaces installed after September 4, 1976,
no person may cause or authorize emissions that exhibit 20% opacity or
greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes for more than 3% of the 6-
minute time periods during which a source is operating in a calendar
quarter. ARM 17.8.321(11) defines excess opacity emissions. ARM
17.8.321(12) indicates that sources subject to ARM 17.8.321(9) and (10)
may not emit opacity greater than 20% averaged over 24 hours. ARM
17.8.321(13) requires recovery furnaces and associated air pollution
control equipment to be operated in accordance with good air pollution
control practices during excess opacity emissions. Finally, ARM
17.8.321(14), (15), and (16) contain revisions to the compliance
monitoring methods and reporting requirements for kraft pulp mills.
[[Page 36487]]
III. EPA Analysis of the State Submittals
a. ARM 17.8.321(1) Through (7), Adopted May 19, 1995, Effective August
11, 1995, and Submitted April 14, 1999
The State merely added definitions, made editorial changes, and
recodified the rule. Because the changes are consistent with Clean Air
Act requirements, we are proposing to approve into the SIP ARM
17.8.321(1) through (7) (formerly codified as ARM 16.8.1413(1) through
(7)). We are also proposing that ARM 17.8.321(1) through (7) will
replace the old codified version of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule (ARM
16.8.1413(1) through (7), effective December 31, 1972) that is
currently in the SIP.
b. ARM 17.8.321(8), Adopted May 19, 1995, Effective August 11, 1995,
Submitted April 14, 1999; and ARM 17.8.321(9) and (10), Adopted
December 11, 1998, Effective February 12, 1999, and Submitted April 14,
1999
The table below shows the opacity limits in ARM 17.8.321(8), (9)
and (10) as compared to the existing SIP opacity limits for Smurfit-
Stone's three recovery furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opacity limit six- Opacity limit
minute average \***\ six-minute
Smurfit-Stone recovery furnace Installation date (existing SIP- average (revised Exceedance allowance
impacted Approved rule, rule, ARM with revised rule
ARM 17.8.304) 17.8.321)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace 3............. On or before 11/ 40% \*\.......... 35%.............. None.
23/68. ARM 17.8.304(1).. ARM 17.8.321(8)..
Furnace 4............. After 11/23/68... 20% \*\.......... 20%.............. 6% of the 6-minute
ARM 17.8.304(2).. ARM 17.8.321(9) periods during which
\****\. a source is operating
within any calendar
quarter.
Furnace 5............. After 9/4/76..... 35% \**\......... 20%.............. 3% of the 6-minute
ARM 17.8.304(4).. ARM 17.8.321(10) periods during which
\****\. a source is operating
within any calendar
quarter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Sources not allowed to exceed opacity limit except a maximum opacity of 60% is permissible for not more than
one 4-minute period in any 60 consecutive minutes during the building of new fires, cleaning of grates, or
soot blowing (ARM 17.8.304(3)).
\**\ ARM 17.8.304(4)(d) indicates that the 20% opacity standard in ARM 17.8.304(2) does not apply to ``those new
stationary sources listed in ARM 17.8.340 for which a visible emission standard has been promulgated.'' ARM
17.8.340 cross-references EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Under the State's interpretation,
Furnace 5 is thus subject to the NSPS opacity standard for kraft pulp mills instead of the 20% SIP
standard. The NSPS opacity standard is 35% with a 6% quarterly exceedance allowance. See 40 CFR 60.284(d) and
(e).
\***\ Sources not allowed to exceed opacity limit except for any exceedance allowance.
\****\ ARM17.8.321(12) contains an additional requirement that applies to recovery furnaces 4 and
5: Opacity of 20% or greater as averaged over 24 hours is not permitted.
Among other things, EPA evaluates SIP revisions against section
110(l) of the Act. Section 110(l) of the Act provides that we cannot
approve a revision to a SIP if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Our evaluation of the changes to ARM 17.8.321(8), (9), and (10)
with respect to section 110(l) of the Act is as follows:
1. ARM 17.8.321(8): We are proposing to approve ARM 17.8.321(8)
because it does not contain an opacity exceedance allowance and it
imposes a more stringent opacity limit than the existing SIP on
recovery furnaces installed on or before November 23, 1968. Thus, no
increase in particulate matter emissions is expected from this change.
Accordingly, this revision would not interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
(RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
However, we are concerned that the second sentence of ARM
17.8.321(8), which applies to Smurfit-Stone recovery furnace
3, could be read more broadly than is appropriate. That
sentence indicates that the opacity limit in ARM 17.8.321(8)
``supersedes any other opacity limitation contained in this chapter,
including ARM 17.8.304 and 17.8.340.'' ARM 17.8.340 requires compliance
with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60. In
our view, a SIP rule cannot ``supersede'' a federal standard such as
the NSPS; instead, the NSPS is another requirement that may apply to a
source. A source is obligated to comply with the SIP's opacity
provisions for recovery furnaces and the NSPS.
Accordingly, we note that while ARM 17.8.321(8) states that its
opacity limit supersedes ``any other opacity limitation contained in
this chapter'' (emphasis added), it does not say that its opacity limit
supersedes the federally-established opacity limits contained in 40 CFR
Part 60. Thus, it is our interpretation that ARM 17.8.321(8) does not
supersede the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60; instead, we interpret ARM
17.8.321(8) as establishing an additional standard. To the extent ARM
17.8.321(8) and 40 CFR Part 60 are both applicable, the source must
comply with both. In this case, because ARM 17.8.321(8) is more
stringent than the current NSPS opacity standards applicable to kraft
pulp mill recovery furnaces, compliance with ARM 17.8.321(8) should
ensure compliance with the NSPS opacity standard.
2. ARM 17.8.321(9): We are proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.321(9).
Although the opacity limit of 20% in ARM 17.8.321(9) is the same
numeric opacity limit that is contained in the approved SIP, ARM
17.8.321(9) contains an exceedance allowance that is not in the
approved SIP. The exceedance allowance allows the source to exceed its
opacity limit a certain percentage of time each quarter; in ARM
17.8.321(9), the exceedence allowance is 6% of the 6-minute time
periods during which the source is operating. While the source is also
subject to an average daily opacity limit of 20%, per ARM 17.8.321(12),
our analysis indicates that even with this restriction, the opacity
limit in ARM 17.8.321(9) would be less stringent than the existing SIP
opacity limit (which is based on a six-minute average, not daily) and
could lead to an increase in particulate matter emissions, as
calculated using the source-supplied correlation between opacity and
particulate matter. Our analysis considers potential effects on
attainment of the PM10 and PM 2.5 NAAQS and
compliance with the PM10 increment under the Clean Air Act's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions.
[[Page 36488]]
Regarding the PM10 NAAQS, we note that the
PM10 limit on Smurfit-Stone recovery furnace 4 was
relied on to help demonstrate attainment of the PM10 NAAQS
in Missoula County, Montana. Therefore, to show compliance with the
requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA, it would be necessary to
demonstrate that the revision to the opacity limit would not interfere
with continued attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and that the
PM10 limits on recovery furnace 4 would be met
during the exceedance allowance, assuming the 20% restriction on the
average daily opacity contained in ARM 17.8.321(12).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Opacity has long been used as an indicator of compliance
with emission limits; if opacity increases, PM emissions are also
likely to increase. 40 CFR 51.212 requires that SIPs include opacity
limits as a means to detect violations of rules and regulations.
Similarly, the NSPS imposes opacity limits but provides the option
for sources to petition EPA for a higher opacity limit if the source
can show that it complied with all other applicable limits during
performance tests under 40 CFR 60.8 but failed to meet its opacity
limit. See 40 CFR 60.11(e)(6). Our concern is that a relaxation in
the kraft pulp mill opacity limit could result in undetected
exceedances of the particulate emission limits if compliance with
the opacity limit would not necessarily reflect compliance with the
PM limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative to this issue, the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) provided testimony to the MBER for its proposed
revisions to the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule. In its testimony, the MDEQ
attempted to show the effect of an opacity exceedance allowance on the
PM10 mass emissions for Smurfit-Stone's recovery furnace
4. The MDEQ concluded that the mass emissions allowed by the
State's proposed changes to the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule would be
comparable to those allowed by the current SIP. In order to make this
comparison, the MDEQ assumed the average opacity during use of the
exceedance allowance would not exceed the 20% standard by more than
10%; thus, 30% was the estimated average opacity during exceedance
periods. Additionally, MDEQ estimated particulate emissions using a
correlation equation developed by Smurfit-Stone \5\ and assuming
average air flow to the recovery furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Smurfit-Stone has conducted studies to correlate particulate
emissions with opacity readings at recovery furnaces 4 and
5, and the resulting correlation equations are used to
determine compliance with particulate limits at recovery furnaces
4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe this approach is flawed for two reasons. First, during
Smurfit-Stone's use of the exceedance allowance, the Kraft Pulp Mill
Rule does not limit exceedances to 30% opacity; thus, capping the
exceedances at 30% is expected to underestimate the predicted
particulate emissions. Second, using average, rather than maximum, air
flow to the recovery furnaces may also underestimate predicted
particulate emissions. Any demonstration to show that the
PM10 emission limits, and hence the PM10 NAAQS,
would be met should use worst-case scenarios.
Using worst case scenarios, EPA conducted its own analysis of
potential PM10 emissions from recovery furnace 4.
Like MDEQ, we used Smurfit-Stone's correlation equation for recovery
furnace 4. However, we used worst-case assumptions for air
flow and opacity levels. Smurfit-Stone's furnace-specific correlation
equation is used by Smurfit-Stone and the State to calculate
particulate emissions from the furnace and is based on the opacity of
furnace emissions and air flow to the furnace. According to the State,
the equation is as follows:
Recovery Furnace #4: Particulate emissions (pounds/day) = Q*C*K1*K2
Where:
Q = stack exit air flow in dry standard cubic feet per minute
(DSCFM) = 0.2322*(total air) + 14637 (total air = air flow into the
boiler (pounds/hour));
C = particulate concentration in grains/dry standard cubic foot
(DSCF) = (-0.1303*ln(1-opacity)) + 0.0008; opacity represented as a
decimal (10% opacity would be 0.10 in this equation);
K1 = conversion factor (1 pound/7000 grains); and
K2 = conversion factor (1440 minutes/day).
In our analysis, we relied on the following considerations: With a
6% per quarter exceedance allowance, recovery furnace 4 could
exceed the 20% opacity limit up to approximately 131 hours per quarter
(8760 hours per year/4 quarters per year * 6 % = 131 hours per
quarter.) Thus, for a single 24 hour period, recovery furnace
4 could exceed the 20% opacity limit every six-minute period
during the 24 hour period and still have the ability to comply with its
exceedance allowance for the quarter. This means that, on a 24-hour
basis, ARM 17.8.321(12)'s 20% daily average opacity limit for recovery
furnace 4 is more controlling than the exceedance allowance.
Accordingly, in our analysis we attempted to determine whether
compliance with the 20% daily average opacity limit would ensure
compliance with the daily particulate emission limits at recovery
furnace 4. Using the correlation equation, potential opacity
readings, and maximum gas flow rate, we found that meeting the 20%
daily average opacity limit would not assure that the 24-hour PM10
emission limits on recovery furnace 4 would be met. Our
analysis is contained in the docket to this action.
In addition, the State did not provide us with any basis for
concluding that increases in PM2.5 emissions would not interfere with
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, and that increases in PM10 emissions
would not jeopardize the PM10 increment.\6\ Based on the State's
submittal and our own evaluation, we are unable to conclude that the
revision in ARM 17.8.321(9) would not interfere with attainment of the
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS or jeopardize the PM10 increment. Thus, we are
proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.321(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In a September 25, 1998 letter to the State, we indicated
that an evaluation of the impact on the PM10 increment must occur
because a relaxation of the opacity limit could result in increases
in actual emissions from the source. 40 CFR 51.166(a)(2), states
``If a SIP revision would result in increased air quality
deterioration over any baseline concentration, the plan revision
shall include a demonstration that it will not cause or contribute
to a violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ARM 17.8.321(10): Because the 20% opacity limit in ARM
17.8.321(10) is more stringent than the 35% opacity limit in the
approved SIP, and ARM 17.8.321(10)'s exceedance allowance (3% per
quarter) is more stringent than the existing SIP rule's exceedance
allowance (6% per quarter), we are proposing to approve ARM
17.8.321(10). No increase in particulate matter emissions is expected
from this change. Thus, this revision would not interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
c. ARM 17.8.321(11) Through (16)
ARM 17.8.321(11) indicates that excess opacity emissions for
recovery furnaces installed on or before November 23, 1968 means any 6-
minute average of 35% or greater and for recovery furnaces installed
after November 23, 1968 means any 6-minute average of 20% or greater.
ARM 17.8.321(12) indicates that for recovery furnaces subject to ARM
17.8.321(9) and (10), no person may cause or allow emissions that
exhibit a 20% opacity or greater as averaged over a 24-hour period. ARM
17.8.321(13) requires recovery furnaces and associated air pollution
control equipment to be operated in accordance with good air pollution
control practices during any period of excess opacity emissions.
Finally, ARM 17.8.321(14), (15), and (16) require recovery furnaces
subject to ARM 17.8.321(8), (9), and (10) to install and operate COMS
pursuant to certain requirements, and to report excess opacity
emissions.
[[Page 36489]]
We note that ARM 17.8.321(15) indicates that COMS will be the
primary measure of compliance with the opacity limits in the rule, but
that EPA Method 9 may be used as a measure of compliance when there is
a reason to believe the COMS data are not accurate or when COMS data
are unavailable. We do not believe this language was intended to
preclude the use of Method 9 readings as credible evidence of
compliance in circumstances other than those specified in the rule, and
we propose to interpret the rule accordingly.
Because the above provisions will not reduce the stringency of the
existing federally-approved SIP, we consider them to be consistent with
the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve ARM 17.8.321(11) through (16).
d. ARM 17.8.304(4)(f)
As part of the April 14, 1999 submittal to us, the Governor
submitted revisions to ARM 17.8.304, the Visible Air Contaminants Rule.
On May 19, 1995, MBER added subsection (f) to ARM 16.8.1404(4) (now
codified as ARM 17.8.304(4)(f)). ARM 17.8.304(4)(f) excludes recovery
furnaces at kraft pulp mills from the statewide general opacity
requirements. We are proposing to disapprove the addition of this
paragraph because we are proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.321(9). If we
were to approve the addition of paragraph (4)(f), and disapprove the
State's new opacity requirements in ARM 17.8.321(9), kraft pulp mill
recovery furnaces installed between November 23, 1968 and September 4,
1976 would not be subject to any EPA-approved SIP opacity limits.
IV. Proposed Action
We are proposing action on the revisions to ARM 17.8.304, ``Visible
Air Contaminants,'' and ARM 17.8.321, ``Kraft Pulp Mill Rule,'' that
the Governor of Montana submitted to us on April 14, 1999, and on the
recodification of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule that the Governor submitted
to us on September 19, 1997.
We are proposing to approve the recodification of, and revisions
to, the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule found in ARM 17.8.321(1) through (7)
(formerly codified ARM 16.8.1413(1) through (7)). We are also proposing
that ARM 17.8.321(1) through (7), if approved, will replace the old
codified version of the Kraft Pulp Mill Rule (ARM 16.8.1413(1) through
(7), effective December 31, 1972) that is currently in the SIP. We are
also proposing to approve the provisions in ARM 17.8.321(8) and (10)
through (16).
We are proposing to disapprove the provisions of the Kraft Pulp
Mill Rule found in ARM 17.8.321(9). We are also proposing to disapprove
ARM 17.8.304(4)(f).
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before we take final
action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written comments to us as discussed in prior
sections of this proposed rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve and disapprove state law as
meeting and not meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule proposes to approve and disapprove pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it 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).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will 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, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does 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). This action
merely proposes to approve and disapprove portions of 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. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 4, 2008.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E8-14622 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P