Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Environmental Review - 521 - to , )4 lie pi, BEFORE THE BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I; IL.) OF THE STATE OF MONTANA p In the matter of the amendment of ARM NOTICE OF PUB 'E H A G1� 2011 17.38.101, 17.38.106, 17.38.502, 17.38.511, ) PROPOSED AME DM NT IN and 17.38.513 pertaining to plans for public ) CITY OF LAI_JREL water supply or wastewater system, fees, ) (PUBLIC WATER - definitions, water supply, and chemical ) SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS) treatment of water ) TO: All Concerned Persons 1. On May 11, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., the Board of Environmental Review will hold a public hearing in Room 111, Metcalf Building, Department of Environmental Quality, 1520 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, Montana, to consider the proposed amendment of the above - stated rules. In addition, the department will hold an informal question /answer session at 1:00 p.m., at the same address, to answer questions regarding those proposed amendments. 2. The board will make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities who wish to participate in this public hearing or need an alternative accessible format of this notice. If you require an accommodation, contact Elois Johnson, Paralegal, no later than 5:00 p.m., April 25, 2011, to advise us of the nature of the accommodation that you need. Please contact Elois Johnson at Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, Montana 59620 -0901; phone (406) 444 -2630; fax (406) 444 -4386; or e-mail ejohnson @mt.gov. 3. The rules proposed to be amended provide as follows, stricken matter interlined, new matter underlined: 17.38.101 PLANS FOR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY OR WASTEWATER SYSTEM (1) and (2) remain the same. (3) As used in this rule, the following definitions apply in addition to those in 75 -6 -102, MCA: (a) through (e)(ii) remain the same. (f) "Rural distribution system" means those portions of a water distribution system that are outside the limits of a city or town and that:. (i) have fewer than one service connection per mile on average; (ii) are constructed of water mains six inches in diameter or less; and (iii) do not provide fire flows. (f) through (1)(ii) remain the same, but are renumbered (g) through (m)(ii).. (4) A person may not commence or continue the construction, alteration, extension, or operation of a public water supply system or wastewater system until the applicant has submitted a design report along with the necessary plans and specifications for the system to the department or a delegated division of local government for its review and has received written approval. Three sets of plans and specifications are needed for final approval. Approval by the department or a delegated division of local government is contingent upon construction and operation of the public water supply or wastewater system consistent with the approved design report, plans, and specifications. Failure to construct or operate the system according to MAR Notice No. 17 -318 7- 4/14/11 -522 - the approved plans and specifications or the department's conditions of approval is an alteration for purposes of this rule. Design reports, plans, and specifications must meet the following criteria: (a) through (i) remain the same. (j) the department may grant a deviation from the standards referenced in (4)(a) through when the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the department that strict adherence to the standards of this rule is not necessary to protect public health and the quality of state waters. Deviations from the standards may be granted only by the department. (5) through (18) remain the same. AUTH: 75 -6 -103, MCA IMP: 75 -6 -103, 75 -6 -112, 75 -6 -121, MCA 17.38.106 FEES (1) remains the same. (2) Department review will not be initiated until fees calculated under (2)(a) through (e) and (5) have been received by the department. If applicable, the final approval will not be issued until the calculated fees under (3) and (4) have been paid in full. The total fee for the review of a set of plans and specifications is the sum of the fees for the applicable parts or subparts listed in these citations. (a) The fee schedule for designs requiring review for compliance with Department Circular DEQ -1 is set forth in Schedule I, as follows: SCHEDULE I Policies ultra violet disinfection $ 700 point -of- use /point -of -entry treatment $ 700 Section 1.0 Engineering Report $ 280 Section 3.1 Surface water quality and quantity $ 700 structures $ 700 Section 3.2 Ground water $ 840 Section 4.1 Clarification standard clarification $ 700 solid contact units $ 1,400 Section 4.2 Filtration rapid rate $ 1,750 pressure filtration $ 1,400 diatomaceous earth $ 1,400 slow sand $ 1,400 direct filtration $ 1,400 biologically active filtration $ 1,400 membrane filtration $ 1,400 micro and ultra filtration $ 1,400 bag and cartridge filtration $ 420 Section 4.3 Disinfection $ 700 Section 4.4 Softening $ 700 Section 4.5 Aeration natural draft $ 280 7- 4/14/11 MAR Notice No 17 -318 -523 - forced draft $ 280 spray /pressure $ 280 packed tower $ 700 Section 4.6 Iron and manganese $ 700 Section 4.7 Fluoridation $ 700 Section 4.8 Stabilization $ 420 Section 4.9 Taste and odor control $ . 560 Section 4.10 Microscreening $ 280 Section 4.11 Ion exchange $ 700 Section 4.12 Adsorptive media $ 700 Chapter 5 Chemical application $ 980 Chapter 6 Pumping facilities $ 980 Section 7.1 Plant storage $ 980 Section 7.2 Hydropneumatic tanks $ 420 Section 7.3 Distribution storage $ 980 Section 7.4 Cisterns $ 420 Chapter 8 Distribution system per lot fee $ 70 non - standard specifications $ 420 transmission distribution (per lineal foot) $ 0.25 rural distribution system (per lineal foot) $ 0.03 Chapter 9 Waste disposal $ 700 Appendix A new systems $ 280 modifications $ 140 (b) through (7) remain the same. AUTH: 75 -6 -108, MCA IMP: 75 -6 -108, MCA REASON: The proposed amendments to ARM 17.38.101 provide a definition for "rural distribution system" and correct an erroneous internal reference in ARM 17.38.101(4)(j). The proposed definition of "rural distribution system" is necessary to implement the reduced design review fees for those systems as proposed in the amendments to ARM 17.38.106, discussed below. Rural distribution systems are those that are outside of cities and that have mains with relatively simple construction and long stretches of mains without service connections. ARM 17.38.101(4)(j) authorizes deviations from standards referenced in (4)(a) through (f). The standards that were intended to be referenced were those in (4)(a) through (e), which are department circulars and rules incorporated in this rule by reference. The proposed amendment is necessary to conform the language of the rule to the original intent. The proposed amendment to ARM 17.38.106 adds a new fee category for rural distribution systems. The new rate will reduce fees for review of those systems. These systems have large distribution systems but are fairly simple to review. The new lower fee rate is necessary in order for the review fee to reflect actual review costs to the department, as required under 75 -6- 108(3), MCA. Systems that would submit plans under this new definition and fee schedule would see a significant reduction in their review fees, from 25 cents /lineal foot to three cents/ lineal foot. The department does not have sufficient information to estimate the MAR Notice No. 17 -318 7- 4/14/11 -524 - number of fee payers nor the lineal feet of distribution systems that may be affected by the reduced fee. 17.38.502 DEFINITIONS (1) remains the same. (2) "Water hauler" is a person engaged in the business of transporting water, to be used through a non -piped conveyance, from a water source to a cistern or other reservoir by -ten r more families or to be used for human consumption in a public water supply system. As defined in 75 -6 -102, MCA, a public water supply system is a system that has at least 15 service connections or that regularly serves at least 25 or more persons daily for at least any 60 or more days of the in a calendar year. AUTH: 75 -6 -103, MCA IMP: 75 -6 -103, MCA REASON: The proposed amendment to ARM 17.38.502 is necessary to clarify that the water hauler requirements apply only to non -piped means of delivery. The amendments also conform the rule to the current definition of "public water supply system" set forth in 75 -6- 104(14), MCA. 17.38.511 WATER SUPPLY (1) Water to be hauled must be taken from a supply e department- approved community public water supply system and from a department- approved water loading station that meets the requirements of Department Circular DEQ -1. al Periodic-al Water haulers shall collect bacteriological samples from the water hauling equipment . • - - - - - -- - • -- - . • • • • _ - - - - - - at least once per month for each approved public water supplier the hauler uses that month. (3) If a water hauler's public water supplier is in compliance with the monitoring and maximum contaminant level requirements set forth in ARM Title 17, chapter 38, subchapter 2, the water hauler is not required to duplicate the entry point sampling of the supplier unless specifically required to do so by the department. AUTH: 75 -6 -103, MCA IMP: 75 -6 -103, MCA REASON: The proposed amendments to ARM 17.38.511(1) clarify that a water hauler's supply must be a department- approved community public water supply system. Because water haulers are regulated as community systems, the water they haul must be received from a system designed and monitored as such. The proposed amendments also clarify that water loading stations require department approval. This amendment is necessary to comply with existing department requirements for loading stations in Department Circular DEQ -1. Proposed (2) removes the reference to the department or its representatives conducting biological sampling. This has not been actual department practice because of limited staff resources, and amending the rule is necessary to clarify that bacteriological sampling is the obligation of the water hauler. Finally, proposed (3) provides that water haulers are not required to duplicate the entry point sampling of their supplier if the supplier is in compliance with the requirements in ARM Title 17, chapter 38, subchapter 2. This amendment is necessary to help regulated haulers in determining applicable sampling requirements. 17.38.513 CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF WATER (1) Each Except as provided in (3), 7- 4/14/11 MAR Notice No. 17 -318 -525 - water haulers shall dose each Toad of water shall -be -dosed with enough chlorine to provide a free chlorine or total chlorine residual of at least 0.4 parts per million (ppm), not to exceed 4.0 ppm, at the time the water hauling equipment is filled and at the time the water is delivered to the receiving system. The wWater haulers shall have DPD test kit; use department- approved methods to shack monitor the chlorine residual concentration. - - - - - - e. - - - - •• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - . Water haulers shall monitor each Toad of water, and shall record chlorine residual results on department- approved forms. Haulers shall retain the records of chlorine residual results for each Toad and shall provide the records to the department upon request. By the tenth of the month following a delivery, haulers shall report the following to the department on department- approved forms: (a) one chlorine residual result for each day water is delivered, taken from the Toad with • the lowest monitored residual result; and (b) for days that a hauler obtains and delivers water from multiple public water suppliers, one chlorine residual result per supplier per day, taken from the loads with the lowest monitored residual result.' (3) Water haulers using an approved chloraminated source of water shall monitor, record, and report residuals as required in (1) and (2), but are not required to adiust total chlorine levels. AUTH: 75 -6 -103, MCA IMP: 75 -6 -103, MCA REASON: The proposed amendments to ARM 17.38.513(1) clarify that the residual of 0.4 mg /L of free or total chlorine is a minimum that must be maintained at the time the water hauling equipment is filled and at the time the water is delivered to the receiving system. Water haulers are not responsible for the quality of the water after it enters the receiving system. The amendments also require that the hauler use department- approved methods to monitor chlorine residuals. The proposed amendments to ARM 17.38.513(2) provide that each load of hauled water must be monitored, and specify the time and manner of reporting the results to the department. Proposed (3) clarifies the requirements for haulers that utilize a chloraminated source of water. Because of the complications associated with adding chlorine to chloraminated water, as well as the regulatory requirements applicable to the supplier, haulers utilizing chloraminated sources of water are required only to monitor and report the chloramines level of the water, and are not required to treat the water. The proposed amendments to this rule are necessary to ensure the safety of hauled water, which has an increased potential of being exposed to sources of contamination. 4. Concerned persons may submit their data, views, or arguments, either orally or in writing, at the hearing. Written data, views, or arguments may also be submitted to Elois Johnson, Paralegal, Department of Environmental Quality, 1520 E. Sixth Avenue, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, Montana 59620 -0901; faxed to (406) 444 -4386; or e- mailed to ejohnson @mt.gov, no later than 5:00 p.m., May 12, 2011. To be guaranteed consideration, mailed comments must be postmarked on or before that date. 5. Katherine Orr, attorney for the board, or another attorney for the Agency Legal Services Bureau, has been designated to preside over and conduct the hearing. MAR Notice No. 17 -318 7- 4/14/11 • -526- 6. The board maintains a list of interested persons who wish to receive notices of rulemaking actions proposed by this agency. Persons who wish to have their name added to the list shall make a written request that includes the name, e-mail, and mailing address of the person to receive notices and specifies that the person wishes to receive notices regarding: air quality; hazardous waste /waste oil; asbestos control; water /wastewater treatment plant operator certification; solid waste; junk vehicles; infectious waste; public water supply; public sewage systems regulation; hard rock (metal) mine reclamation; major facility siting; opencut mine reclamation; strip mine reclamation; subdivisions; renewable energy grants /loans; wastewater treatment or safe drinking water revolving grants and loans; water quality; CECRA; underground /above ground storage tanks; MEPA; or general procedural rules other than MEPA. Notices will be sent by e-mail unless a mailing preference is noted in the request. Such written request may be mailed or delivered to Elois Johnson, Paralegal, Department of Environmental Quality, 1520 E. Sixth Ave., P.O. Box 200901, Helena, Montana 59620 -0901, faxed to the office at (406) 444 - 4386, e- mailed to Elois Johnson at ejohnson @mt.gov, or may be made by completing a request form at any rules hearing held by the board. 7. The bill sponsor contact requirements of 2 -4 -302, MCA, do not apply. Reviewed by: BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /s/ James M. Madden BY: /s/ Joseph . W. Russell JAMES M. MADDEN JOSEPH W. RUSSELL, M.P.H., Rule Reviewer Chairman Certified to the Secretary of State, April 4, 2011. 7- 4/14/11 MAR Notice No. 17 -318 -528 - BEFORE THE BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE STATE OF MONTANA In the matter of the amendment of ARM ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON 17.36.922 and 17.36.924 pertaining to local ) PROPOSED AMENDMENT variances and variance appeals to the ) department ) (SUBDIVISIONS /ON -SITE SUBSURFACE ) WASTEWATER TREATMENT) TO: All Concerned Persons 1. On May 11, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., or upon the conclusion of the public hearing for MAR Notice No. 17 -318, the Board of Environmental Review will hold a public hearing in Room 111, Metcalf Building, Department of Environmental Quality, 1520 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, Montana, to consider the proposed amendment of the above - stated rules. 2. The board will make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities who wish to participate in this public hearing or need an alternative accessible format of this notice. If you require an accommodation, contact Elois Johnson, Paralegal, no later than 5:00 p.m., April 25, 2011, to advise us of the nature of the accommodation that you need. Please contact Elois Johnson at Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, Montana 59620 - 0901; phone (406) ' 444 -2630; fax (406) 444 -4386; or e-mail ejohnson @mt.gov. 3. The rules proposed to be amended provide as follows, stricken matter interlined, new matter underlined: 17.36.922 LOCAL VARIANCES (1) As provided in this rule, a local board of health, as defined in 50 -2 -101, MCA, may grant variances from the requirements in this subchapter and in Department Circular DEQ-4, 2004-edition except for requirements established by statute. (2) The local board of health may grant a variance from a requirement only if it finds that all • - - - - - - - - • - • - - - - - -' - , - - = that all of the following criteria are met: u granting the variance will not: (a) through (f) remain the same, but are renumbered (i) through (vi). (g) (vii) cause a nuisance due to odor, unsightly appearance,. or other aesthetic consideration, (b) compliance with the requirement from which the variance is requested would result in undue hardship to the applicant: (c) the variance is necessary to address extraordinary conditions that the applicant could not reasonably have prevented; (d) no alternatives that comply with the requirement are reasonably feasible; and (e) the variance requested is not more than the minimum needed to address the extraordinary conditions. (4) remains the same, but is renumbered (3). AUTH: 75 -5 -201, 75 -5 -305, MCA IMP: 75 -5 -305, MCA REASON: As required by 75- 5- 305(2)(a), MCA, this subchapter sets out the board's minimum requirements for control and disposal of sewage. Local boards of health are required to adopt sewage regulations that are not less stringent than these minimum standards. Section 50-2 - 116(1)(k), MCA. The board is also required to adopt criteria for variances from the minimum standards, and the statutes provide for an appeal to the department of local board decisions on variances from the minimum standards. Section 75 -5- 305(3), MCA. The board's variance criteria are set out in ARM 17.36.922(2). The current variance criteria in ARM 17.36.922(2) prohibit variances that would cause adverse health or environmental effects. When adopted, these criteria were not intended to be 7- 4/14/11 MAR Notice No. 17 -319 -529 - exclusive. ARM 17.36.922(3) authorizes local boards to adopt criteria in addition to those in ARM 17.36.922(2). The current rules treat the state variance criteria, like the state substantive standards, as minimum requirements that local boards may supplement. A recent department legal opinion determined that the state variance criteria rules were not consistent with statutory requirements. Section 50- 2- 116(1)(k), MCA, requires that local variance criteria be "identical" to the state board criteria. ARM 17.36.922(3), which allows additional local variance criteria, is inconsistent with 50- 2- 116(1)(k), MCA. In addition, 75 -5- 305(4), MCA, requires that the department use the state Board of Environmental Review's variance criteria when reviewing local variance decisions. ARM 17.36.924(9), which allows the department to apply local variance criteria in variance appeals, is inconsistent with 75 -5- 305(4), MCA. The proposed repeal of ARM 17.36.922(3) and 17.36.924(9) is necessary to conform the board rules to these statutory requirements. Local variance criteria typically require a variance applicant to make a showing of hardship to justify a variance. Because the department may not use local criteria when reviewing variances, the board is proposing to adopt hardship criteria in the state rules. Based on recommendations from local health departments and sanitarians, the board is proposing to adopt four additional variance criteria. Proposed ARM 17.36.922(2)(b) requires a showing that compliance with the requirement from which the variance is requested would result in undue hardship for the applicant. This provision is necessary to limit variances to situations in which compliance with a requirement creates a significantly greater burden for the applicant than for others to whom the requirement applies. Proposed ARM 17.36.922(2)(c) requires a showing that the variance is necessary to address extraordinary conditions that the applicant could not reasonably have prevented. This provision is necessary to limit variances to situations that are not typical, and to require applicants to use reasonable care to avoid placing themselves in those situations. Proposed ARM 17.36.922(2)(d) requires a showing that there are no reasonably feasible alternatives for complying with the requirement. This provision is necessary to limit variances to situations in which no reasonable alternative exists. Finally, proposed ARM 17.36.922(2)(e) requires a showing that the variance requested is not more than the minimum needed to address the extraordinary conditions. This provision is necessary to limit the scope of a variance to what is needed to alleviate the particular conditions that create undue hardship. The proposed amendments also make several changes for clarification. The reference to the 2004 edition of DEQ-4 in ARM 17.36.922(1) is proposed to be deleted because the current edition of DEQ-4 is 2009, which is correctly referenced in ARM 17.36.914(2). ARM 17.36.922(1) is amended to clarify that local boards cannot grant variances from statutory requirements, such as the restrictions on gray water irrigation set out in ARM 17.36.919(3)(c). Finally, a minor change is proposed to ARM 17.36.922(2) to delete a requirement for compliance with other rule conditions when granting a variance. This provision is inconsistent with the authority of local boards to grant variances to any of the requirements in this subchapter and DEQ-4, except those established by statute. 17.36.924 VARIANCE APPEALS TO THE DEPARTMENT (1) through (3) remain the same. (4) If the appeal fulfills the requirements of (2), the department shall appeal proceed to review the local variance decision under the contested case provisions of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, Title 2, chapter 4, part 6, MCA. mccts the rcquircmcnts of (2). . MAR Notice No. 17 -319 7- 4/14/11 -530- • •- -• -- - - ... _.._. 17.36.022. • (5) As provided in 2- 4-612, MCA, the common law and statutory rules of evidence apply in department proceedings to review local board variance decisions. The parties may provide evidence and testimony to the department in addition to that presented to the local board. (6) In evaluating the local board variance decision, the department shall apply the variance criteria in ARM 17.36.922(2), and may not consider local variance criteria. The department may substitute its judgment for that of the local board as to the interpretation and application of the variance criteria in ARM 17.36.922(2). However, the department shall be bound by the local board's interpretation of other local board rules in effect at the time of the local board's decision. (7) Challenges to the applicability or validity of a rule of the local board are outside the scope of department review. Variance requests that do not seek to go below a state minimum standard are also outside the scope of department review. If a variance is requested from a local requirement that is more stringent than the requirements in this subchapter, the department may review the local board's decision only if the variance, if granted, would also require a variance from the requirements in this subchapter. (10 )181 The department shall issue a formal decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, within 30 days after the hearing process is completed. AUTH: 75 -5 -201, 75 -5 -305, MCA IMP: 75 -5 -305, MCA REASON: The proposed amendments to ARM 17.36.924(4) and repeal of ARM 17.36.924(9) implement the statutory requirement that the department use the state Board of Environmental Review's variance criteria when hearing appeals of local board variance decisions. See Reason statement for the amendments to ARM 17.36.922. The proposed repeal of ARM 17.36.924(5) would eliminate the requirement that hearings be held within 90 days of filing a complete appeal. Pursuant to 75- 5- 305(4), MCA, appeals must be conducted under the contested case procedures of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, Title 2, chapter 4, part 6, MCA (MAPA). Under MAPA procedures, pre- hearing steps such as discovery and motions can take longer than 90 days. Repealing the 90 -day requirement is necessary to allow the parties to fully utilize MAPA. The current rule requiring MAPA procedures is proposed to be moved from ARM 17.36.924(5) to ARM 17.36.924(4). The proposed repeal of ARM 17.36.924(6) and (7) would eliminate the requirement for the department to conduct environmental review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) when it issues a decision in a local variance appeal. Repeal of this provision is necessary because MEPA does not require environmental review when the department issues a decision in a variance contested case. The proposed amendments would repeal ARM 17.36.924(8), which allows comments for two weeks following a hearing. Repeal is necessary because this comment process does not follow MAPA contested case procedures. Variance appeals are typically conducted by hearing examiners. Under MAPA, the parties to variance appeals must be given an opportunity to file post- hearing exceptions and briefs and make oral arguments to the director. Section 2-4- 621(1), MCA. MAPA does not limit the post- hearing exceptions and briefing process to two weeks. Proposed new ARM 17.36.924(5), (6), and (7) set out procedural requirements applicable to the department contested case proceedings to review a local variance decision. These requirements are based on statutory provisions and past precedent. The proposed new sections are necessary to provide guidance to parties about the contested case process. The proposed amendment to ARM 17.36.924(10), renumbered as (8), clarifies that the statutory 30 -day period starts to run after the MAPA hearing process is completed and the matter is fully submitted for final department decision. The MAPA hearing process includes an oral argument hearing before the department director if the evidentiary hearing is held by a hearing examiner and a party files exceptions to the hearing examiner's proposed decision. 7- 4/14/11 MAR Notice No. 17 -319 -531- 4. Concerned persons may submit their data, views, or arguments, either orally or in writing, at the hearing. Written data, views, or arguments may also be submitted to Elois Johnson, Paralegal, Department of Environmental Quality, 1520 E. Sixth Avenue, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, Montana 59620 - 0901; faxed to (406) 444 -4386; or e- mailed to ejohnson ©mt.gov, no later than 5:00 p.m., May 12, 2011. To be guaranteed consideration, mailed comments must be postmarked on or before that date. 5. Katherine Orr, attorney for the board, or another attorney for the Agency Legal Services Bureau, has been designated to preside over and conduct the hearing. 6. The board maintains a list of interested persons who wish to receive notices of rulemaking actions proposed by this agency. Persons who wish to have their name added to the list shall make a written request that includes the name, e-mail, and mailing address of the person to receive notices and specifies that the person wishes to receive notices regarding: air quality; hazardous waste /waste oil; asbestos control; water /wastewater treatment plant operator certification; solid waste; junk vehicles; infectious waste; public water supply; public sewage systems regulation; hard rock (metal) mine reclamation; major facility siting; opencut mine reclamation; strip mine reclamation; subdivisions; renewable energy grants /loans; wastewater treatment or safe drinking water revolving grants and loans; water quality; CECRA; underground /above ground storage tanks; MEPA; or general procedural rules other than MEPA. Notices will be sent by e-mail unless a mailing preference is noted in the request. Such written request may be mailed or delivered to Elois Johnson, Paralegal, Department of Environmental. Quality, 1520 E. Sixth Ave., P.O. Box 200901, Helena, Montana 59620 -0901, faxed to the office at (406) 444 -4386, e- mailed to Elois Johnson at ejohnson ©mt.gov, or may be made by completing a request form at any rules hearing held by the board. 7. The bill sponsor contact requirements of 2-4 -302, MCA, do not apply. Reviewed by: BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /s/ James M. Madden BY: /s/ Joseph W. Russell JAMES M. MADDEN JOSEPH W. RUSSELL, M.P.H., Rule Reviewer Chairman Certified to the Secretary of State, April 4, 2011. MAR Notice No. 17 -319 7- 4/14/11