Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Montana; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 32682-32689 [2019-14249]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32682
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR
93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is
defined as ‘‘that portion of the total
allowable emissions defined in the
submitted or approved control strategy
implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for a certain date for
the purpose of meeting reasonable
further progress milestones or
demonstrating attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, for any
criteria pollutant or its precursors,
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions’’ (40 CFR 93.101).
The South Coast II court decision
upheld EPA’s revocation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS, which was effective on
April 6, 2015. EPA’s current
transportation conformity regulation
requires a regional emissions analysis
only during the time period beginning
one year after a nonattainment
designation for a particular NAAQS
until the effective date of revocation of
that NAAQS (40 CFR 93.109(c)).
Therefore, pursuant to the conformity
regulation, a regional emissions analysis
using MVEBs is not required for
conformity determinations for the 1997
ozone NAAQS because that NAAQS has
been revoked (80 FR 12264). As no
regional emissions analysis is required
for the Dayton-Springfield area,
transportation conformity for the 1997
ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated by
an MPO and DOT for transportation
plans and TIPs by showing that the
remaining criteria contained in Table 1
in 40 CFR 93.109, and 40 CFR 93.108
have been met.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Proposed Action
Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the
CAA and for the reasons set forth above,
and based on Ohio’s representations and
commitments set forth above, EPA is
proposing to approve the DaytonSpringfield area second maintenance
plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
submitted by Ohio EPA on April 12,
2019, as a revision to the Ohio SIP. The
second maintenance plan is designed to
keep the Dayton-Springfield area in
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
through 2028.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: June 20, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019–14246 Filed 7–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0047; FRL–9996–02–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Montana;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report
State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
Montana’s regional haze progress report,
submitted by the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) as a
revision to its State Implementation
Plan (SIP). Montana’s SIP revision
addresses requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and the EPA’s rules that
require states to submit periodic reports
describing progress toward Reasonable
Progress Goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing plan
addressing regional haze. Montana’s
progress report explains the measures
that have been implemented in the
regional haze plan due to be in place by
the date of the progress report and that
visibility in the majority mandatory
federal Class I areas affected by
emissions from Montana sources is
improving, and that a revision of the
plan is not needed at this time. The EPA
is proposing approval of Montana’s
determination that the State’s regional
haze plan is adequate to meet RPGs for
the first implementation period, which
extended through 2018 and requires no
substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2019–0047, to the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the 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
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Division,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. The EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
Kate
Gregory, Air and Radiation Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD–QP, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6175, or by
email at gregory.kate@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
I. Background
States are required to submit progress
reports that evaluate progress towards
the RPGs for each mandatory Class I
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
Federal area 1 (Class I area) within the
state and in each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions
from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g).
In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(h) require states to submit, at the
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g)
progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze plan. The first progress report must
take the form of a SIP revision and is
due five years after submittal of the
initial regional haze SIP. Montana
declined to submit a regional haze SIP
covering all required elements in EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule, which resulted in
the EPA administration of the majority
of Regional Haze program in the State
since the effective date of the Federal
Implementation Program (FIP) of
October 18, 2012.2
Twelve Class I areas are located in
Montana; Anaconda-Pintlar Wilderness
Area, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area,
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area,
Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area,
Glacier National Park, Medicine Lake
Wilderness Area, Mission Mountain
Wilderness Area, Red Rock Lakes
Wilderness Area, Scapegoat Wilderness
Area, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
Area, U. L. Bend Wilderness Area and
Yellowstone National Park.3 Monitoring
and data representing visibility
conditions in Montana’s twelve Class I
areas is based on the ten Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring
sites located across the State.4
On November 7, 2017, Montana
submitted a progress report, which
detailed the progress made in the first
planning period toward implementation
of the Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
outlined in the 2012 regional haze FIP,
the visibility improvement measured at
Class I areas affected by emissions from
Montana sources, and a determination
of the adequacy of the existing regional
haze plan for Montana. The State
provided notice of the Progress Report
and a 30-day comment period, which
closed on September 22, 2017. The State
received one comment of support from
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D for list of
Class I Federal areas.
2 77 FR 57864 (September 18, 2012).
3 Montana Progress Report, Figure 1–1, p. 1–1.
4 Montana Progress Report, Figure 1–3, p. 1–4.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32683
Montana-Dakota Utilities. The EPA is
proposing to approve Montana’s
November 7, 2017 SIP submittal on the
basis that it satisfies the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308.
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Montana’s
Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section describes the contents of
Montana’s progress report and the EPA’s
analysis of the report, as well as an
evaluation of the determination of
adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h)
and the requirement for state and
Federal Land Manager coordination in
40 CFR 51.308(i).
1. Status of Implementation of Control
Measures
In its Progress Report, Montana
summarizes the emissions reduction
measures that were relied upon by
Montana in the regional haze plan for
ensuring reasonable progress at the
Class I areas within the State. EPA’s
regional haze FIP established RPGs for
2018 and established a LTS. 5 6 In its
Progress Report, the State describes both
state and federal emission reduction
measures including applicable federal
programs (e.g., mobile source rules,
Mercury and Air Toxics Rule), various
existing Montana air quality measures
(the Montana Renewable Portfolio
Standard, major source closure,
cancellation, and derating) and a
description of the State’s Smoke
Management Plan (SMP). Montana also
reviewed the status of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements for the BART-eligible
sources in the State. The Montana FIP
includes emissions limits for the BARTeligible sources that were determined to
contribute to visibility impairment.7
The three units subject to BART are
listed below in Table 1: Sources Subject
to BART in Montana.
5 77 FR 23995, April 20, 2012, Table 1—Visibility
Impact Reductions Needed Based on Best and
Worst Days Baselines, Natural Conditions, and
Uniform Rate of Progress Goals for Montana Class
I Areas.
6 77 FR 24047, April 20, 2012.
7 82 FR 17951, April 14, 2017. BART emissions
limits for NOX and SO2 were vacated by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 9, 2015
for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and remanded those
portions of the FIP back to EPA for further
proceedings. National Parks Conservation
Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
32684
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART IN MONTANA 8
BART-eligible source
BART source category
Ash Grove Cement Company ..................................................................
Oldcastle Cement (formerly Holcim (US), Inc.) ........................................
Colstrip Steam Electric Station Units 1 & 2 (formerly PPL Montana,
LLC).
Portland Cement Plants.
Portland Cement Plants.
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Electric Plants of more than 250 BTUs per
hour Heat Input.
In its Progress Report, Montana
provides the status of these BARTeligible sources in the State.
Colstrip Units 1 and 2: The United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit vacated the emissions limits
from the FIP for Colstrip Units 1 and 2
on June 9, 2015.9 The court determined
the FIP emissions limits to be arbitrary
and capricious and remanded the
decision back to the EPA. The operator
and part owner, Talen Energy, did
install emission control technologies,
including separated overfire air
controls, prior to the vacatur of the
original FIP BART limits.10 In its
Progress Report, the State explains that
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) show a downward trend at
Colstrip Units 1 and 2.11 Additionally,
Talen Energy and the other owners of
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 entered into an
agreement with the Sierra Club in 2016,
wherein it was agreed that the units will
close by July 1, 2022.12 The agreement
also established NO2 and SO2 emissions
limits. These emissions limits, listed
below, will stay in effect until the units
ceases operations as the Consent Decree
is binding.13
• Unit 1 NOX limit—0.45 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average)
• Unit 2 NOX limit—0.20 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average)
• Units 1 and 2 SO2 limit—0.40 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average)
Oldcastle Cement: In its Progress
Report, Montana describes efforts by
Oldcastle Cement to meet the BART
emissions limits. While Oldcastle
Cement is meeting both particulate
matter (PM) and SO2 BART limits
established by the FIP, a revision to the
FIP establishing a new NOX limit
became effective on October 12, 2017.14
Additionally, the facility applied
additional emission control technology
(i.e., selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR)) in order to meet the new NOX
emissions standards and it is meeting
those limits.15
Ash Grove Cement: In its Progress
Report, Montana states that Ash Grove
Cement installed various emission
control technologies, including SNCR
modifications to kiln burners, and
baghouse control technology to meet the
emission limits established for the
cement plant.16 A revised SO2 limit for
Ash Grove Cement was reached under a
consent decree and the cement plant
was required to meet the new SO2 limit
of no more than 2.0 lb/ton of clinker
(30-day rolling average) by April 8, 2015
and an initial NOx limit of no more than
8.0 lb/ton of clinker (30-day rolling
average) 30 days after September 10,
2014.17 Additionally, Montana states in
its Progress Report that Ash Grove
Cement is achieving all of its consent
decree and FIP emission limits.18
TABLE 2—CURRENT STATUS OF MONTANA SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART
Particulate matter
(PM)
Limit
Colstrip Units 1 &
2.
Oldcastle Cement
Ash Grove Cement
Status
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Sulfur dioxides
(SO2)
Limit
Status
footnote 19
Limit
Status
0.10 lb/mmBtu .....
In Compliance .....
0.15 lb/mmBtu .....
See
....
0.08 lb/mmBtu .....
See footnote.20
0.77 lb/ton clinker
See footnote 22 ....
In Compliance .....
In Compliance .....
6.5 lb/ton clinker ..
8.0 lb/ton clinker ..
See footnote 21 ....
In Compliance .....
1.3 lb/ton clinker ..
11.5 lb/ton clinker
In Compliance.
In Compliance.
In its Progress Report, Montana
provides an update on the State’s Smoke
Management Plan (SMP).23 The State
provides its open burning rules, as are
written in the Administrative Rules of
Montana and approved in the SIP, in its
Progress Report, which ‘‘considers
smoke management techniques and the
8 77 FR 23998, April 20, 2012, Table 8—List of
BART-Eligible Sources in Montana.
9 National Parks Conservation Association v.
EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
10 Montana Progress Report, 2–5.
11 Montana Progress Report, p.3–3.
12 Montana Progress Report, pp. 2–5. Sierra Club
v. Talen Montana, LLC et al., No. 1:13–cv–00032–
DLC–JCL, D. Mon. (2016), Doc. 316–1., p. 6.
13 Montana Progress Report, 2–5. Sierra Club v.
Talen Montana, LLC et al., No. 1:13–cv–00032–
DLC–JCL, D. Mon. (2016), Doc. 316–1., pp. 7–8.
14 82 FR 42738.
15 Montana Progress Report, 2–6. See ‘Oldcastle
Compliance Reporting’ for additional information.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Nitrogen oxides
(NOX)
18:12 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
visibility impacts of smoke when
developing, issuing and conditioning
permits, and when making dispersion
forecast recommendations.’’ 24 The SMP
is currently the only part of the State’s
regional haze plan that is approved into
the SIP. In its Progress Report, the State
provides a description of coordination
Progress Report, 2–5 to 2–6.
States v. Ash Grove Cement Company,
No. 2:13–cv–02299–JTM–DJW, D. Kan. (2013), Doc.
27 as amended by Doc. 28.
18 Montana Progress Report, 2–6.
19 As discussed above, these emissions limits
were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit on June 9, 2015. However, the State
describes emissions trending downward for NOX
and SO2 in its Progress Report given the application
of SOFA emission control technology. Montana
Progress Report, p. 3–2.
20 Emissions limits vacated by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 9, 2015.
PO 00000
16 Montana
17 United
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
between Montana and the adjacent State
of Idaho to coordinate burn activities of
large open burners and federal land
managers, including the U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land
Management, through participation in
the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group.25
Additionally, Montana describes active
21 A revision to the FIP NO emission limit
X
became effective October 12, 2017. In its Progress
Report, Montana describes Oldcastle Cement’s
plans to install SCNR emission control, recommissioning and optimization to meet the new
NOX limit. Montana Progress Report, p. 2–6.
22 The process weight of the kiln is used to
calculate the emission limit and varies. Montana
Progress Report, p. 2–4.
23 Montana Progress Report, p. 2–12.
24 Ibid. At this time, the State’s Smoke
Management Plan is the only element of the
regional haze program as set out in 40 CFR 51.308
that is approved in the SIP.
25 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
involvement during the fall and winter
burn seasons by the State’s open burn
coordinator and meteorologist to
evaluate burn type, size and location,
and provide close monitoring of the
impacts of smoke in the state.26 Finally,
the State cites use of Best Available
Control Technology (BACT)
requirements for burners as a control
measure to meet the requirements of the
Regional Haze Rule (RHR).27
EPA proposes to find that Montana
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding the implementation status of
control measures because the State’s
Progress Report provides documentation
of the implementation of measures
within Montana, including the BARTeligible sources in the State subject to
BART.
2. Summary of Emissions Reductions
In its Progress Report, Montana
presents information on emissions
reductions achieved across the State
from the pollution control strategies
discussed above. The Progress Report
32685
includes statewide SO2, NOX, and PM
(fine (PM2.5) and course (PM10))
emissions data from Western Regional
Air Partnership (WRAP) emissions
inventories.28 The Progress Report
includes the 2002 WRAP emissions
inventory (Plan02d) as baseline, the
2014 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) as updated data from the baseline,
and 2018 WRAP data (Preliminary
Reasonable Progress Inventory for 2018
(2nd Revision) (PRP18b)) as projected
emissions.29
TABLE 3—CHANGES IN MONTANA TOTAL EMISSIONS, STATEWIDE
[Tons per year]
Pollutant
(all sources)
2002
(Plan02d)
SO2 ..............................................................................................................................................
NOX ..............................................................................................................................................
PM2.5 ............................................................................................................................................
PM10 .............................................................................................................................................
As can be seen in Table 3: Changes in
Montana Total Emissions, Statewide
above, the emissions data shows that
there were decreases in emissions of
SO2 and NOX over the time period (i.e.,
2002 and 2014) of the two emissions
inventories listed (Plan02d and 2014
NEI). As explained in Montana’s Key
Findings, ‘‘[a]nalysis shows that, in
Montana, the haziest days are primarily
caused by wildfire activity both in and
outside the state,’’ 34 35 (i.e., Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and Canada).36 The
Report further explains that ‘‘the
methodology for calculating fire
emissions has been updated over the
years to better reflect actual emissions;
therefore,’’ when compared to the
methodology used for the 2002 baseline
emission inventory, ‘‘the 2014 NEI data
is likely more reflective of actual annual
emissions.’’ 37 The Progress Report
explains that ‘‘impacts from updated
emissions estimation methods are most
apparent in particulate matter emissions
from fire, particularly prescribed
fire.’’ 38 Based on 2002 (Plan02d) and
2014 (NEI) emissions data, total fine PM
emissions have increased from the
26 Ibid.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Visibility Conditions and Changes
In its Progress Report, Montana
provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I areas within
its borders. The Progress Report
addressed current visibility conditions
and the difference between current
visibility conditions and baseline
30 Montana
27 Montana
Progress Report, p. 2–12.
28 Montana Progress Report, Tables 3–2 to 3–5,
pp. 3–6 to 3–9. The WRAP’s inventories were
developed using EPA’s National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) and other sources (https://
www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx). The NEI is
based primarily upon data provided by state, local,
and tribal air agencies (including Montana) for
sources in their jurisdiction and supplemented by
data developed by the EPA.
29 For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’
conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time
period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
baseline year of 2002 to 2014 by 47
percent.39 In its Progress Report, the
State provides coarse PM emissions data
from 2002 (Plan02d) and 2014 (NEI),
which shows that while overall coarse
PM emissions decreased 10% from 2002
to 2014, emissions from anthropogenic
fire significantly increased between
2002 and 2014.
The EPA proposes to find that
Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions achieved because the State
identifies emissions reductions for SO2
and NOX. Additionally, Montana
presents sufficient emission inventory
information and discussion regarding
emissions trends for coarse and fine PM
during the 2002 to 2014 time period.
16:55 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
Progress Report, p. 3–7.
Progress Report, p. 3–6.
32 Montana Progress Report, p. 3–9.
33 Montana Progress Report, p. 3–8.
34 Montana Progress Report, p. i.
35 Montana Progress Report, p. 4–8.
36 Ibid.
37 Montana Progress Report, p. 3–5.
38 Montana Progress Report, p. 3–8. Many changes
in emissions inventory methodology occurred
between 2002 (Plan02d) and the most current actual
emissions inventory data presented by the State
(2014NEI), which may have resulted in an increase
PO 00000
31 Montana
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51,922.70
243,141.75
77,239.46
621.276.11
2014 NEI
25,320.91
165,673.41
113,655.55
556,810.28
Difference
30 ¥51%
31 ¥32%
32 47%
33 ¥10%
visibility conditions, expressed in terms
of 5-year rolling averages of these
annual values, with values for the most
impaired (20 percent worst days), least
impaired and/or clearest days (20
percent best days). The period for
calculating current visibility conditions
is the most recent 5-year period
preceding the required date of the
progress report for which data were
available as of a date 6 months
preceding the required date of the
progress report.
Montana’s Progress Report provides
figures with visibility monitoring data
for the twelve Class I areas within the
State and two Class I areas outside of
the state shown to be impacted by
Montana sources.40 Montana reported
current visibility conditions for the 2011
to 2015 5-year time period and used the
2000 to 2004 baseline period for its
examination of visibility conditions and
changes in the State.41 In its Progress
Report, Montana presents visibility data,
in deciviews, and representative
IMPROVE monitors for Class I areas
without an IMPROVE monitor, as there
are not IMPROVE monitors in each of
in fine particulate matter in the above comparison
rather than an increase in actual emissions of this
pollutant.
39 Montana Progress Report, p. 3–9. The Report
explains that the Montana FIP had anticipated a
smaller growth in the emissions of fine particulates
from 2002 to 2018, which it suggests could be
partially explained by the different methodologies
used in the NEI and a large percentage of emissions
coming from both anthropogenic and natural fire.
40 Montana Progress Report, p. 4–1.
41 For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’
conditions were represented by the 2000 to 2004
time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999).
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
32686
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Montana’s twelve Class I areas. Table 4:
Montana’s Class I Areas and IMPROVE
Sites, below, shows the IMPROVE
monitors used for each Class I area.42
TABLE 4—MONTANA’S CLASS I AREAS AND IMPROVE SITES
Class I area
IMPROVE site
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area ...................................................................................................................
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area .........................................................................................................................
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................
Gates of the Mtn Wilderness Area ...................................................................................................................
Glacier National Park ........................................................................................................................................
Medicine Lake Wilderness Area .......................................................................................................................
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area ..................................................................................................................
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area ....................................................................................................................
Scapegoat Wilderness Area .............................................................................................................................
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area ...................................................................................................................
UL Bend Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................................
Yellowstone National Park ................................................................................................................................
Table 5: Visibility Progress in
Montana’s Class I Areas, below, shows
the difference between the current
visibility conditions (represented by
2011–2015 data), baseline visibility
conditions (represented by 2000–2004
data), and the 2018 RPGs. In addition,
EPA has supplemented the data
provided by the State by including data
for the baseline period, current period,
and difference in deciviews using the
revised visibility tracking metric
described in EPA’s December 2018
guidance document.43 Although this
revised visibility tracking metric is
applicable to the second and future
implementation periods for regional
haze (and therefore not retroactively
required for progress reports for the first
regional haze planning period), the
revised tracking metric’s focus on the
days with the highest daily
Sula Peak (SULA1).
Monture, MT (MONT1).
Cabinet Mountains (CABI1).
Gates of the Mtn (GAM01).
Glacier (GLAC1).
Medicine Lake (MELA1).
Monture, MT (MONT1).
Yellowstone (YELL2).
Monture, MT (MONT1).
Sula Peak (SULA1).
U.L. Bend (ULBE1).
Yellowstone (YELL2).
anthropogenic impairment shifts focus
away from days influenced by fire and
dust events, and is therefore a better
metric for showing visibility progress
especially for Class I areas with strong
impacts from fire, as was the case for the
Class I areas within and affected by
emissions from Montana during the first
regional haze planning period. This
supplemental data is shown in square
brackets in Table 5.
TABLE 5—VISIBILITY PROGRESS IN MONTANA’S CLASS I AREAS 44
Montana’s class I area
IMPROVE site
Current
period
deciviews
2011–2015
(dv)
Baseline
period
deciviews
2000–2004
(dv)
Difference
in deciviews
(dv)
current–baseline
MT 2018 RPG
20% Worst Days 45 [20% Most Anthropogenically Impaired Days]
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area ..............
Gates of the Mtn Wilderness Area .................
Glacier National Park ......................................
Medicine Lake Wilderness Area .....................
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area .......................
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area ................
Scapegoat Wilderness Area ...........................
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area .................
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area .................
UL Bend Wilderness Area ..............................
Yellowstone National Park ..............................
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area .................
CABI1
GAMO1
GLAC1
MELA1
MONT1
MONT1
MONT1
SULA1
SULA1
ULBE1
YELL2
YELL2
14.5 [10.1]
11.7 [7.6]
17.0 [13.8]
17.9 [15.8]
15.7 [9.7]
15.7 [9.7]
15.7 [9.7]
16.3 [8.5]
16.3 [8.5]
14.5 [11.1]
12.4 [7.7]
12.4 [7.7]
14.1 [10.7]
11.3 [9.0]
22.26 [16.2]
17.7 [16.6]
14.5 [10.8]
14.5 [10.8]
14.5 [10.8]
13.4 [10.1]
13.4 [10.1]
15.1 [12.8]
11.8 [8.3]
11.8 [8.3]
0.4
0.4
¥5.26
0.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.8
2.8
¥0.7
0.6
0.6
[¥0.6]
[¥1.4]
[¥2.4]
[¥0.8]
[¥1.1]
[¥1.1]
[¥1.1]
[¥1.6]
[¥1.6]
[¥1.7]
[¥0.6]
[¥0.6]
13.31
10.82
21.48
17.36
13.83
13.83
13.83
12.94
12.94
14.85
11.23
11.23
¥1.0
¥1.1
¥1.8
¥0.7
¥1.3
¥1.3
¥1.3
¥0.9
¥0.9
¥1.1
¥1.1
¥1.1
3.27
1.54
6.92
7.11
3.60
3.60
3.60
2.48
2.48
4.57
2.36
2.36
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
20% Best Days 46
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area ..............
Gates of the Mtn Wilderness Area .................
Glacier National Park ......................................
Medicine Lake Wilderness Area .....................
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area .......................
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area ................
Scapegoat Wilderness Area ...........................
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area .................
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area .................
UL Bend Wilderness Area ..............................
Yellowstone National Park ..............................
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area .................
42 Montana
Progress Report, p. 4–2.
Guidance on Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
43 Technical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
CABI1
GAMO1
GLAC1
MELA1
MONT1
MONT1
MONT1
SULA1
SULA1
ULBE1
YELL2
YELL2
2.6
0.6
5.4
6.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.6
1.6
3.7
1.5
1.5
the Regional Haze Program (December 20, 2018),
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3.6
1.7
7.2
7.3
3.9
3.9
3.9
2.6
2.6
4.8
2.6
2.6
files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_
tracking_visibility_progress.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
As shown in Table 5: Visibility
Progress in Montana’s Class I Areas, all
of the IMPROVE monitoring sites use
Class I Areas within the State show
improvement in visibility conditions on
the 20 percent best days and are meeting
the 2018 RPGs.47 However, while only
two of the Class I Areas show
improvement in visibility conditions on
the 20 percent worst days,48 all Class I
areas show improvement in visibility
conditions when looking at the 20
percent most anthropogenically
impaired days (shown in square
brackets). In its Progress Report,
Montana shows that organic carbon is
the pollutant that has contributed the
most to light extinction at its Class I
Areas and that organic carbon is
associated with fire.49 Montana
provides an extensive analysis of the
impacts from wildfire in its Progress
Report and describes wildfire and its
impacts as ‘‘the main impediment to
visibility improvement on the 20%
worst days.’’ 50
Additionally, in its Progress Report,
Montana presents data to confirm that
wildfire activity, as can be examined
through monitored pollutants (organic
and elemental carbon specifically) and
satellite and webcam imagery, are
present on the majority of days selected
as the 20 percent worst days.51 This
means that webcam imagery and
satellite data correlate to monitored
pollutant data and further prove
wildfire is a main impediment to
visibility.
The EPA proposes to find that
Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding assessment of
visibility conditions because the State
provided baseline visibility conditions
(2002–2004), more current conditions
based on the most recently available
visibility monitoring data available at
the time of Progress Report development
(2011–2015), the difference between
these current sets of visibility
conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, and the change in visibility
impairment from 2000 to 2015 at the
Class I areas.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Montana
presents data from the statewide
emissions inventory for the 2014 NEI
32687
and compares this data to the baseline
emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d).
The pollutants inventoried include SO2,
NOX and PM (fine and coarse). The
emissions inventories include the
following type of source or activity
classifications: Point; area; on-road
mobile; off-road mobile; point and
WRAP area (including oil and gas);
fugitive and road dust; anthropogenic
fire; natural fire; biogenic; and windblown dust from both anthropogenic
and natural sources. Table 6 presents
the 2002 baseline, 2014 more current
data and the 2018 projected statewide
emission inventories. As can be seen in
Table 3, statewide emissions of both
SO2 and NOX are lower than the
projected 2018 emissions. Statewide
emissions for both coarse and fine PM
are projected to exceed the 2018
emission projections. As is discussed
above in section 2, Montana cites
changes in methodologies used in the
NEI and a larger than expected amount
of emissions in anthropogenic and
natural fire as reasons for an increase in
fine and coarse PM over the time period
analyzed in the Progress Report.52
TABLE 6—EMISSIONS PROGRESS IN MONTANA 53
SO2
(tons/year)
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2002 Total Emissions (Plan02d) ......................................................................
2014 Total Emissions (NEI) .............................................................................
2018 Projected (PRP18b) ................................................................................
Change 2002—2018 (%) .................................................................................
Change 2002—2014 (%) .................................................................................
The data for emissions from
anthropogenic fire increased from 713
tons per year (Plan02d) to 26,684 tons
per year (2014 NEI),54 which shows a
significant increase rather than the
projected decrease. Montana cites
changes in methodologies used in the
NEI and a larger than expected amount
of emissions in anthropogenic and
natural fire as reasons for the increase
in fine and coarse PM over the time
period analyzed in the Progress
Report.55 Montana explains that because
‘‘the methodology for calculating fire
emissions has been updated over the
years to better reflect actual emissions’’
that ‘‘the 2014 NEI data is likely more
reflective of actual emissions.’’ 56
Montana further acknowledges that ‘‘it
is very difficult to conduct trend
44 Montana
Progress Report, p. 4–6.
FR 24090 (April 20, 2012).
46 77 FR 24090 (April 20, 2012).
47 Montana Progress Report, p. 4–6.
48 Montana Progress Report, p. 4–5.
49 Ibid.
45 77
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
51,922.70
25,320.91
45,794.76
¥12
¥51
analysis on fire (both prescribed and
natural) because of the changes in
methodology and the inherent
variability of the activity.’’ 57 Finally,
the State explains that ‘‘[y]ear to year
prescribed fire activity can change due
to weather and available resources,
which in turn greatly affects
emissions.’’ 58
The EPA is proposing to find that
Montana adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking
because the State compared the most
recent updated emission inventory data
available at the time of the Progress
Report development with the baseline
emissions inventory used in the
modeling for the regional haze plan.
Progress Report, p. 4–8.
Progress Report, pp. 4–8 to 4–13.
52 Montana Progress Report, p. 3–8.
53 Montana Progress Report, Tables 3–2 to 3–5,
pp. 3–6 to 3–9.
54 Montana Progress Report, p. 3–8.
PO 00000
NOX
(tons/year)
243,141.75
165,673.41
180,043.25
¥26
¥32
55 Ibid.
51 Montana
56 Montana
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
621,276.11
556,810.28
675,985.25
9
¥10
PM fine
(tons/year)
77,239.46
113,655.55
83,046.71
8
47
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
In its Progress Report, Montana
provided an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the State
that have occurred. The State cites
incomplete implementation of BART
controls, oil and gas development in
Montana, and emissions from nearby
states and international sources as
impediments to progress in visibility
conditions, each of which will be
discussed below in turn.
At the time of the analysis done by
the State for the Progress Report, not all
BART controls had been installed, as
compliance dates had not occurred for
all facilities subject to BART at that
time.59 This means the impacts of the
50 Montana
Frm 00031
PM coarse
(tons/year)
57 Montana
Progress Report, p. 3–5.
Progress Report, p. 3–5.
58 Ibid.
59 Montana
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
Progress Report, p. 5–1.
09JYP1
32688
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
emissions reductions from BART
controls have not been fully realized
and are not evident in the State’s
Progress Report. However, Ash Grove
Cement and Oldcastle Units 1 and 2 are
currently in compliance with emissions
limits.60
In its Progress Report, Montana
discusses significant growth in the oil
and gas sector in Montana, North Dakota
and Wyoming. Montana’s oil and gas
sector is described in the Progress
Report.61 The State explains that
emission factors for these activities are
not well documented, but are becoming
larger issues as oil and gas production
increases.62 The State’s report includes
an analysis and comparison of
production data from North Dakota,
Wyoming and Montana.63 Additionally,
Montana cites a Bureau of Land
Management Study (BLM) study that
projected emissions from the oil and gas
sector will continue to impact visibility
in the area from now into the future.64
The State’s report concluded that:
The modeling indicated that the close
proximity of oil and gas wells to these and
other Class I Areas will make it challenging
for states to achieve significant visibility
improvements. Montana and neighboring
states will have to further study these
impacts in the process of preparing SIP
revisions for the 2018–2028 implementation
period.65
In its Progress Report, Montana
describes one of its Class I areas,
Medicine Lake, as being an example of
the impacts of emissions from
international sources. Medicine Lake is
very close to the Canadian border (less
than 40 miles) and has ‘‘the worst
visibility in the state on both the
clearest and haziest days.’’ 66 Montana
analyzed weather patterns (wind
direction, wind speed), satellite
imagery, and regional WRAP data that
showed emissions from Canada were
higher than emissions from Montana
and other surrounding states near
Medicine Lake.67 In its Progress Report,
Montana states that emissions from
Canada are not mentioned in the FIP
and are outside of the State’s control.68
Additionally, the State explains that
emissions from a large electric
generating unit (EGU) located near
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
60 Montana
Progress Report, p. 5–2.
61 Montana Progress Report, p. 5–4.
62 Ibid.
63 Montana Progress Report pp. 5–4—5–8.
64 Ramboll Environ US Corporation and
Kleinfelder, Inc., ‘‘Bureau of Land Management
Montana/Dakotas State Office PGM Modeling Study
Air Resource Impact Assessment,’’ September 2016.
65 Montana
Progress Report, p. 5–7.
Progress Report, p. 5–8.
67 Montana Progress Report, pp. 5–8 to 5–19.
68 Montana Progress Report, p. 5–20.
66 Montana
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
Medicine Lake in Canada have
remained consistent over the last decade
and the State concluded that these
emissions may continue to impact
visibility at the Medicine Lake Class I
area.69
The EPA proposes to find that
Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding an assessment of
significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions. The EPA proposes to agree
with Montana’s conclusion that there
have been significant changes in nonanthropogenic emissions of visibilityimpairing pollutants which have limited
or impeded progress in reducing
emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the State’s
sources.
6. Assessment of Current
Implementation Plan Elements and
Strategies
In its Progress Report, Montana
acknowledges the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) to assess whether the
current implementation plan elements
and strategies are sufficient to enable
the State, or other states with Class I
areas affected by emissions from the
State, to meet all established reasonable
progress goals. As seen in Table 5,
visibility conditions have improved in
the State at all IMPROVE monitoring
sites and the State is meeting its RPGs
in all Class I areas on the 20 percent best
days. Additionally, the State discusses
how anthropogenic components (light
extinction from sulfates and nitrates) is
decreasing across all monitored sites in
the State.70 Conversely, the State
explains that visibility conditions have
not improved at the majority of
monitored sites on the 20 percent worst
days. Even so, the State is not of the
opinion that the FIP is not sufficient to
address visibility impairment in its
Class I areas. As discussed above,
additional emission controls at sources
subject to BART and changes in
emissions inventories may contribute to
increased visibility in Class I areas
within the State. As discussed below,
failure to meet all RPGs for the 20
percent worst days was due to
69 Montana Progress Report, p. 6–8. Regarding the
Canadian EGU that the State notes is located near
Medicine Lake, EPA explains that EPA became
aware of information on the SaskPower website that
suggests that emissions from this EGU may be
decreasing in the next 11 years. ‘‘SaskPower 2017–
2018 Annual Report’’ p. 59 (Canada has developed
regulatory requirements regarding greenhouse gas
emissions for coal-fired generation, which may also
decrease emissions that impact visibility). https://
www.saskpower.com/about-us/Our-Company/
Current-Reports, and ‘‘Emission Goal Fact Sheet,’’
https://www.saskpower.com/Our-Power-Future/
Powering-2030/Emissions.
70 Montana Progress Report, 6–2 and 6–3.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emissions from wildfires, not
anthropogenic emissions. Because the
regional haze regulations define regional
haze as ‘‘visibility impairment that is
caused by the emission of air pollutants
from numerous anthropogenic
sources,’’ 71 the inability to meet RPGs
for the 20 percent worst days due to
nonanthropogenic wildfire emissions
does not render Montana’s regional haze
plan insufficient to enable Montana to
meet RPGs.
In its Progress Report, Montana
discusses the impacts on visibility from
wildfire at length. The State presents
emissions inventory data which shows
that wildfire contributes significantly
more to elemental and organic carbon
emissions than anthropogenic fire and
that the lack of visibility on the 20
percent worst days was due to natural
fire and not controlling anthropogenic
sources of these pollutants.72
Additionally, the State describes
anthropogenic emissions as decreasing
over time. The State explains that
‘‘continued implementation of air
pollution control measures . . . make it
likely that anthropogenic emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants will
continue to decrease with time’’ and
that ‘‘Class I Areas affected by emissions
from Montana sources will also
continue to benefit from controls that
have not yet taken full effect due to the
timing of the Montana FIP (2012) and
the compliance dates described therein
(some as late as fall of 2017).’’ 73
International sources are also shown to
impact visibility conditions in Montana
at the Medicine Lake Class I Area and
Montana acknowledges that the FIP may
be insufficient due to international
emissions.74
The EPA proposes to find that
Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and agrees with the State’s
determination that, other than the
Medicine Lake Class I area, its regional
haze plan is sufficient to meet the RPGs
for its Class I areas.
7. Review of Current Monitoring
Strategy
For progress reports for the first
implementation period, the provisions
under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a review
of the State’s visibility monitoring
strategy and any modifications to the
strategy as necessary. In its Progress
Report, Montana summarizes the
existing monitoring network in the State
to monitor visibility at the twelve Class
71 40
CFR 51.301 (emphasis added).
Progress Report, 6–4 and 6–5.
73 Montana Progress Report, p. 6–7.
74 Montana Progress Report, p. 6–8.
72 Montana
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
I areas within the State, which consists
of Montana relying on the national
IMPROVE network to meet monitoring
and data collection goals.75 There are
currently IMPROVE sites located near
seven of the twelve Class I areas within
Montana, as well as representative
surrogate monitors located near the
remaining five Class I areas in
Montana.76 In the Progress Report, the
State concludes that no modifications to
the existing visibility monitoring
strategy are necessary. The State will
continue its reliance on the IMPROVE
monitoring network. The IMPROVE
monitoring network is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze,
both in Montana and nationwide.
The EPA proposes to find that
Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding the monitoring
strategy because the State reviewed its
visibility monitoring strategy and
determined that no further
modifications to the strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the
Existing Regional Haze Plan
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(h) require states to determine the
adequacy of their existing
implementation plan to meet
established goals. Montana’s Progress
Report includes a negative declaration
regarding the need for additional actions
or emissions reductions in Montana
beyond those already in place and those
to be implemented by 2018 according to
Montana’s FIP.77 In its Progress Report,
Montana notifies the EPA that the FIP
may be inadequate to address regional
haze at the Medicine Lake Wilderness
Area Class I area due to the influence of
international emissions.78 Discussion of
this issue is addressed above.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
Montana has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because (1) the visibility
trends in the majority of Class I areas in
the State indicate that the relevant RPGs
will be met via emission reductions
already in place (except as explained
above that some RPGs will not be met
due to nonanthropogenic wildfire
emissions not subject to control
pursuant to Montana’s regional haze
plan), and therefore the FIP does not
require substantive revisions at this time
to meet those RPGs, and (2) because
Montana has notified EPA that the FIP
may be inadequate to address regional
haze at the Medicine Lake Wilderness
75 Montana
Progress Report, p. 4–3.
Progress Report, p. 4–2.
77 Montana Progress Report, p. 6–8.
78 Ibid.
76 Montana
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jul 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
Area Class I area due to international
emissions.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve
Montana’s November 7, 2017, Regional
Haze Progress Report as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32689
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations,
Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 28, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019–14249 Filed 7–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 383
[Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0292]
RIN 2126–AC14
Third Party Commercial Driver’s
License Testers
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
FMCSA proposes to allow
States to permit a third party skills test
examiner to administer the Commercial
Driver’s License (CDL) skills test to
applicants to whom the examiner has
also provided skills training. Under this
proposal, States would have the option
to permit this practice, which is
currently prohibited under FMCSA
rules. The Agency believes that allowing
States to permit this practice could
alleviate CDL skill testing delays and
reduce inconvenience and cost for third
party testers and CDL applicants,
without negatively impacting safety.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32682-32689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14249]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0047; FRL-9996-02-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Montana;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
Montana's regional haze progress report, submitted by the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) as a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Montana's SIP revision addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's rules that
require states to submit periodic reports describing progress toward
Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing plan addressing
regional haze. Montana's progress report explains the measures that
have been implemented in the regional haze plan due to be in place by
the date of the progress report and that visibility in the majority
mandatory federal Class I areas affected by emissions from Montana
sources is improving, and that a revision of the plan is not needed at
this time. The EPA is proposing approval of Montana's determination
that the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet RPGs for the
first implementation period, which extended through 2018 and requires
no substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0047, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
[[Page 32683]]
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area \1\
(Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR
51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze plan. The first progress report must take the form of a
SIP revision and is due five years after submittal of the initial
regional haze SIP. Montana declined to submit a regional haze SIP
covering all required elements in EPA's Regional Haze Rule, which
resulted in the EPA administration of the majority of Regional Haze
program in the State since the effective date of the Federal
Implementation Program (FIP) of October 18, 2012.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D for list of Class I Federal areas.
\2\ 77 FR 57864 (September 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve Class I areas are located in Montana; Anaconda-Pintlar
Wilderness Area, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness Area, Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area, Glacier
National Park, Medicine Lake Wilderness Area, Mission Mountain
Wilderness Area, Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area, Scapegoat Wilderness
Area, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, U. L. Bend Wilderness Area and
Yellowstone National Park.\3\ Monitoring and data representing
visibility conditions in Montana's twelve Class I areas is based on the
ten Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring sites located across the State.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Montana Progress Report, Figure 1-1, p. 1-1.
\4\ Montana Progress Report, Figure 1-3, p. 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 7, 2017, Montana submitted a progress report, which
detailed the progress made in the first planning period toward
implementation of the Long-Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 2012
regional haze FIP, the visibility improvement measured at Class I areas
affected by emissions from Montana sources, and a determination of the
adequacy of the existing regional haze plan for Montana. The State
provided notice of the Progress Report and a 30-day comment period,
which closed on September 22, 2017. The State received one comment of
support from Montana-Dakota Utilities. The EPA is proposing to approve
Montana's November 7, 2017 SIP submittal on the basis that it satisfies
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
II. EPA's Evaluation of Montana's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section describes the contents of Montana's progress report
and the EPA's analysis of the report, as well as an evaluation of the
determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR
51.308(i).
1. Status of Implementation of Control Measures
In its Progress Report, Montana summarizes the emissions reduction
measures that were relied upon by Montana in the regional haze plan for
ensuring reasonable progress at the Class I areas within the State.
EPA's regional haze FIP established RPGs for 2018 and established a
LTS. 5 6 In its Progress Report, the State describes both
state and federal emission reduction measures including applicable
federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules, Mercury and Air Toxics
Rule), various existing Montana air quality measures (the Montana
Renewable Portfolio Standard, major source closure, cancellation, and
derating) and a description of the State's Smoke Management Plan (SMP).
Montana also reviewed the status of Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) requirements for the BART-eligible sources in the State. The
Montana FIP includes emissions limits for the BART-eligible sources
that were determined to contribute to visibility impairment.\7\ The
three units subject to BART are listed below in Table 1: Sources
Subject to BART in Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 77 FR 23995, April 20, 2012, Table 1--Visibility Impact
Reductions Needed Based on Best and Worst Days Baselines, Natural
Conditions, and Uniform Rate of Progress Goals for Montana Class I
Areas.
\6\ 77 FR 24047, April 20, 2012.
\7\ 82 FR 17951, April 14, 2017. BART emissions limits for
NOX and SO2 were vacated by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 9, 2015 for Colstrip Units 1 and
2 and remanded those portions of the FIP back to EPA for further
proceedings. National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788
F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
[[Page 32684]]
Table 1--Sources Subject to BART in Montana \8\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART-eligible source BART source category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove Cement Company............... Portland Cement Plants.
Oldcastle Cement (formerly Holcim (US), Portland Cement Plants.
Inc.).
Colstrip Steam Electric Station Units 1 Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam
& 2 (formerly PPL Montana, LLC). Electric Plants of more than
250 BTUs per hour Heat Input.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana provides the status of these BART-
eligible sources in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 77 FR 23998, April 20, 2012, Table 8--List of BART-Eligible
Sources in Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colstrip Units 1 and 2: The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit vacated the emissions limits from the FIP for Colstrip
Units 1 and 2 on June 9, 2015.\9\ The court determined the FIP
emissions limits to be arbitrary and capricious and remanded the
decision back to the EPA. The operator and part owner, Talen Energy,
did install emission control technologies, including separated overfire
air controls, prior to the vacatur of the original FIP BART limits.\10\
In its Progress Report, the State explains that nitrogen oxide
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) show a downward
trend at Colstrip Units 1 and 2.\11\ Additionally, Talen Energy and the
other owners of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 entered into an agreement with
the Sierra Club in 2016, wherein it was agreed that the units will
close by July 1, 2022.\12\ The agreement also established
NO2 and SO2 emissions limits. These emissions
limits, listed below, will stay in effect until the units ceases
operations as the Consent Decree is binding.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d
1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
\10\ Montana Progress Report, 2-5.
\11\ Montana Progress Report, p.3-3.
\12\ Montana Progress Report, pp. 2-5. Sierra Club v. Talen
Montana, LLC et al., No. 1:13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL, D. Mon. (2016), Doc.
316-1., p. 6.
\13\ Montana Progress Report, 2-5. Sierra Club v. Talen Montana,
LLC et al., No. 1:13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL, D. Mon. (2016), Doc. 316-1.,
pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 NOX limit--0.45 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average)
Unit 2 NOX limit--0.20 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average)
Units 1 and 2 SO2 limit--0.40 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average)
Oldcastle Cement: In its Progress Report, Montana describes efforts
by Oldcastle Cement to meet the BART emissions limits. While Oldcastle
Cement is meeting both particulate matter (PM) and SO2 BART
limits established by the FIP, a revision to the FIP establishing a new
NOX limit became effective on October 12, 2017.\14\
Additionally, the facility applied additional emission control
technology (i.e., selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)) in order to
meet the new NOX emissions standards and it is meeting those
limits.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 82 FR 42738.
\15\ Montana Progress Report, 2-6. See `Oldcastle Compliance
Reporting' for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove Cement: In its Progress Report, Montana states that Ash
Grove Cement installed various emission control technologies, including
SNCR modifications to kiln burners, and baghouse control technology to
meet the emission limits established for the cement plant.\16\ A
revised SO2 limit for Ash Grove Cement was reached under a
consent decree and the cement plant was required to meet the new
SO2 limit of no more than 2.0 lb/ton of clinker (30-day
rolling average) by April 8, 2015 and an initial NOx limit of no more
than 8.0 lb/ton of clinker (30-day rolling average) 30 days after
September 10, 2014.\17\ Additionally, Montana states in its Progress
Report that Ash Grove Cement is achieving all of its consent decree and
FIP emission limits.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Montana Progress Report, 2-5 to 2-6.
\17\ United States v. Ash Grove Cement Company, No. 2:13-cv-
02299-JTM-DJW, D. Kan. (2013), Doc. 27 as amended by Doc. 28.
\18\ Montana Progress Report, 2-6.
Table 2--Current Status of Montana Sources Subject to BART
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter (PM) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) Sulfur dioxides (SO2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit Status Limit Status Limit Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colstrip Units 1 & 2............ 0.10 lb/mmBtu..... In Compliance..... 0.15 lb/mmBtu..... See footnote \19\. 0.08 lb/mmBtu..... See footnote.\20\
Oldcastle Cement................ 0.77 lb/ton In Compliance..... 6.5 lb/ton clinker See footnote \21\. 1.3 lb/ton clinker In Compliance.
clinker.
Ash Grove Cement................ See footnote \22\. In Compliance..... 8.0 lb/ton clinker In Compliance..... 11.5 lb/ton In Compliance.
clinker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana provides an update on the State's
Smoke Management Plan (SMP).\23\ The State provides its open burning
rules, as are written in the Administrative Rules of Montana and
approved in the SIP, in its Progress Report, which ``considers smoke
management techniques and the visibility impacts of smoke when
developing, issuing and conditioning permits, and when making
dispersion forecast recommendations.'' \24\ The SMP is currently the
only part of the State's regional haze plan that is approved into the
SIP. In its Progress Report, the State provides a description of
coordination between Montana and the adjacent State of Idaho to
coordinate burn activities of large open burners and federal land
managers, including the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management, through participation in the Montana/Idaho Airshed
Group.\25\ Additionally, Montana describes active
[[Page 32685]]
involvement during the fall and winter burn seasons by the State's open
burn coordinator and meteorologist to evaluate burn type, size and
location, and provide close monitoring of the impacts of smoke in the
state.\26\ Finally, the State cites use of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) requirements for burners as a control measure to meet
the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As discussed above, these emissions limits were vacated by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 9, 2015.
However, the State describes emissions trending downward for
NOX and SO2 in its Progress Report given the
application of SOFA emission control technology. Montana Progress
Report, p. 3-2.
\20\ Emissions limits vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 9th Circuit on June 9, 2015.
\21\ A revision to the FIP NOX emission limit became
effective October 12, 2017. In its Progress Report, Montana
describes Oldcastle Cement's plans to install SCNR emission control,
re-commissioning and optimization to meet the new NOX
limit. Montana Progress Report, p. 2-6.
\22\ The process weight of the kiln is used to calculate the
emission limit and varies. Montana Progress Report, p. 2-4.
\23\ Montana Progress Report, p. 2-12.
\24\ Ibid. At this time, the State's Smoke Management Plan is
the only element of the regional haze program as set out in 40 CFR
51.308 that is approved in the SIP.
\25\ Ibid.
\26\ Ibid.
\27\ Montana Progress Report, p. 2-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State's Progress
Report provides documentation of the implementation of measures within
Montana, including the BART-eligible sources in the State subject to
BART.
2. Summary of Emissions Reductions
In its Progress Report, Montana presents information on emissions
reductions achieved across the State from the pollution control
strategies discussed above. The Progress Report includes statewide
SO2, NOX, and PM (fine (PM2.5) and
course (PM10)) emissions data from Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) emissions inventories.\28\ The Progress Report
includes the 2002 WRAP emissions inventory (Plan02d) as baseline, the
2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) as updated data from the
baseline, and 2018 WRAP data (Preliminary Reasonable Progress Inventory
for 2018 (2nd Revision) (PRP18b)) as projected emissions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Montana Progress Report, Tables 3-2 to 3-5, pp. 3-6 to 3-9.
The WRAP's inventories were developed using EPA's National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) and other sources (https://www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx). The NEI is based primarily upon data provided by
state, local, and tribal air agencies (including Montana) for
sources in their jurisdiction and supplemented by data developed by
the EPA.
\29\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).
Table 3--Changes in Montana Total Emissions, Statewide
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (all sources) 2002 (Plan02d) 2014 NEI Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2............................................................. 51,922.70 25,320.91 \30\ -51%
NOX............................................................. 243,141.75 165,673.41 \31\ -32%
PM2.5........................................................... 77,239.46 113,655.55 \32\ 47%
PM10............................................................ 621.276.11 556,810.28 \33\ -10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in Table 3: Changes in Montana Total Emissions,
Statewide above, the emissions data shows that there were decreases in
emissions of SO2 and NOX over the time period
(i.e., 2002 and 2014) of the two emissions inventories listed (Plan02d
and 2014 NEI). As explained in Montana's Key Findings, ``[a]nalysis
shows that, in Montana, the haziest days are primarily caused by
wildfire activity both in and outside the state,'' 34 35
(i.e., Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Canada).\36\ The Report further
explains that ``the methodology for calculating fire emissions has been
updated over the years to better reflect actual emissions; therefore,''
when compared to the methodology used for the 2002 baseline emission
inventory, ``the 2014 NEI data is likely more reflective of actual
annual emissions.'' \37\ The Progress Report explains that ``impacts
from updated emissions estimation methods are most apparent in
particulate matter emissions from fire, particularly prescribed fire.''
\38\ Based on 2002 (Plan02d) and 2014 (NEI) emissions data, total fine
PM emissions have increased from the baseline year of 2002 to 2014 by
47 percent.\39\ In its Progress Report, the State provides coarse PM
emissions data from 2002 (Plan02d) and 2014 (NEI), which shows that
while overall coarse PM emissions decreased 10% from 2002 to 2014,
emissions from anthropogenic fire significantly increased between 2002
and 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-7.
\31\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-6.
\32\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-9.
\33\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-8.
\34\ Montana Progress Report, p. i.
\35\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-8.
\36\ Ibid.
\37\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-5.
\38\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-8. Many changes in emissions
inventory methodology occurred between 2002 (Plan02d) and the most
current actual emissions inventory data presented by the State
(2014NEI), which may have resulted in an increase in fine
particulate matter in the above comparison rather than an increase
in actual emissions of this pollutant.
\39\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-9. The Report explains that
the Montana FIP had anticipated a smaller growth in the emissions of
fine particulates from 2002 to 2018, which it suggests could be
partially explained by the different methodologies used in the NEI
and a large percentage of emissions coming from both anthropogenic
and natural fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions achieved because the State identifies emissions reductions
for SO2 and NOX. Additionally, Montana presents
sufficient emission inventory information and discussion regarding
emissions trends for coarse and fine PM during the 2002 to 2014 time
period.
3. Visibility Conditions and Changes
In its Progress Report, Montana provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. The Progress
Report addressed current visibility conditions and the difference
between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, expressed in terms of 5-year rolling averages of these
annual values, with values for the most impaired (20 percent worst
days), least impaired and/or clearest days (20 percent best days). The
period for calculating current visibility conditions is the most recent
5-year period preceding the required date of the progress report for
which data were available as of a date 6 months preceding the required
date of the progress report.
Montana's Progress Report provides figures with visibility
monitoring data for the twelve Class I areas within the State and two
Class I areas outside of the state shown to be impacted by Montana
sources.\40\ Montana reported current visibility conditions for the
2011 to 2015 5-year time period and used the 2000 to 2004 baseline
period for its examination of visibility conditions and changes in the
State.\41\ In its Progress Report, Montana presents visibility data, in
deciviews, and representative IMPROVE monitors for Class I areas
without an IMPROVE monitor, as there are not IMPROVE monitors in each
of
[[Page 32686]]
Montana's twelve Class I areas. Table 4: Montana's Class I Areas and
IMPROVE Sites, below, shows the IMPROVE monitors used for each Class I
area.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-1.
\41\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000 to 2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730
(July 1, 1999).
\42\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-2.
Table 4--Montana's Class I Areas and IMPROVE Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area IMPROVE site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area................ Sula Peak (SULA1).
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area.................... Monture, MT (MONT1).
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area............... Cabinet Mountains (CABI1).
Gates of the Mtn Wilderness Area................ Gates of the Mtn (GAM01).
Glacier National Park........................... Glacier (GLAC1).
Medicine Lake Wilderness Area................... Medicine Lake (MELA1).
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area................ Monture, MT (MONT1).
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area.................. Yellowstone (YELL2).
Scapegoat Wilderness Area....................... Monture, MT (MONT1).
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area............... Sula Peak (SULA1).
UL Bend Wilderness Area......................... U.L. Bend (ULBE1).
Yellowstone National Park....................... Yellowstone (YELL2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5: Visibility Progress in Montana's Class I Areas, below,
shows the difference between the current visibility conditions
(represented by 2011-2015 data), baseline visibility conditions
(represented by 2000-2004 data), and the 2018 RPGs. In addition, EPA
has supplemented the data provided by the State by including data for
the baseline period, current period, and difference in deciviews using
the revised visibility tracking metric described in EPA's December 2018
guidance document.\43\ Although this revised visibility tracking metric
is applicable to the second and future implementation periods for
regional haze (and therefore not retroactively required for progress
reports for the first regional haze planning period), the revised
tracking metric's focus on the days with the highest daily
anthropogenic impairment shifts focus away from days influenced by fire
and dust events, and is therefore a better metric for showing
visibility progress especially for Class I areas with strong impacts
from fire, as was the case for the Class I areas within and affected by
emissions from Montana during the first regional haze planning period.
This supplemental data is shown in square brackets in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program (December
20, 2018), available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf.
Table 5--Visibility Progress in Montana's Class I Areas \44\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current period Baseline period Difference in
Montana's class I area IMPROVE site deciviews 2011- deciviews 2000- deciviews (dv) MT 2018 RPG
2015 (dv) 2004 (dv) current-baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days \45\ [20% Most Anthropogenically Impaired Days]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area.......... CABI1 14.5 [10.1] 14.1 [10.7] 0.4 [-0.6] 13.31
Gates of the Mtn Wilderness Area........... GAMO1 11.7 [7.6] 11.3 [9.0] 0.4 [-1.4] 10.82
Glacier National Park...................... GLAC1 17.0 [13.8] 22.26 [16.2] -5.26 [-2.4] 21.48
Medicine Lake Wilderness Area.............. MELA1 17.9 [15.8] 17.7 [16.6] 0.2 [-0.8] 17.36
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area............... MONT1 15.7 [9.7] 14.5 [10.8] 1.2 [-1.1] 13.83
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area........... MONT1 15.7 [9.7] 14.5 [10.8] 1.2 [-1.1] 13.83
Scapegoat Wilderness Area.................. MONT1 15.7 [9.7] 14.5 [10.8] 1.2 [-1.1] 13.83
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area.......... SULA1 16.3 [8.5] 13.4 [10.1] 2.8 [-1.6] 12.94
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area........... SULA1 16.3 [8.5] 13.4 [10.1] 2.8 [-1.6] 12.94
UL Bend Wilderness Area.................... ULBE1 14.5 [11.1] 15.1 [12.8] -0.7 [-1.7] 14.85
Yellowstone National Park.................. YELL2 12.4 [7.7] 11.8 [8.3] 0.6 [-0.6] 11.23
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area............. YELL2 12.4 [7.7] 11.8 [8.3] 0.6 [-0.6] 11.23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days \46\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area.......... CABI1 2.6 3.6 -1.0 3.27
Gates of the Mtn Wilderness Area........... GAMO1 0.6 1.7 -1.1 1.54
Glacier National Park...................... GLAC1 5.4 7.2 -1.8 6.92
Medicine Lake Wilderness Area.............. MELA1 6.5 7.3 -0.7 7.11
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area............... MONT1 2.6 3.9 -1.3 3.60
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area........... MONT1 2.6 3.9 -1.3 3.60
Scapegoat Wilderness Area.................. MONT1 2.6 3.9 -1.3 3.60
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area.......... SULA1 1.6 2.6 -0.9 2.48
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area........... SULA1 1.6 2.6 -0.9 2.48
UL Bend Wilderness Area.................... ULBE1 3.7 4.8 -1.1 4.57
Yellowstone National Park.................. YELL2 1.5 2.6 -1.1 2.36
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area............. YELL2 1.5 2.6 -1.1 2.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32687]]
As shown in Table 5: Visibility Progress in Montana's Class I
Areas, all of the IMPROVE monitoring sites use Class I Areas within the
State show improvement in visibility conditions on the 20 percent best
days and are meeting the 2018 RPGs.\47\ However, while only two of the
Class I Areas show improvement in visibility conditions on the 20
percent worst days,\48\ all Class I areas show improvement in
visibility conditions when looking at the 20 percent most
anthropogenically impaired days (shown in square brackets). In its
Progress Report, Montana shows that organic carbon is the pollutant
that has contributed the most to light extinction at its Class I Areas
and that organic carbon is associated with fire.\49\ Montana provides
an extensive analysis of the impacts from wildfire in its Progress
Report and describes wildfire and its impacts as ``the main impediment
to visibility improvement on the 20% worst days.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-6.
\45\ 77 FR 24090 (April 20, 2012).
\46\ 77 FR 24090 (April 20, 2012).
\47\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-6.
\48\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-5.
\49\ Ibid.
\50\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in its Progress Report, Montana presents data to
confirm that wildfire activity, as can be examined through monitored
pollutants (organic and elemental carbon specifically) and satellite
and webcam imagery, are present on the majority of days selected as the
20 percent worst days.\51\ This means that webcam imagery and satellite
data correlate to monitored pollutant data and further prove wildfire
is a main impediment to visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Montana Progress Report, pp. 4-8 to 4-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding assessment of
visibility conditions because the State provided baseline visibility
conditions (2002-2004), more current conditions based on the most
recently available visibility monitoring data available at the time of
Progress Report development (2011-2015), the difference between these
current sets of visibility conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, and the change in visibility impairment from 2000 to 2015
at the Class I areas.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Montana presents data from the statewide
emissions inventory for the 2014 NEI and compares this data to the
baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d). The pollutants
inventoried include SO2, NOX and PM (fine and
coarse). The emissions inventories include the following type of source
or activity classifications: Point; area; on-road mobile; off-road
mobile; point and WRAP area (including oil and gas); fugitive and road
dust; anthropogenic fire; natural fire; biogenic; and wind-blown dust
from both anthropogenic and natural sources. Table 6 presents the 2002
baseline, 2014 more current data and the 2018 projected statewide
emission inventories. As can be seen in Table 3, statewide emissions of
both SO2 and NOX are lower than the projected
2018 emissions. Statewide emissions for both coarse and fine PM are
projected to exceed the 2018 emission projections. As is discussed
above in section 2, Montana cites changes in methodologies used in the
NEI and a larger than expected amount of emissions in anthropogenic and
natural fire as reasons for an increase in fine and coarse PM over the
time period analyzed in the Progress Report.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-8.
\53\ Montana Progress Report, Tables 3-2 to 3-5, pp. 3-6 to 3-9.
Table 6--Emissions Progress in Montana \53\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 (tons/ NOX (tons/ PM coarse PM fine (tons/
year) year) (tons/year) year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Total Emissions (Plan02d).................. 51,922.70 243,141.75 621,276.11 77,239.46
2014 Total Emissions (NEI)...................... 25,320.91 165,673.41 556,810.28 113,655.55
2018 Projected (PRP18b)......................... 45,794.76 180,043.25 675,985.25 83,046.71
Change 2002--2018 (%)........................... -12 -26 9 8
Change 2002--2014 (%)........................... -51 -32 -10 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data for emissions from anthropogenic fire increased from 713
tons per year (Plan02d) to 26,684 tons per year (2014 NEI),\54\ which
shows a significant increase rather than the projected decrease.
Montana cites changes in methodologies used in the NEI and a larger
than expected amount of emissions in anthropogenic and natural fire as
reasons for the increase in fine and coarse PM over the time period
analyzed in the Progress Report.\55\ Montana explains that because
``the methodology for calculating fire emissions has been updated over
the years to better reflect actual emissions'' that ``the 2014 NEI data
is likely more reflective of actual emissions.'' \56\ Montana further
acknowledges that ``it is very difficult to conduct trend analysis on
fire (both prescribed and natural) because of the changes in
methodology and the inherent variability of the activity.'' \57\
Finally, the State explains that ``[y]ear to year prescribed fire
activity can change due to weather and available resources, which in
turn greatly affects emissions.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-8.
\55\ Ibid.
\56\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-5.
\57\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-5.
\58\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to find that Montana adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking
because the State compared the most recent updated emission inventory
data available at the time of the Progress Report development with the
baseline emissions inventory used in the modeling for the regional haze
plan.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
In its Progress Report, Montana provided an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
State that have occurred. The State cites incomplete implementation of
BART controls, oil and gas development in Montana, and emissions from
nearby states and international sources as impediments to progress in
visibility conditions, each of which will be discussed below in turn.
At the time of the analysis done by the State for the Progress
Report, not all BART controls had been installed, as compliance dates
had not occurred for all facilities subject to BART at that time.\59\
This means the impacts of the
[[Page 32688]]
emissions reductions from BART controls have not been fully realized
and are not evident in the State's Progress Report. However, Ash Grove
Cement and Oldcastle Units 1 and 2 are currently in compliance with
emissions limits.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-1.
\60\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana discusses significant growth in the
oil and gas sector in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. Montana's oil
and gas sector is described in the Progress Report.\61\ The State
explains that emission factors for these activities are not well
documented, but are becoming larger issues as oil and gas production
increases.\62\ The State's report includes an analysis and comparison
of production data from North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.\63\
Additionally, Montana cites a Bureau of Land Management Study (BLM)
study that projected emissions from the oil and gas sector will
continue to impact visibility in the area from now into the future.\64\
The State's report concluded that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-4.
\62\ Ibid.
\63\ Montana Progress Report pp. 5-4--5-8.
\64\ Ramboll Environ US Corporation and Kleinfelder, Inc.,
``Bureau of Land Management Montana/Dakotas State Office PGM
Modeling Study Air Resource Impact Assessment,'' September 2016.
The modeling indicated that the close proximity of oil and gas
wells to these and other Class I Areas will make it challenging for
states to achieve significant visibility improvements. Montana and
neighboring states will have to further study these impacts in the
process of preparing SIP revisions for the 2018-2028 implementation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
period.\65\
\65\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana describes one of its Class I areas,
Medicine Lake, as being an example of the impacts of emissions from
international sources. Medicine Lake is very close to the Canadian
border (less than 40 miles) and has ``the worst visibility in the state
on both the clearest and haziest days.'' \66\ Montana analyzed weather
patterns (wind direction, wind speed), satellite imagery, and regional
WRAP data that showed emissions from Canada were higher than emissions
from Montana and other surrounding states near Medicine Lake.\67\ In
its Progress Report, Montana states that emissions from Canada are not
mentioned in the FIP and are outside of the State's control.\68\
Additionally, the State explains that emissions from a large electric
generating unit (EGU) located near Medicine Lake in Canada have
remained consistent over the last decade and the State concluded that
these emissions may continue to impact visibility at the Medicine Lake
Class I area.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-8.
\67\ Montana Progress Report, pp. 5-8 to 5-19.
\68\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-20.
\69\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-8. Regarding the Canadian EGU
that the State notes is located near Medicine Lake, EPA explains
that EPA became aware of information on the SaskPower website that
suggests that emissions from this EGU may be decreasing in the next
11 years. ``SaskPower 2017-2018 Annual Report'' p. 59 (Canada has
developed regulatory requirements regarding greenhouse gas emissions
for coal-fired generation, which may also decrease emissions that
impact visibility). https://www.saskpower.com/about-us/Our-Company/Current-Reports, and ``Emission Goal Fact Sheet,'' https://www.saskpower.com/Our-Power-Future/Powering-2030/Emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions. The EPA proposes to
agree with Montana's conclusion that there have been significant
changes in non-anthropogenic emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants which have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions
and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's
sources.
6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies
In its Progress Report, Montana acknowledges the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) to assess whether the current implementation plan
elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other
states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet
all established reasonable progress goals. As seen in Table 5,
visibility conditions have improved in the State at all IMPROVE
monitoring sites and the State is meeting its RPGs in all Class I areas
on the 20 percent best days. Additionally, the State discusses how
anthropogenic components (light extinction from sulfates and nitrates)
is decreasing across all monitored sites in the State.\70\ Conversely,
the State explains that visibility conditions have not improved at the
majority of monitored sites on the 20 percent worst days. Even so, the
State is not of the opinion that the FIP is not sufficient to address
visibility impairment in its Class I areas. As discussed above,
additional emission controls at sources subject to BART and changes in
emissions inventories may contribute to increased visibility in Class I
areas within the State. As discussed below, failure to meet all RPGs
for the 20 percent worst days was due to emissions from wildfires, not
anthropogenic emissions. Because the regional haze regulations define
regional haze as ``visibility impairment that is caused by the emission
of air pollutants from numerous anthropogenic sources,'' \71\ the
inability to meet RPGs for the 20 percent worst days due to
nonanthropogenic wildfire emissions does not render Montana's regional
haze plan insufficient to enable Montana to meet RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Montana Progress Report, 6-2 and 6-3.
\71\ 40 CFR 51.301 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana discusses the impacts on visibility
from wildfire at length. The State presents emissions inventory data
which shows that wildfire contributes significantly more to elemental
and organic carbon emissions than anthropogenic fire and that the lack
of visibility on the 20 percent worst days was due to natural fire and
not controlling anthropogenic sources of these pollutants.\72\
Additionally, the State describes anthropogenic emissions as decreasing
over time. The State explains that ``continued implementation of air
pollution control measures . . . make it likely that anthropogenic
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants will continue to decrease
with time'' and that ``Class I Areas affected by emissions from Montana
sources will also continue to benefit from controls that have not yet
taken full effect due to the timing of the Montana FIP (2012) and the
compliance dates described therein (some as late as fall of 2017).''
\73\ International sources are also shown to impact visibility
conditions in Montana at the Medicine Lake Class I Area and Montana
acknowledges that the FIP may be insufficient due to international
emissions.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Montana Progress Report, 6-4 and 6-5.
\73\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-7.
\74\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and agrees with the State's
determination that, other than the Medicine Lake Class I area, its
regional haze plan is sufficient to meet the RPGs for its Class I
areas.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
For progress reports for the first implementation period, the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a review of the State's
visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as
necessary. In its Progress Report, Montana summarizes the existing
monitoring network in the State to monitor visibility at the twelve
Class
[[Page 32689]]
I areas within the State, which consists of Montana relying on the
national IMPROVE network to meet monitoring and data collection
goals.\75\ There are currently IMPROVE sites located near seven of the
twelve Class I areas within Montana, as well as representative
surrogate monitors located near the remaining five Class I areas in
Montana.\76\ In the Progress Report, the State concludes that no
modifications to the existing visibility monitoring strategy are
necessary. The State will continue its reliance on the IMPROVE
monitoring network. The IMPROVE monitoring network is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze, both in Montana and nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-3.
\76\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the monitoring
strategy because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy
and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to determine
the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet established
goals. Montana's Progress Report includes a negative declaration
regarding the need for additional actions or emissions reductions in
Montana beyond those already in place and those to be implemented by
2018 according to Montana's FIP.\77\ In its Progress Report, Montana
notifies the EPA that the FIP may be inadequate to address regional
haze at the Medicine Lake Wilderness Area Class I area due to the
influence of international emissions.\78\ Discussion of this issue is
addressed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-8.
\78\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that Montana has adequately addressed
40 CFR 51.308(h) because (1) the visibility trends in the majority of
Class I areas in the State indicate that the relevant RPGs will be met
via emission reductions already in place (except as explained above
that some RPGs will not be met due to nonanthropogenic wildfire
emissions not subject to control pursuant to Montana's regional haze
plan), and therefore the FIP does not require substantive revisions at
this time to meet those RPGs, and (2) because Montana has notified EPA
that the FIP may be inadequate to address regional haze at the Medicine
Lake Wilderness Area Class I area due to international emissions.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve Montana's November 7, 2017,
Regional Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 28, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-14249 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
