Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10, 16029-16038 [2020-05671]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
the ambient air restricted), Table 1
(Ambient Air Quality Standards) was
revised to reflect the 2015 ozone
NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million. But
the revision further states that ‘‘[t]he
standard is met when the 3-year average
of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average concentration
at an ambient air quality monitoring site
is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm.’’ The
reference to .075 ppm is erroneous. The
EPA understands that North Dakota is
currently addressing this error and
plans to submit a revised version of
Table 1 to the EPA for approval in the
future. Accordingly, we are taking no
16029
action on the revision to 33.1–15–02–07,
Table 1 in this rulemaking.
III. Proposed Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve SIP amendments to North
Dakota’s Air Pollution Control Rules,
shown in Table 1, submitted by the
State of North Dakota on May 2, 2019.
TABLE 1—LIST OF NORTH DAKOTA AMENDMENTS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO APPROVE
Amended sections in the May 2, 2019 submittal proposed for approval
33.1–15–14–02; 33.1–15–15–01.2.
IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of
the CAA
Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the
EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP) toward attainment of the
NAAQS, or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. In addition,
section 110(l) requires that each revision
to an implementation plan submitted by
a state shall be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
The North Dakota SIP revisions that the
EPA proposes to approve do not
interfere with any applicable
requirements of the Act. The revisions
to North Dakota’s Control of Air
Pollution regulations submitted on May
2, 2019, ensure that the State’s PSD
program is in compliance with federal
requirements. Therefore, CAA section
110(l) requirements are satisfied.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Incorporation by Reference
The EPA is proposing to include in a
final EPA rule regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the
amendments described in section III of
this proposed action. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
VI. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 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 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 Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not proposed to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 9, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020–05673 Filed 3–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0690; FRL–10006–
48–Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Montana; Columbia Falls, Kalispell and
Libby PM10 Nonattainment Area
Limited Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to fully
approve three Limited Maintenance
Plans (LMPs), submitted by the State of
Montana to the EPA on July 23, 2019,
for the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
16030
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Libby Moderate nonattainment areas
(NAAs) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) and
concurrently redesignate the NAAs to
attainment of the 24-hour PM10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). In order to approve the LMPs
and redesignations, the EPA is
proposing to determine that the
Kalispell and Libby NAAs have attained
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150
mg/m3. This determination is based
upon monitored air quality data for the
PM10 NAAQS during the years 2016–
2018. The EPA is also proposing to
approve the Kalispell, Columbia Falls,
and Libby LMPs as meeting the
appropriate transportation conformity
requirements.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 20, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2019–0690 at 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
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, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
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,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–ARD–
QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6175,
gregory.kate@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
I. Background
A. Description of the Columbia Falls
NAA
The Columbia Falls NAA is one of
three NAAs in Flathead County, is
rectangularly shaped, and generally
encompasses the downtown portion of
Columbia Falls and the nearby
surrounding areas. Columbia Falls and
was originally designated as a Group I
area on August 7, 1987, meaning it was
likely to violate the PM10 NAAQS, and
was subsequently classified as a
Moderate NAA for the 1987 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See
56 FR 56694. States containing initial
Moderate PM10 NAAs were required to
submit, by November 15, 1991, a
Moderate NAA State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that, among other
requirements, implemented Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM) by
December 10, 1993, and demonstrated
whether it was practicable to attain the
PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994.
See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992).
The State of Montana submitted an
initial PM10 SIP to the EPA on May 6,
1992, and subsequent submissions on
August 26, 1994 and July 18, 1995. The
State of Montana’s SIP for the Columbia
Falls Moderate NAA included, among
other things: A comprehensive
emissions inventory; RACM; a
demonstration that attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS would be achieved in
Columbia Falls by December 31, 1994;
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
requirements; and control measures that
satisfy the contingency measures
requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the
CAA. The EPA fully approved the
Columbia Falls NAA PM10 attainment
plan on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11153).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Description of the Libby NAA
The Libby PM10 NAA is an irregularly
shaped portion of Lincoln County,
comprising of the city of Libby, and the
surrounding communities. The area was
was originally designated as a Group I
area on August 7, 1987, meaning it was
likely to violate the PM10 NAAQS, and
was subsequently classified as a
Moderate NAA for the 1987 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See
56 FR 56694.
The State of Montana submitted an
initial PM10 SIP to the EPA on
November 25, 1991, with revisions and
corrections on May 24, 1993 and June 3,
1994. The State of Montana’s SIP for the
Libby Moderate PM10 NAA included,
among other things: A comprehensive
emissions inventory; RACM; a
demonstration that attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS would be achieved in
Libby by December 31, 1994; RFP
requirements; and control measures that
satisfy the contingency measures
requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the
CAA. The EPA approved the Libby NAA
PM10 attainment plan, with the
exception of the contingency plan, on
August 30, 1994 (59 FR 44627).
Revisions to the contingency plan were
submitted by Montana on March 15,
1995 and subsequently approved on
September 30, 1996 (61 FR 51074).
C. Description of the Kalispell NAA
The Kalispell NAA is one of three
NAAs in Flathead County. It is
irregularly shaped and generally
encompasses the City of Kalispell and
the nearby surrounding areas, including
the unincorporated community of
Evergreen. Kalispell was originally
designated as a Group I area on August
7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate
the PM10 NAAQS, and was
subsequently classified as a Moderate
NAA for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694.
The State of Montana submitted an
initial PM10 SIP to the EPA on
November 25, 1991, and submitted three
additional submittals between 1991and
1994. The State of Montana’s SIP for the
Kalispell Moderate NAA included,
among other things: A comprehensive
emissions inventory; RACM; a
demonstration that attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS would be achieved in
Kalispell by December 31, 1994; RFP
requirements; and control measures that
satisfy the contingency measures
requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the
CAA. The EPA fully approved the
Kalispell NAA PM10 attainment plan on
March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11153).
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
II. Requirements for Redesignation
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation
of NAAs
NAAs can be redesignated to
attainment after the area has measured
air quality data showing it has attained
the NAAQS and when certain planning
requirements are met. Section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the General
Preamble to Title I provide the criteria
for redesignation. See 57 FR 13498
(April 16, 1992). These criteria are
further clarified in a policy and
guidance memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards dated
September 4, 1992, ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment.’’ 1 The criteria for
redesignation are:
(1) The Administrator has determined
that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS;
(2) The Administrator has fully
approved the applicable SIP for the area
under section 110(k) of the CAA;
(3) The state containing the area has
met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D of the
CAA;
(4) The Administrator has determined
that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions; and
(5) The Administrator has fully
approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA.
determine transportation conformity
with the SIP are no longer necessary.
To qualify for the LMP Option, the
area should have attained the 1987 24hour PM10 NAAQS, based upon the
most recent 5 years of air quality data
at all monitors in the area, and the 24hour design value should be at or below
the Critical Design Value (CDV). The
CDV is a calculated design value that
indicates that the area has a low
probability (1 in 10) of exceeding the
NAAQS in the future. For the purposes
of qualifying for the LMP option, a
presumptive CDV of 98 mg/m3 is most
often employed, but an area may elect
to use a site-specific CDV should the
average design value be above 98 mg/m3,
while demonstrating that the area has a
low probability of exceeding the
NAAQS in the future. The annual PM10
standard was effectively revoked on
December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61143), and
as such will not be discussed as a
requirement for qualifying for the LMP
option. In addition, the area should
expect only limited growth in on-road
motor vehicle PM10 emissions
(including fugitive dust) and should
have passed a motor vehicle regional
emissions analysis test. The LMP
Option memo also identifies core
provisions that must be included in the
LMP. These provisions include an
attainment year emissions inventory,
assurance of continued operation of an
EPA-approved air quality monitoring
network, and contingency provisions.
16031
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would
result. For transportation conformity
purposes, the EPA would conclude that
emissions in these areas need not be
capped for the maintenance period; and
therefore, a regional emissions analysis
would not be required. Similarly,
federal actions subject to the general
conformity rule could be considered to
satisfy the ‘‘budget test’’ specified in 40
CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same
reasons that the budgets are essentially
considered not limited.
III. Review of Montana’s Submittal
Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and Limited
Maintenance Plans
A. Have the Columbia Falls, Kalispell
and Libby NAAs attained the applicable
NAAQS?
B. The LMP Option for PM10 NAAs
On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued
guidance on streamlined maintenance
plan provisions for certain moderate
PM10 NAAs seeking redesignation to
attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman,
Director, Air Quality Standards and
Strategies Division, entitled ‘‘Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas,’’ (hereafter
the LMP Option memo)).2 The LMP
Option memo contains a statistical
demonstration to show that areas
meeting certain air quality criteria will,
with a high degree of probability,
maintain the standard 10 years into the
future. Thus, the EPA has already
provided the maintenance
demonstration for areas meeting the
criteria outlined in the LMP Option
memo. It follows that future year
emission inventories for these areas, and
some of the standard analyses to
The transportation conformity rule
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the general
conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and
93) apply to NAAs and maintenance
areas covered by an approved
maintenance plan. Under either
conformity rule, an acceptable method
of demonstrating that a federal action
conforms to the applicable SIP is to
demonstrate that expected emissions
from the planned action are consistent
with the emissions budget for the area.
While the EPA’s LMP Option does not
exempt an area from the need to affirm
conformity, it explains that the area may
demonstrate conformity without
submitting an emissions budget. Under
the LMP Option, emissions budgets are
treated as essentially not constraining
for the length of the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that
the qualifying areas would experience
so much growth in that period that a
States must demonstrate that an area
has attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
through analysis of ambient air quality
data from an ambient air monitoring
network representing peak PM10
concentrations. The data should be
stored in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) database. On January 31, 2011,
the EPA determined that the Columbia
Falls NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS
(76 FR 5280). Today, the EPA is
proposing to determine that the Libby
and Kalispell NAAs have attained the
PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data
from calendar years 2016–2018. The 24hour standard is attained when the
expected number of days with levels
above 150 mg/m3 (averaged over a 3-year
period) is less than or equal to one. 40
CFR 50.6(a). Three consecutive years of
air quality data are generally necessary
to show attainment of the 24-hour and
annual standards for PM10. See 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K. A complete year of
air quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K, is comprised of all
four calendar quarters with each quarter
containing data from at least 75% of the
scheduled sampling days.
The Kalispell and Libby NAAs each
have one State and Local Air Monitoring
Station (SLAMS) monitor operated by
the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Tables
1 and 2 summarize the PM10 data
collected from 2014–2018 for the
Kalispell and Libby NAAs, respectively.
The EPA deems the data collected from
these monitors valid, and the data have
been submitted by the MDEQ to be
included in AQS.
1 The ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ (Calcagni memo)
outlines the criteria for redesignation. The Calcagni
memo can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2016-03/documents/calcagni_
memo_-_procedures_for_processing_requests_to_
redesignate_areas_to_attainment_090492.pdf.
2 The ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ outlines the
criteria for development of a PM10 limited
maintenance plan and can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/
documents/2001lmp-pm10.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
C. Conformity Under the LMP Option
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
16032
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR PM10 CONCENTRATIONS (μG/M3) FOR KALISPELL 2014–2018
Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex) Site, AQS Identification Number (30–029–0049)
Maximum
concentration
Year
2014 ...............................................................................
2015 1 ............................................................................
2016 ...............................................................................
20171 .............................................................................
2018 ...............................................................................
1 EPA-concurred
2nd maximum
concentration
108
146
87
154
131
Number of
exceedances
89
139
84
131
99
Monitoring site
0
0
0
0
0
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
exceptional events were are excluded from this year.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR PM10 CONCENTRATIONS (μG/M3) FOR LIBBY 2014–2018
Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex) Site, AQS Identification Number (30–029–0049)
Maximum
concentration
Year
2014 ...............................................................................
2015 1 ............................................................................
2016 ...............................................................................
2017 1 ............................................................................
2018 ...............................................................................
1 EPA-concurred
B. Do the Columbia Falls, Kalispell, and
Libby NAA have a fully approved SIP
under CAA Section 110(k)?
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47
143
58
134
112
Number of
exceedances
45
113
57
104
106
Monitoring site
0
0
0
0
0
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Annex.
Annex.
Annex
Annex.
Annex.
exceptional events were are excluded from this year.
The PM10 concentrations reported at
the Kalispell and Libby monitoring sites
showed no measured exceedances of the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS from 2014–2018,
and as such, the EPA proposes to
determine that the Kalispell and Libby
Moderate NAAs have attained the
standard for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.
In order to qualify for redesignation,
the SIP for the area must be fully
approved under CAA section 110(k) and
must satisfy all requirements that apply
to the area. Section 189 of the CAA
contains requirements and milestones
for all initial Moderate NAA SIPs
including: (1) Provisions to assure that
RACM (including such reductions in
emissions from existing sources in the
area as may be obtained through the
adoption, at a minimum, of Reasonably
Available Control Technology—RACT)
shall be implemented no later than
December 10, 1993; (2) A demonstration
(including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable by no later
than December 31, 1994, or, where the
state is seeking an extension of the
attainment date under section 188(e), a
demonstration that attainment by
December 31, 1994, is impracticable and
that the plan provides for attainment by
the most expeditious alternative date
practicable (CAA sections 189(a)(1)(A));
(3) Quantitative milestones which are to
be achieved every 3 years and which
demonstrate RFP toward attainment by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2nd maximum
concentration
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
December 31, 1994, (CAA sections
172(c)(2) and 189(c)); and (4)
Contingency measures to be
implemented if the area fails to make
RFP or attain by its attainment deadline.
These contingency measures are to take
effect without further action by the state
or the EPA. (CAA section 172(c)(9)).
The EPA approved the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby Moderate area
plans on March 19, 1996, March 19,
1996, and August 30, 1994, respectively;
and approved the revised contingency
plan for Libby on September 30, 1996.
Each plan included RACM, an
attainment demonstration, emissions
inventory, quantitative milestones, and
control and contingency measure
requirements. As such, the areas have
fully approved NAA SIPs under section
110(k) of the CAA.
C. Has the State met all applicable
requirements under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
requires that a state containing a NAA
must meet all applicable requirements
under section 110 and Part D of the
CAA for an area to be redesignated to
attainment. The EPA interprets this to
mean that the state must meet all
requirements that applied to the area
prior to, and at the time of, the
submission of a complete redesignation
request. The following is a summary of
how Montana meets these requirements.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains
general requirements for state
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
implementation plans. These
requirements include, but are not
limited to, submittal of a SIP that has
been adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing;
provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus,
methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air
quality; implementation of a permit
program; provisions for Part C—
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Part D—New Source Review
(NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring and reporting,
provisions for modeling; and provisions
for public and local agency
participation. See the General Preamble
for further explanation of these
requirements. 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992).
For purposes of redesignation, the
EPA’s review of the Montana SIP shows
that the State has satisfied all
requirements under section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA. Further, in 40 CFR 52.1372,
the EPA has approved Montana’s plan
for the attainment and maintenance of
the national standards under section
110.
2. Part D Requirements
Part D contains general requirements
applicable to all areas designated
nonattainment. The general
requirements are followed by a series of
subparts specific to each pollutant. All
PM10 NAAs must meet the general
provisions of Subpart 1 and the specific
PM10 provisions in Subpart 4,
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
‘‘Additional Provisions for Particulate
Matter Nonattainment Areas.’’ The
following paragraphs discuss these
requirements as they apply to the
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby
NAAs.
3. Subpart 1, Section 172(c)
Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains
general requirements for NAA plans. A
thorough discussion of these
requirements may be found in the
General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538
(April 16, 1992). CAA section 172(c)(2)
requires nonattainment plans to provide
for RFP. Section 171(1) of the CAA
defines RFP as ‘‘such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required
by this part (part D of title I) or may
reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable
national ambient air quality standard by
the applicable date.’’ Since the EPA is
proposing to determine that the
Kalispell and Libby NAAs are in
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, we
believe that no further showing of RFP
or quantitative milestones is necessary.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Section 172(c)(3)—Emissions
Inventory Section
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires
a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources in the Columbia Falls, Kalispell
and Libby PM10 NAAs. Montana
included an emissions inventory for the
calendar year 2014 with July 23, 2019
submittal of the LMP for the NAAs. The
LMP Option memo states that an
attainment inventory should represent
emissions during the same 5-year period
associated with the air quality data used
to determine that the area meets the
applicability requirements of the LMP
option. The Columbia Falls, Kalispell
and Libby LMPs include an emission
inventory from 2014, representative of
the 2013–2017 5-year period which
served as the 5-year period relied upon
in the LMPs as meeting the air quality
data requirements of the LMP option
memo.
5. Section 172(c)(5)—NSR
The 1990 CAA Amendments
contained revisions to the NSR program
requirements for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources located in NAA. The
CAA requires states to amend their SIPs
to reflect these revisions, but does not
require submittal of this element along
with the other SIP elements. The CAA
established June 30, 1992, as the
submittal date for the revised NSR
programs (section 189 of the CAA).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
Montana has a fully approved
nonattainment NSR program, most
recently approved on August 30, 1995
(60 FR 45051). Montana also has a fully
approved PSD program, most recently
approved on August 30, 1995 (60 FR
45051). Upon the effective date of
redesignation of an area from
nonattainment to attainment, the
requirements of the Part D NSR program
will be replaced by the PSD program
and the maintenance area NSR program.
6. Section 172(c)(7)—Compliance With
CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air Quality
Monitoring Requirements
Once an area is redesignated, the state
must continue to operate an appropriate
air monitoring network in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58 to verify attainment
status of the area. The State of Montana
operates one PM10 SLAMS in each of
the NAAs. The Flathead Valley,
Kalispell and Libby monitoring sites
meet EPA SLAMS network design and
siting requirements set forth at 40 CFR
part 58, appendices D and E. In section
3.4 of each of the LMPs that we are
proposing to approve, the State commits
to continued operation of the
monitoring network.
7. Section 172(c)(9)—Contingency
Measures
The CAA requires that contingency
measures take effect if the area fails to
meet RFP requirements or fails to attain
the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. Since the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs have
attained the 1987 24-hour PM10
NAAQS, contingency measures are no
longer required under section 172(c)(9)
of the CAA. However, contingency
provisions are required for maintenance
plans under section 175(a)(d). We
describe the contingency provisions
Montana provided in the LMP section
below.
8. Part D Subpart 4
Part D subpart 4, section 189(a), (c)
and (e) requirements apply to any
Moderate NAA area before the area can
be redesignated to attainment. The
requirements which were applicable
prior to the submission of the request to
redesignate the area must be fully
approved into the SIP before
redesignating the area to attainment.
These requirements include: (a)
Provisions to assure that RACM was
implemented by December 10, 1993; (b)
Either a demonstration that the plan
provided for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable but not
later than December 31, 1994, or a
demonstration that attainment by that
date was impracticable; (c) Quantitative
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16033
milestones which were achieved every 3
years and which demonstrate RFP
toward attainment by December 31,
1994; and (d) Provisions to assure that
the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM10 also
apply to major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors except where the
Administrator determined that such
sources do not contribute significantly
to PM10 levels which exceed the
NAAQS in the area. These provisions
were fully approved into the SIP upon
the EPA’s approval of the PM10
Moderate area plan for the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs on
March 19, 1996, March 19, 1996, and
August 30, 1994, respectively.
D. Has the state demonstrated that the
air quality improvement is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions?
The state must be able to reasonably
attribute the improvement in air quality
to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions. In making this showing, the
state must demonstrate that air quality
improvements are the result of actual
enforceable emission reductions. This
showing should consider emission rates,
production capacities, and other related
information. The analysis should
assume that sources are operating at
permitted levels (or historic peak levels)
unless evidence is presented that such
an assumption is unrealistic. Permanent
and enforceable control measures in the
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby
NAA SIPs include RACM. Emission
sources in the three NAAs have been
implementing RACM for at least 10
years.
Areas that qualify for the LMP will
meet the NAAQS, even under worst
case meteorological conditions. Under
the LMP option, the maintenance
demonstration is presumed to be
satisfied if an area meets the qualifying
criteria. Thus, by qualifying for the
LMP, Montana has demonstrated that
the air quality improvements in the
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby
NAAs are the result of permanent
emission reductions and not a result of
either economic trends or meteorology.
A description of the LMP qualifying
criteria and how the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby areas meet these
criteria is provided in the following
section.
1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission
Reductions in the Columbia Falls NAA
Emissions in the Columbia Falls NAA
have been reduced 87.8% since 1990.
The primary controls incorporated into
the SIP were rules specifying the
allowed material to be placed on roads
and parking lots for sanding and chip
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
16034
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
sealing; rules specifying street sweeping
and flushing requirements during the
winter and summer months to reduce
fugitive road dust; rules requiring the
paving of new roads within the
Columbia Falls Control District; and
permit requirements on the Plum Creek
sawmill, plywood and MDF facilities in
Columbia Falls. Fugitive road dust
comprised nearly 51% of the
uncontrolled emissions when the area
was designated nonattainment, and
emissions from the Plum Creek facility
accounted for 44% of the area’s
uncontrolled emissions. Based on the
2014 NEI, current fugitive road dust
emissions are less than 8% of their 1990
levels and current emissions from the
Plum Creek facility are 14% of their
uncontrolled emissions.
2. Permanent and Enforceable Emission
Reductions in the Kalispell NAA
Emissions in the Kalispell NAA have
been reduced 74.0% since 1998. The
primary controls incorporated into the
SIP were rules specifying the allowed
material to be placed on roads and
parking lots for sanding and chip
sealing; rules specifying street sweeping
and flushing requirements during the
winter and summer months to reduce
fugitive road dust; rules requiring the
paving of new roads within the
Kalispell Control District; and permit
requirements on 11 stationary sources in
the NAA.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Permanent and Enforceable Emission
Reductions in the Libby NAA
Emissions in the Libby NAA have
been reduced 90.2% since 1989. The
primary controls incorporated into the
SIP were air pollution control rules in
Chapter 1, Subchapters 1 through 4,
addressing solid fuel burning devices,
reentrained road dust control, and
outdoor burning regulations.
Additionally, the control plan
accounted for industrial emission
reductions through permit revisions.
These revisions required that RACT be
applied to the Champion International
boilers which resulted in derating Boiler
#7, reducing allowable emissions from
Boiler #8, and adding new controls on
Boiler #9. Changing economic
conditions, ultimately saw the closure
of the wood products facility after a
previous sale of the facility to Stimson
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
Lumber Company. The source specific
limits on the Champion International
boilers remain in the SIP.
E. Do the areas have a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA?
In this action, we are proposing to
approve the LMPs for the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs in
accordance with the principles outlined
in the LMP Option.
F. Has the state demonstrated that the
Columbia Falls, Kalispell, and Libby
NAAs qualify for the LMP option?
The LMP Option memo outlines the
requirements for an area to qualify for
the LMP Option. First, the area should
be attaining the NAAQS. As stated
above in Section III.A., the EPA has
determined that the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby NAAs are attaining
the PM10 NAAQS.
Second, the average design value
(ADV) for the past 5 years of monitoring
data (2014–2018) must be at or below
the CDV. As noted in Section II.B., the
CDV is a margin of safety value and is
the value at which an area has been
determined to have a 1 in 10 probability
of exceeding the NAAQS. The LMP
Option memo provides two methods for
review of monitoring data for the
purpose of qualifying for the LMP
option. The first method is a
comparison of a site’s ADV with the
CDV of 98 mg/m3 for the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS. A second method that applies
to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is the
calculation of a site-specific CDV and a
comparison of the site-specific CDV
with the ADV for the past 5 years of
monitoring data. Tables 3, 4 and 5
outline the design values for the years
2014–2018, and present the ADV.
Tables 6, 7 and 8 summarize the
wildfire related events that were
excluded from the calculated design
values in Tables 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
Tables 6, 7 and 8 include all regionally
concurred exceptional events, as well as
values between 98 mg/m3 and 155 mg/
m3, which were treated in a manner
analogous to exceedance data under the
Exceptional Events Rule (EER) for the
purpose of determining the LMP option
eligibility.3 The values between 98 mg/
3 Update on Application of the Exceptional
Events Rule to the PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
m3 and 155 mg/m3 will remain in the Air
Quality System (AQS) database for use
in calculating DV’s for every purpose
besides determining LMP eligibility.3
The EER can be found in 40 CFR 50.14
and 40 CFR 51.930, and outlines the
requirements for the treatment of
monitored air quality data that has been
heavily influenced by an exceptional
event. 40 CFR 50.1(j) defines an
exceptional event as an event which
affects air quality, is not reasonably
controllable or preventable, is an event
caused by human activity that is
unlikely to recur at a particular location
or a natural event and is determined by
the Administrator in accordance with 40
CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event.
Exceptional events do not include
stagnation of air masses or
meteorological inversions,
meteorological events involving high
temperatures or lack of precipitation, or
air pollution relating to source
noncompliance. 40 CFR 50.14(b) states
that the EPA shall exclude data from use
in determinations of exceedances and
NAAQS violations where a state
demonstrates to the EPA’s satisfaction
that an exceptional event caused a
specific air pollution concentration in
excess of one or more NAAQS at a
particular air quality monitoring
location and otherwise satisfies the
requirements of section 50.14. Tables 6,
7 and 8 below include some exceptional
events not formally concurred on by
EPA. These exceptional events were
excluded by EPA in accordance with the
LMP guidance (see footnote 3). We have
concurred that these values can be
excluded for the sole purpose of
determining PM10 Limited Maintenance
Plan (LMP) eligibility and supporting
documentation of EPA’s concurrence
with the wildfire related events can be
found in the docket.4
Option, US EPA, William T. Harnett, Director, Air
Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, May 7, 2009.
4 February 8, 2019 letter to MDEQ, Re:
Exceptional Events Requests Regarding
Exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and the
LMP Eligibility Threshold at Montana Monitoring
Sites with PM10 Nonattainment Areas; and
November 1, 2018 letter to MDEQ, Re: Request for
EPA concurrence on exceptional event claims for
fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM10) particulate matter
data impacted by wildfires in 2015 and 2016.
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
16035
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF 24-HOUR PM10 DESIGN VALUES (μG/M3) FOR COLUMBIA FALLS 2014–2018
Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex.) Site, AQS Identification Number (30–029–0049)
Design
concentration
(μg/m3)
Design value years
2014–2016 .......................................................................................................................
2015–2017 .......................................................................................................................
2016–2018 .......................................................................................................................
Monitoring site
60
66
74
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design Concentrations) ...................................................
Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
67
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF 24-HOUR PM10 DESIGN VALUES (μG/M3) FOR KALISPELL 2014–2018
Based on data from Flathead Electric. Site, AQS Identification Number (30–029–0047)
Design
concentration
(μg/m3)
Design value years
2014–2016 .......................................................................................................................
2015–2017 .......................................................................................................................
2016–2018 .......................................................................................................................
Monitoring site
89
88
90
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design Concentrations) ...................................................
Flathead Electric.
Flathead Electric.
Flathead Electric.
89
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF 24-HOUR PM10 DESIGN VALUES (μG/M3) FOR LIBBY 2014–2018
Based on data from Libby Courthouse Annex. Site, AQS Identification Number (30–053–0018)
Design
concentration
(μg/m3)
Design value years
2014–20161 .....................................................................................................................
2015–20171 .....................................................................................................................
2016–2018 .......................................................................................................................
Monitoring site
90
92
95
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design Concentrations) ...................................................
Courthouse Annex.
Courthouse Annex.
Courthouse Annex.
92
TABLE 6—24-HOUR PM10 EVENTS EXCLUDED FROM 2014–2018 COLUMBIA FALLS DESIGN VALUES
24-Hour Value
(μg/m3)
Date
8/20/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/21/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/23/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/24/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/25/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/26/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/27/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/28/2017 .........................................................................................................................
8/29/2015 .........................................................................................................................
9/6/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/7/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/8/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/9/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/13/2017 .........................................................................................................................
Monitoring site
140
112
112
139
109
112
136
135
138
* 182
* 228
* 225
126
102
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Valley
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Soccer
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
Complex.
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other exceptional events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by EPA in accordance with
the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 7—24-HOUR PM10 EVENTS EXCLUDED FROM 2014–2018 KALISPELL DESIGN VALUES
24-hour value
(μg/m3)
Date
8/20/2015
8/21/2015
8/24/2015
8/26/2015
8/27/2015
.........................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Monitoring site
125
103
139
125
123
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
20MRP1
Electric.
Electric.
Electric.
Electric.
Electric.
16036
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—24-HOUR PM10 EVENTS EXCLUDED FROM 2014–2018 KALISPELL DESIGN VALUES—Continued
24-hour value
(μg/m3)
Date
8/28/2017 .........................................................................................................................
8/29/2015 .........................................................................................................................
9/5/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/6/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/7/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/8/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/9/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/13/2017 .........................................................................................................................
Monitoring site
133
146
131
* 171
* 194
* 228
154
* 158
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Flathead
Electric.
Electric.
Electric.
Electric.
Electric.
Electric.
Electric.
Electric.
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by EPA in accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].
TABLE 8—24-HOUR PM10 EVENTS EXCLUDED FROM 2014–2018 LIBBY DESIGN VALUES
24-hour value
(μg/m3)
Date
8/20/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/24/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/25/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/27/2015 .........................................................................................................................
8/29/2015 .........................................................................................................................
9/5/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/6/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/7/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
9/8/2017 ...........................................................................................................................
Monitoring site
113
* 180
102
109
143
104
101
134
* 158
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Courthouse
Annex.
Annex.
Annex.
Annex.
Annex.
Annex.
Annex.
Annex.
Annex.
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by EPA in accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].
The ADV for the 24-Hour PM10
NAAQS for Columbia Falls, Kalispell
and Libby, based on data from the
SLAMS monitors for the years 2014–
2018, are 67 mg/m3, 89 mg/m3, and 92 mg/
m3, respectively. These values fall
below the presumptive 24-Hour CDV of
98 mg/m3, and would all meet the first
threshold for LMP eligibility. However,
in the case of both Kalispell and Libby,
these areas required the calculation of
an area specific CDV in order to pass the
motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test, described below and in
further detail in the LMP guidance
document.5 Table 9 lists the respective
CDV for each of the NAAs based on data
from 2014–2018, utilized for satisfying
all the LMP requirements. Calculation of
the 2014–2018 CDV for Kalispell and
Libby can be found in the supporting
documents in the docket.6
TABLE 9—CRITICAL DESIGN VALUES USED FOR DETERMINING LMP ELIGIBILITY
24-Hour CDV
(μg/m 3)
PM10 NAA
Columbia Falls .............................................................................................................................................
Kalispell ........................................................................................................................................................
Libby ............................................................................................................................................................
* 98
124
139.9
2013–2018 ADV
(μg/m 3)
97
89
92
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
* Use of presumptive CDV as described in the LMP guidance document.
In addition to having an ADV that is
lower than either the presumptive or
area specific CDV, in order to qualify for
the LMP, the area must meet the motor
vehicle regional emissions analysis test
in attachment B of the LMP Option
memo. Using the methodology outlined
in the memo, based on monitoring data
for the period 2016–2018, the EPA has
determined that the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby NAAs all pass the
motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test, with a projected DV of
74.3 mg/m3, 109.7 mg/m3 and 100.3 mg/
m3 after 10 years, respectively,
attributable to motor vehicle emission
growth. For the calculations used to
determine how the Columbia Falls,
Kalsipell and Libby NAAs passed the
motor vehicle regional analysis test, see
the supporting documents in the
docket.7
The monitoring data for the period
2016–2018 shows that Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby have attained the
24-hour NAAQS for PM10, and the 24-
hour ADV for each of the areas is less
than the 24-hour PM10 presumptive and
area-specific CDV. Finally, the areas
have met the regional vehicle emissions
analysis test. Thus, the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby NAAs qualify for
the LMP Option described in the LMP
Option memo. The LMP Option memo
also indicates that once a state selects
the LMP Option and it is in effect, the
state will be expected to determine, on
an annual basis, that the LMP criteria
are still being met. If the state
5 ‘‘Limited Maintenace Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas—Attachment B.’’
6 Memo to file ‘‘Critical Design Value Calculations
for the Kalispell and Libby PM10 NAAs.’’
7 See memo to file dated October 24, 2018 titled
‘‘Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby Motor Vehicle
Regional Emissions Analysis.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
determines that the LMP criteria are not
being met, it should take action to
reduce PM10 concentrations enough to
requalify for the LMP. One possible
approach the state could take is to
implement contingency measures.
Please see section 3.6 of each of the
three LMPs for a description of
contingency provisions submitted as
part of the State’s submittal.
G. Does the state have an approved
attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment
of the NAAQS?
The state’s approved attainment plan
should include an emissions inventory
(attainment inventory) which can be
used to demonstrate attainment of the
NAAQS. The inventory should
represent emissions during the same
5-year period associated with air quality
data used to determine whether the area
meets the applicability requirements of
the LMP Option. The state should
review its inventory every 3 years to
ensure emissions growth is incorporated
in the attainment inventory if necessary.
In this instance, Montana completed an
attainment year inventory for the
attainment year 2014 for all three NAAs.
The EPA has reviewed the 2014
emissions inventories and determined
that they are current, accurate and
complete. In addition, the emissions
inventory submitted with the LMP for
the calendar year 2014 is representative
of the level of emissions during the time
period used to calculate the ADV since
2014 is included in the 5-year period
used to calculate the design values
(2013–2017).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
H. Does the LMP include an Assurance
of Continued Operation of an
appropriate EPA-approved Air Quality
Monitoring Network, in accordance with
40 CFR part 58?
PM10 monitoring networks for the
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby
NAAs have been developed and
maintained in accordance with federal
siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part
58, appendices D and E and in
consultation with the EPA Region 8. In
Section 3.4 of the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby LMPs, Montana
states that it will continue to operate its
monitoring network to meet EPA
requirements.
I. Does the plan meet the CAA
requirements for contingency provisions
for maintenance plans?
Section 175A of the CAA states that
a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to
promptly correct any violation of the
NAAQS which may occur after
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
redesignation of the area to attainment.
As explained in the LMP Option memo,
these contingency measures do not have
to be fully adopted at the time of
redesignation. As noted above, CAA
section 175A requirements are distinct
from CAA section 172(c)(9) contingency
measures. Section 3.6 of the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs
describe a process and timeline to
identify and evaluate appropriate
contingency measures in the event of a
quality assured violation of the PM10
NAAQS. Upon notification of a PM10
exceedance in any of the three areas, the
MDEQ and the appropriate local
government will develop contingency
measures designed to prevent or correct
a violation of the PM10 standard. This
process will be completed within twelve
months of the exceedance notification.
Upon violating the PM10 standard, the
MDEQ and local government will
determine if the local contingency
measures will be adequate to prevent
further exceedances or violations. If the
agencies determine that local measures
will be inadequate, the MDEQ and local
government will adopt state-enforceable
measures.
The current and proposed
contingency provisions in the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs meet
the requirements for contingency
provisions as outlined in the LMP
Option memo.
J. Has the state met transportation and
general conformity requirements?
1. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA
section 176(c)(1)(B)). The EPA’s
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A requires that transportation
plans, programs and projects conform to
SIPs and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or
not they conform. To effectuate its
purpose, the conformity rule typically
requires a demonstration that emissions
from the applicable Regional
Transportation Plan and the
Transportation Improvement Program
are consistent with the motor vehicle
emission budget (MVEB) contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or
maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124). The EPA notes that
a MVEB is usually defined as the level
of mobile source emissions of a
pollutant relied upon in the attainment
or maintenance demonstration to attain
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16037
or maintain compliance with the
NAAQS in the nonattainment or
maintenance areas. MVEBs are,
however, treated differently with
respect to LMP areas.8
Our LMP Option memorandum does
not require that MVEBs be identified in
the maintenance plan. While the EPA’s
LMP Option memorandum does not
exempt an area from the need to affirm
conformity, it explains that the area may
demonstrate transportation conformity
without identifying and submitting a
MVEB. The basis for this provision is
that it is unreasonable to expect that an
LMP area will experience so much
growth during the maintenance period
that a violation of the PM10 NAAQS
would result. Therefore, for
transportation conformity purposes, the
EPA has concluded that mobile source
emissions in LMP areas need not be
capped, with respect to a MVEB, for the
maintenance period and a regional
emissions analysis (40 CFR 93.118), for
transportation conformity purposes, is
also not required.
However, since LMP areas are still
maintenance areas, certain aspects will
continue to be required for
transportation projects located within
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby
PM10 maintenance areas. Specifically,
for conformity determinations, projects
will have to demonstrate that they are
fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and
meet the criteria for consultation (40
CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112) and
timely implementation (as applicable) of
Transportation Control Measures (40
CFR 93.113). In addition, projects
located within the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby PM10 LMP areas
will be required to be evaluated for
potential PM10 hot-spot issues in order
to satisfy the ‘‘project level’’ conformity
determination requirements. As
appropriate, a project may then need to
address the applicable criteria for a
PM10 hot-spot analysis as provided in 40
CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123.
Finally, our proposed approval of the
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby
PM10 LMPs affect future PM10 projectlevel transportation conformity
determinations as prepared by the
Montana Department of Transportation
in conjunction with the Federal
Highway Administration and the
Federal Transit Administration. See 40
CFR 93.100. As such, the EPA is
proposing to approve the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs as
meeting the appropriate transportation
8 Further information concerning the EPA’s
interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in
the preamble to the EPA’s November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193–
62196).
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
16038
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 55 / Friday, March 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
conformity requirements found in 40
CFR part 93, subpart A.
2. General Conformity
Federal actions, other than
transportation conformity, that meet
specific criteria need to be evaluated
with respect to the requirements of 40
CFR part 93, subpart B. The EPA’s
general conformity rule requirements
are designed to ensure that emissions
from a federal action will not cause or
contribute to new violations of the
NAAQS, exacerbate current violations,
or delay timely attainment. However, as
noted in our LMP Option memorandum
and similar to the above discussed
transportation conformity provisions,
federal actions subject to our general
conformity requirements would be
considered to satisfy the ‘‘budget test,’’
as specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A).
As discussed above, the basis for this
provision in the LMP Option
memorandum is that it is unreasonable
to expect that an LMP area will
experience so much growth during the
maintenance period that a violation of
the PM10 NAAQS would result.
Therefore, for purposes of general
conformity, a general conformity PM10
emissions budget does not need to be
identified in the maintenance plan, nor
submitted, and the emissions from
federal agency actions are essentially
considered to not be limited.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
For the reasons explained in Section
III, we are proposing to approve the
LMP for the Columbia Falls, Kalispell
and Libby NAAs and the State’s request
to redesignate the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby NAAs from
nonattainment to attainment for the
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
determine that the Kalispell and Libby
NAAs have attained the NAAQS for
PM10. This determination is based upon
monitored air quality data for the PM10
NAAQS during the years 2016–2018.
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby
LMPs as meeting the appropriate
transportation conformity requirements
found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
V. Statutory and Executive Orders
Review
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Mar 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 (Public Law 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 the 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 the 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 12, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020–05671 Filed 3–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0577; FRL–10006–
77–Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; West Virginia;
Redesignation and Maintenance Plan
for the West Virginia Portion of the
Steubenville Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean
Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate the West Virginia portion of
the Steubenville, Ohio-West Virginia
multi-state sulfur dioxide (SO2)
nonattainment area (referred to as the
‘‘Steubenville Nonattainment Area’’ or
the ‘‘Area’’) from nonattainment to
attainment. EPA is also proposing to
approve West Virginia’s maintenance
plan for its portion of the Steubenville
Nonattainment Area. Emissions of SO2
in the Area have been reduced and
ambient SO2 readings in the
nonattainment area are currently well
below the 2010 1-hour SO2 national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 20, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2019–0577 at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its 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
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16029-16038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05671]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0690; FRL-10006-48-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Montana; Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10
Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
fully approve three Limited Maintenance Plans (LMPs), submitted by the
State of Montana to the EPA on July 23, 2019, for the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and
[[Page 16030]]
Libby Moderate nonattainment areas (NAAs) for particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10) and concurrently redesignate the NAAs to attainment
of the 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). In order to approve the LMPs and redesignations, the EPA is
proposing to determine that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs have attained
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\. This
determination is based upon monitored air quality data for the
PM10 NAAQS during the years 2016-2018. The EPA is also
proposing to approve the Kalispell, Columbia Falls, and Libby LMPs as
meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 20, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0690 at 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 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, U.S. 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, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail
Code 8P-ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303)
312-6175, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
A. Description of the Columbia Falls NAA
The Columbia Falls NAA is one of three NAAs in Flathead County, is
rectangularly shaped, and generally encompasses the downtown portion of
Columbia Falls and the nearby surrounding areas. Columbia Falls and was
originally designated as a Group I area on August 7, 1987, meaning it
was likely to violate the PM10 NAAQS, and was subsequently
classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694. States containing initial
Moderate PM10 NAAs were required to submit, by November 15,
1991, a Moderate NAA State Implementation Plan (SIP) that, among other
requirements, implemented Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
by December 10, 1993, and demonstrated whether it was practicable to
attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. See generally 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to
the EPA on May 6, 1992, and subsequent submissions on August 26, 1994
and July 18, 1995. The State of Montana's SIP for the Columbia Falls
Moderate NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions
inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM10
NAAQS would be achieved in Columbia Falls by December 31, 1994;
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements; and control measures
that satisfy the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9)
of the CAA. The EPA fully approved the Columbia Falls NAA
PM10 attainment plan on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11153).
B. Description of the Libby NAA
The Libby PM10 NAA is an irregularly shaped portion of
Lincoln County, comprising of the city of Libby, and the surrounding
communities. The area was was originally designated as a Group I area
on August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate the PM10
NAAQS, and was subsequently classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987
24-hour PM10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694.
The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to
the EPA on November 25, 1991, with revisions and corrections on May 24,
1993 and June 3, 1994. The State of Montana's SIP for the Libby
Moderate PM10 NAA included, among other things: A
comprehensive emissions inventory; RACM; a demonstration that
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS would be achieved in Libby by
December 31, 1994; RFP requirements; and control measures that satisfy
the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
The EPA approved the Libby NAA PM10 attainment plan, with
the exception of the contingency plan, on August 30, 1994 (59 FR
44627). Revisions to the contingency plan were submitted by Montana on
March 15, 1995 and subsequently approved on September 30, 1996 (61 FR
51074).
C. Description of the Kalispell NAA
The Kalispell NAA is one of three NAAs in Flathead County. It is
irregularly shaped and generally encompasses the City of Kalispell and
the nearby surrounding areas, including the unincorporated community of
Evergreen. Kalispell was originally designated as a Group I area on
August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate the PM10
NAAQS, and was subsequently classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987
24-hour PM10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694.
The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to
the EPA on November 25, 1991, and submitted three additional submittals
between 1991and 1994. The State of Montana's SIP for the Kalispell
Moderate NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions
inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM10
NAAQS would be achieved in Kalispell by December 31, 1994; RFP
requirements; and control measures that satisfy the contingency
measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. The EPA fully
approved the Kalispell NAA PM10 attainment plan on March 19,
1996 (61 FR 11153).
[[Page 16031]]
II. Requirements for Redesignation
A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of NAAs
NAAs can be redesignated to attainment after the area has measured
air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS and when certain
planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the
General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for redesignation. See
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). These criteria are further clarified in a
policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards dated September 4, 1992, ``Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.'' \1\ The criteria for
redesignation are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo) outlines the criteria for
redesignation. The Calcagni memo can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/calcagni_memo_-_procedures_for_processing_requests_to_redesignate_areas_to_attainment_090492.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS;
(2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the
area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
(3) The state containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
(4) The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and
(5) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
B. The LMP Option for PM10 NAAs
On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 NAAs
seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director,
Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment
Areas,'' (hereafter the LMP Option memo)).\2\ The LMP Option memo
contains a statistical demonstration to show that areas meeting certain
air quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain
the standard 10 years into the future. Thus, the EPA has already
provided the maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria
outlined in the LMP Option memo. It follows that future year emission
inventories for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to
determine transportation conformity with the SIP are no longer
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' outlines the criteria for
development of a PM10 limited maintenance plan and can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/2001lmp-pm10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, based upon the most recent 5 years
of air quality data at all monitors in the area, and the 24-hour design
value should be at or below the Critical Design Value (CDV). The CDV is
a calculated design value that indicates that the area has a low
probability (1 in 10) of exceeding the NAAQS in the future. For the
purposes of qualifying for the LMP option, a presumptive CDV of 98
[micro]g/m\3\ is most often employed, but an area may elect to use a
site-specific CDV should the average design value be above 98 [micro]g/
m\3\, while demonstrating that the area has a low probability of
exceeding the NAAQS in the future. The annual PM10 standard
was effectively revoked on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61143), and as such
will not be discussed as a requirement for qualifying for the LMP
option. In addition, the area should expect only limited growth in on-
road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust)
and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis
test. The LMP Option memo also identifies core provisions that must be
included in the LMP. These provisions include an attainment year
emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-
approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.
C. Conformity Under the LMP Option
The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to NAAs and
maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either
conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a federal
action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected
emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions
budget for the area.
While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation
conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these
areas need not be capped for the maintenance period; and therefore, a
regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, federal
actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to
satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for
the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered not
limited.
III. Review of Montana's Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans
A. Have the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs attained the
applicable NAAQS?
States must demonstrate that an area has attained the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS through analysis of ambient air quality data from
an ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM10
concentrations. The data should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) database. On January 31, 2011, the EPA determined that the
Columbia Falls NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS (76 FR 5280).
Today, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Libby and Kalispell
NAAs have attained the PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data
from calendar years 2016-2018. The 24-hour standard is attained when
the expected number of days with levels above 150 [micro]g/m\3\
(averaged over a 3-year period) is less than or equal to one. 40 CFR
50.6(a). Three consecutive years of air quality data are generally
necessary to show attainment of the 24-hour and annual standards for
PM10. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. A complete year of air
quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is
comprised of all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing
data from at least 75% of the scheduled sampling days.
The Kalispell and Libby NAAs each have one State and Local Air
Monitoring Station (SLAMS) monitor operated by the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Tables 1 and 2 summarize the
PM10 data collected from 2014-2018 for the Kalispell and
Libby NAAs, respectively. The EPA deems the data collected from these
monitors valid, and the data have been submitted by the MDEQ to be
included in AQS.
[[Page 16032]]
Table 1--Summary of Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\) for Kalispell 2014-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex) Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0049)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 2nd maximum Number of
Year concentration concentration exceedances Monitoring site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014........................................ 108 89 0 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2015 \1\.................................... 146 139 0 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2016........................................ 87 84 0 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2017\1\..................................... 154 131 0 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2018........................................ 131 99 0 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA-concurred exceptional events were are excluded from this year.
Table 2--Summary of Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\) for Libby 2014-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex) Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0049)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 2nd maximum Number of
Year concentration concentration exceedances Monitoring site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014........................................ 47 45 0 Courthouse Annex.
2015 \1\.................................... 143 113 0 Courthouse Annex.
2016........................................ 58 57 0 Courthouse Annex
2017 \1\.................................... 134 104 0 Courthouse Annex.
2018........................................ 112 106 0 Courthouse Annex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA-concurred exceptional events were are excluded from this year.
The PM10 concentrations reported at the Kalispell and Libby
monitoring sites showed no measured exceedances of the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS from 2014-2018, and as such, the EPA proposes to determine that
the Kalispell and Libby Moderate NAAs have attained the standard for
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.
B. Do the Columbia Falls, Kalispell, and Libby NAA have a fully
approved SIP under CAA Section 110(k)?
In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be
fully approved under CAA section 110(k) and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area. Section 189 of the CAA contains
requirements and milestones for all initial Moderate NAA SIPs
including: (1) Provisions to assure that RACM (including such
reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of Reasonably Available
Control Technology--RACT) shall be implemented no later than December
10, 1993; (2) A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable by no
later than December 31, 1994, or, where the state is seeking an
extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration
that attainment by December 31, 1994, is impracticable and that the
plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable (CAA sections 189(a)(1)(A)); (3) Quantitative milestones
which are to be achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate RFP toward
attainment by December 31, 1994, (CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c));
and (4) Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to
make RFP or attain by its attainment deadline. These contingency
measures are to take effect without further action by the state or the
EPA. (CAA section 172(c)(9)).
The EPA approved the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby Moderate
area plans on March 19, 1996, March 19, 1996, and August 30, 1994,
respectively; and approved the revised contingency plan for Libby on
September 30, 1996. Each plan included RACM, an attainment
demonstration, emissions inventory, quantitative milestones, and
control and contingency measure requirements. As such, the areas have
fully approved NAA SIPs under section 110(k) of the CAA.
C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a state containing a
NAA must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D
of the CAA for an area to be redesignated to attainment. The EPA
interprets this to mean that the state must meet all requirements that
applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the submission of a
complete redesignation request. The following is a summary of how
Montana meets these requirements.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for
state implementation plans. These requirements include, but are not
limited to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit
program; provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting,
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of
these requirements. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
For purposes of redesignation, the EPA's review of the Montana SIP
shows that the State has satisfied all requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Further, in 40 CFR 52.1372, the EPA has approved
Montana's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national
standards under section 110.
2. Part D Requirements
Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas
designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed by a
series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10 NAAs
must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and the specific
PM10 provisions in Subpart 4,
[[Page 16033]]
``Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.''
The following paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs.
3. Subpart 1, Section 172(c)
Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for NAA
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the
General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). CAA section
172(c)(2) requires nonattainment plans to provide for RFP. Section
171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions
in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part
(part D of title I) or may reasonably be required by the Administrator
for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national
ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.'' Since the EPA is
proposing to determine that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs are in
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, we believe that no further
showing of RFP or quantitative milestones is necessary.
4. Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory Section
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10 NAAs. Montana included an
emissions inventory for the calendar year 2014 with July 23, 2019
submittal of the LMP for the NAAs. The LMP Option memo states that an
attainment inventory should represent emissions during the same 5-year
period associated with the air quality data used to determine that the
area meets the applicability requirements of the LMP option. The
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs include an emission inventory
from 2014, representative of the 2013-2017 5-year period which served
as the 5-year period relied upon in the LMPs as meeting the air quality
data requirements of the LMP option memo.
5. Section 172(c)(5)--NSR
The 1990 CAA Amendments contained revisions to the NSR program
requirements for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources located in NAA. The CAA requires states to
amend their SIPs to reflect these revisions, but does not require
submittal of this element along with the other SIP elements. The CAA
established June 30, 1992, as the submittal date for the revised NSR
programs (section 189 of the CAA).
Montana has a fully approved nonattainment NSR program, most
recently approved on August 30, 1995 (60 FR 45051). Montana also has a
fully approved PSD program, most recently approved on August 30, 1995
(60 FR 45051). Upon the effective date of redesignation of an area from
nonattainment to attainment, the requirements of the Part D NSR program
will be replaced by the PSD program and the maintenance area NSR
program.
6. Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air
Quality Monitoring Requirements
Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify attainment status of the area. The State of Montana operates one
PM10 SLAMS in each of the NAAs. The Flathead Valley,
Kalispell and Libby monitoring sites meet EPA SLAMS network design and
siting requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. In
section 3.4 of each of the LMPs that we are proposing to approve, the
State commits to continued operation of the monitoring network.
7. Section 172(c)(9)--Contingency Measures
The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if the area
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Since the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and
Libby NAAs have attained the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS,
contingency measures are no longer required under section 172(c)(9) of
the CAA. However, contingency provisions are required for maintenance
plans under section 175(a)(d). We describe the contingency provisions
Montana provided in the LMP section below.
8. Part D Subpart 4
Part D subpart 4, section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to
any Moderate NAA area before the area can be redesignated to
attainment. The requirements which were applicable prior to the
submission of the request to redesignate the area must be fully
approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to attainment.
These requirements include: (a) Provisions to assure that RACM was
implemented by December 10, 1993; (b) Either a demonstration that the
plan provided for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date was impracticable; (c) Quantitative milestones which were
achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by
December 31, 1994; and (d) Provisions to assure that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM10
also apply to major stationary sources of PM10 precursors
except where the Administrator determined that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the
NAAQS in the area. These provisions were fully approved into the SIP
upon the EPA's approval of the PM10 Moderate area plan for
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs on March 19, 1996, March
19, 1996, and August 30, 1994, respectively.
D. Has the state demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions?
The state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making
this showing, the state must demonstrate that air quality improvements
are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. This showing
should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other
related information. The analysis should assume that sources are
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic. Permanent and
enforceable control measures in the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby
NAA SIPs include RACM. Emission sources in the three NAAs have been
implementing RACM for at least 10 years.
Areas that qualify for the LMP will meet the NAAQS, even under
worst case meteorological conditions. Under the LMP option, the
maintenance demonstration is presumed to be satisfied if an area meets
the qualifying criteria. Thus, by qualifying for the LMP, Montana has
demonstrated that the air quality improvements in the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby NAAs are the result of permanent emission
reductions and not a result of either economic trends or meteorology. A
description of the LMP qualifying criteria and how the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby areas meet these criteria is provided in the
following section.
1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions in the Columbia Falls
NAA
Emissions in the Columbia Falls NAA have been reduced 87.8% since
1990. The primary controls incorporated into the SIP were rules
specifying the allowed material to be placed on roads and parking lots
for sanding and chip
[[Page 16034]]
sealing; rules specifying street sweeping and flushing requirements
during the winter and summer months to reduce fugitive road dust; rules
requiring the paving of new roads within the Columbia Falls Control
District; and permit requirements on the Plum Creek sawmill, plywood
and MDF facilities in Columbia Falls. Fugitive road dust comprised
nearly 51% of the uncontrolled emissions when the area was designated
nonattainment, and emissions from the Plum Creek facility accounted for
44% of the area's uncontrolled emissions. Based on the 2014 NEI,
current fugitive road dust emissions are less than 8% of their 1990
levels and current emissions from the Plum Creek facility are 14% of
their uncontrolled emissions.
2. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions in the Kalispell NAA
Emissions in the Kalispell NAA have been reduced 74.0% since 1998.
The primary controls incorporated into the SIP were rules specifying
the allowed material to be placed on roads and parking lots for sanding
and chip sealing; rules specifying street sweeping and flushing
requirements during the winter and summer months to reduce fugitive
road dust; rules requiring the paving of new roads within the Kalispell
Control District; and permit requirements on 11 stationary sources in
the NAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions in the Libby NAA
Emissions in the Libby NAA have been reduced 90.2% since 1989. The
primary controls incorporated into the SIP were air pollution control
rules in Chapter 1, Subchapters 1 through 4, addressing solid fuel
burning devices, reentrained road dust control, and outdoor burning
regulations. Additionally, the control plan accounted for industrial
emission reductions through permit revisions. These revisions required
that RACT be applied to the Champion International boilers which
resulted in derating Boiler #7, reducing allowable emissions from
Boiler #8, and adding new controls on Boiler #9. Changing economic
conditions, ultimately saw the closure of the wood products facility
after a previous sale of the facility to Stimson Lumber Company. The
source specific limits on the Champion International boilers remain in
the SIP.
E. Do the areas have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA?
In this action, we are proposing to approve the LMPs for the
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs in accordance with the
principles outlined in the LMP Option.
F. Has the state demonstrated that the Columbia Falls, Kalispell, and
Libby NAAs qualify for the LMP option?
The LMP Option memo outlines the requirements for an area to
qualify for the LMP Option. First, the area should be attaining the
NAAQS. As stated above in Section III.A., the EPA has determined that
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs are attaining the
PM10 NAAQS.
Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past 5 years of
monitoring data (2014-2018) must be at or below the CDV. As noted in
Section II.B., the CDV is a margin of safety value and is the value at
which an area has been determined to have a 1 in 10 probability of
exceeding the NAAQS. The LMP Option memo provides two methods for
review of monitoring data for the purpose of qualifying for the LMP
option. The first method is a comparison of a site's ADV with the CDV
of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A second
method that applies to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is the
calculation of a site-specific CDV and a comparison of the site-
specific CDV with the ADV for the past 5 years of monitoring data.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 outline the design values for the years 2014-2018,
and present the ADV.
Tables 6, 7 and 8 summarize the wildfire related events that were
excluded from the calculated design values in Tables 3, 4 and 5,
respectively. Tables 6, 7 and 8 include all regionally concurred
exceptional events, as well as values between 98 [micro]g/m\3\ and 155
[micro]g/m\3\, which were treated in a manner analogous to exceedance
data under the Exceptional Events Rule (EER) for the purpose of
determining the LMP option eligibility.\3\ The values between 98
[micro]g/m\3\ and 155 [micro]g/m\3\ will remain in the Air Quality
System (AQS) database for use in calculating DV's for every purpose
besides determining LMP eligibility.\3\ The EER can be found in 40 CFR
50.14 and 40 CFR 51.930, and outlines the requirements for the
treatment of monitored air quality data that has been heavily
influenced by an exceptional event. 40 CFR 50.1(j) defines an
exceptional event as an event which affects air quality, is not
reasonably controllable or preventable, is an event caused by human
activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a
natural event and is determined by the Administrator in accordance with
40 CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event. Exceptional events do not
include stagnation of air masses or meteorological inversions,
meteorological events involving high temperatures or lack of
precipitation, or air pollution relating to source noncompliance. 40
CFR 50.14(b) states that the EPA shall exclude data from use in
determinations of exceedances and NAAQS violations where a state
demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that an exceptional event caused
a specific air pollution concentration in excess of one or more NAAQS
at a particular air quality monitoring location and otherwise satisfies
the requirements of section 50.14. Tables 6, 7 and 8 below include some
exceptional events not formally concurred on by EPA. These exceptional
events were excluded by EPA in accordance with the LMP guidance (see
footnote 3). We have concurred that these values can be excluded for
the sole purpose of determining PM10 Limited Maintenance
Plan (LMP) eligibility and supporting documentation of EPA's
concurrence with the wildfire related events can be found in the
docket.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Update on Application of the Exceptional Events Rule to the
PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan Option, US EPA, William T.
Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, May 7, 2009.
\4\ February 8, 2019 letter to MDEQ, Re: Exceptional Events
Requests Regarding Exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
and the LMP Eligibility Threshold at Montana Monitoring Sites with
PM10 Nonattainment Areas; and November 1, 2018 letter to
MDEQ, Re: Request for EPA concurrence on exceptional event claims
for fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM10) particulate
matter data impacted by wildfires in 2015 and 2016.
[[Page 16035]]
Table 3--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m3) for Columbia Falls 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex.) Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0049)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design
Design value years concentration Monitoring site
([micro]g/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016............................. 60 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2015-2017............................. 66 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2016-2018............................. 74 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design 67
Concentrations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m3) for Kalispell 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on data from Flathead Electric. Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0047)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design
Design value years concentration Monitoring site
([micro]g/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016............................. 89 Flathead Electric.
2015-2017............................. 88 Flathead Electric.
2016-2018............................. 90 Flathead Electric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design 89
Concentrations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m3) for Libby 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on data from Libby Courthouse Annex. Site, AQS Identification Number (30-053-0018)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design
Design value years concentration Monitoring site
([micro]g/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016\1\.......................... 90 Courthouse Annex.
2015-2017\1\.......................... 92 Courthouse Annex.
2016-2018............................. 95 Courthouse Annex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design 92
Concentrations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded from 2014-2018 Columbia Falls Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-Hour Value
Date ([micro]g/m3) Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015............................. 140 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/21/2015............................. 112 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/23/2015............................. 112 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/24/2015............................. 139 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/25/2015............................. 109 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/26/2015............................. 112 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/27/2015............................. 136 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/28/2017............................. 135 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/29/2015............................. 138 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/6/2017.............................. * 182 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/7/2017.............................. * 228 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/8/2017.............................. * 225 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/9/2017.............................. 126 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/13/2017............................. 102 Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other exceptional events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by
EPA in accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].
Table 7--24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded from 2014-2018 Kalispell Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-hour value
Date ([micro]g/m3) Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015............................. 125 Flathead Electric.
8/21/2015............................. 103 Flathead Electric.
8/24/2015............................. 139 Flathead Electric.
8/26/2015............................. 125 Flathead Electric.
8/27/2015............................. 123 Flathead Electric.
[[Page 16036]]
8/28/2017............................. 133 Flathead Electric.
8/29/2015............................. 146 Flathead Electric.
9/5/2017.............................. 131 Flathead Electric.
9/6/2017.............................. * 171 Flathead Electric.
9/7/2017.............................. * 194 Flathead Electric.
9/8/2017.............................. * 228 Flathead Electric.
9/9/2017.............................. 154 Flathead Electric.
9/13/2017............................. * 158 Flathead Electric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by EPA in
accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].
Table 8--24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded from 2014-2018 Libby Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-hour value
Date ([micro]g/m3) Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015............................. 113 Courthouse Annex.
8/24/2015............................. * 180 Courthouse Annex.
8/25/2015............................. 102 Courthouse Annex.
8/27/2015............................. 109 Courthouse Annex.
8/29/2015............................. 143 Courthouse Annex.
9/5/2017.............................. 104 Courthouse Annex.
9/6/2017.............................. 101 Courthouse Annex.
9/7/2017.............................. 134 Courthouse Annex.
9/8/2017.............................. * 158 Courthouse Annex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by EPA in
accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].
The ADV for the 24-Hour PM10 NAAQS for Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby, based on data from the SLAMS monitors for the
years 2014-2018, are 67 [micro]g/m3, 89 [micro]g/
m3, and 92 [micro]g/m3, respectively. These
values fall below the presumptive 24-Hour CDV of 98 [micro]g/
m3, and would all meet the first threshold for LMP
eligibility. However, in the case of both Kalispell and Libby, these
areas required the calculation of an area specific CDV in order to pass
the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test, described below and
in further detail in the LMP guidance document.\5\ Table 9 lists the
respective CDV for each of the NAAs based on data from 2014-2018,
utilized for satisfying all the LMP requirements. Calculation of the
2014-2018 CDV for Kalispell and Libby can be found in the supporting
documents in the docket.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Limited Maintenace Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas--Attachment B.''
\6\ Memo to file ``Critical Design Value Calculations for the
Kalispell and Libby PM10 NAAs.''
Table 9--Critical Design Values Used for Determining LMP Eligibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-Hour CDV 2013-2018 ADV
PM10 NAA ([micro]g/m 3) ([micro]g/m 3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Falls.................... * 98 97
Kalispell......................... 124 89
Libby............................. 139.9 92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Use of presumptive CDV as described in the LMP guidance document.
In addition to having an ADV that is lower than either the
presumptive or area specific CDV, in order to qualify for the LMP, the
area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test in
attachment B of the LMP Option memo. Using the methodology outlined in
the memo, based on monitoring data for the period 2016-2018, the EPA
has determined that the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs all
pass the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test, with a
projected DV of 74.3 [micro]g/m\3\, 109.7 [micro]g/m\3\ and 100.3
[micro]g/m\3\ after 10 years, respectively, attributable to motor
vehicle emission growth. For the calculations used to determine how the
Columbia Falls, Kalsipell and Libby NAAs passed the motor vehicle
regional analysis test, see the supporting documents in the docket.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See memo to file dated October 24, 2018 titled ``Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions
Analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monitoring data for the period 2016-2018 shows that Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby have attained the 24-hour NAAQS for
PM10, and the 24-hour ADV for each of the areas is less than
the 24-hour PM10 presumptive and area-specific CDV. Finally,
the areas have met the regional vehicle emissions analysis test. Thus,
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs qualify for the LMP Option
described in the LMP Option memo. The LMP Option memo also indicates
that once a state selects the LMP Option and it is in effect, the state
will be expected to determine, on an annual basis, that the LMP
criteria are still being met. If the state
[[Page 16037]]
determines that the LMP criteria are not being met, it should take
action to reduce PM10 concentrations enough to requalify for
the LMP. One possible approach the state could take is to implement
contingency measures. Please see section 3.6 of each of the three LMPs
for a description of contingency provisions submitted as part of the
State's submittal.
G. Does the state have an approved attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?
The state's approved attainment plan should include an emissions
inventory (attainment inventory) which can be used to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions
during the same 5-year period associated with air quality data used to
determine whether the area meets the applicability requirements of the
LMP Option. The state should review its inventory every 3 years to
ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the attainment inventory if
necessary. In this instance, Montana completed an attainment year
inventory for the attainment year 2014 for all three NAAs. The EPA has
reviewed the 2014 emissions inventories and determined that they are
current, accurate and complete. In addition, the emissions inventory
submitted with the LMP for the calendar year 2014 is representative of
the level of emissions during the time period used to calculate the ADV
since 2014 is included in the 5-year period used to calculate the
design values (2013-2017).
H. Does the LMP include an Assurance of Continued Operation of an
appropriate EPA-approved Air Quality Monitoring Network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58?
PM10 monitoring networks for the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby NAAs have been developed and maintained in
accordance with federal siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 58,
appendices D and E and in consultation with the EPA Region 8. In
Section 3.4 of the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs, Montana
states that it will continue to operate its monitoring network to meet
EPA requirements.
I. Does the plan meet the CAA requirements for contingency provisions
for maintenance plans?
Section 175A of the CAA states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to
attainment. As explained in the LMP Option memo, these contingency
measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation.
As noted above, CAA section 175A requirements are distinct from CAA
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures. Section 3.6 of the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs describe a process and timeline to
identify and evaluate appropriate contingency measures in the event of
a quality assured violation of the PM10 NAAQS. Upon
notification of a PM10 exceedance in any of the three areas,
the MDEQ and the appropriate local government will develop contingency
measures designed to prevent or correct a violation of the
PM10 standard. This process will be completed within twelve
months of the exceedance notification. Upon violating the
PM10 standard, the MDEQ and local government will determine
if the local contingency measures will be adequate to prevent further
exceedances or violations. If the agencies determine that local
measures will be inadequate, the MDEQ and local government will adopt
state-enforceable measures.
The current and proposed contingency provisions in the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs meet the requirements for contingency
provisions as outlined in the LMP Option memo.
J. Has the state met transportation and general conformity
requirements?
1. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA section 176(c)(1)(B)). The
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule typically
requires a demonstration that emissions from the applicable Regional
Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program are
consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124). The EPA notes that a MVEB is usually defined as
the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the
attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain
compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance areas.
MVEBs are, however, treated differently with respect to LMP areas.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our LMP Option memorandum does not require that MVEBs be identified
in the maintenance plan. While the EPA's LMP Option memorandum does not
exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the
area may demonstrate transportation conformity without identifying and
submitting a MVEB. The basis for this provision is that it is
unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth
during the maintenance period that a violation of the PM10
NAAQS would result. Therefore, for transportation conformity purposes,
the EPA has concluded that mobile source emissions in LMP areas need
not be capped, with respect to a MVEB, for the maintenance period and a
regional emissions analysis (40 CFR 93.118), for transportation
conformity purposes, is also not required.
However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects will continue to be required for transportation projects
located within the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10
maintenance areas. Specifically, for conformity determinations,
projects will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained
(40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105
and 40 CFR 93.112) and timely implementation (as applicable) of
Transportation Control Measures (40 CFR 93.113). In addition, projects
located within the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10
LMP areas will be required to be evaluated for potential
PM10 hot-spot issues in order to satisfy the ``project
level'' conformity determination requirements. As appropriate, a
project may then need to address the applicable criteria for a
PM10 hot-spot analysis as provided in 40 CFR 93.116 and 40
CFR 93.123.
Finally, our proposed approval of the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and
Libby PM10 LMPs affect future PM10 project-level
transportation conformity determinations as prepared by the Montana
Department of Transportation in conjunction with the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. See 40 CFR
93.100. As such, the EPA is proposing to approve the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby LMPs as meeting the appropriate transportation
[[Page 16038]]
conformity requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
2. General Conformity
Federal actions, other than transportation conformity, that meet
specific criteria need to be evaluated with respect to the requirements
of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B. The EPA's general conformity rule
requirements are designed to ensure that emissions from a federal
action will not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS,
exacerbate current violations, or delay timely attainment. However, as
noted in our LMP Option memorandum and similar to the above discussed
transportation conformity provisions, federal actions subject to our
general conformity requirements would be considered to satisfy the
``budget test,'' as specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A). As
discussed above, the basis for this provision in the LMP Option
memorandum is that it is unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will
experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. Therefore, for
purposes of general conformity, a general conformity PM10
emissions budget does not need to be identified in the maintenance
plan, nor submitted, and the emissions from federal agency actions are
essentially considered to not be limited.
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
For the reasons explained in Section III, we are proposing to
approve the LMP for the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs and
the State's request to redesignate the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and
Libby NAAs from nonattainment to attainment for the 1987 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine
that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs have attained the NAAQS for
PM10. This determination is based upon monitored air quality
data for the PM10 NAAQS during the years 2016-2018. The EPA
is proposing to approve the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs as
meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements found in
40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
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 (Public Law 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 the 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 the 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 12, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-05671 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
