[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 125 (Friday, June 27, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36485-36489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-14622]


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

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