Air Plan Approval; Montana; Revisions to Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Partial Withdrawals to Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, 55331-55342 [2022-18680]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
uncontained failure of certain HPT stage 2
disks, forward seals, and stages 6–10
compressor rotor spools. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in
uncontained debris release, damage to the
engine, and damage to the aircraft.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2021–0001; FRL–10014–
01–R8]
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Required Actions
(1) Before exceeding 600 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, remove the
affected HPT stage 2 disk, forward seal, and
stages 6–10 compressor rotor spool from
service and replace with a part eligible for
installation.
(2) For affected engines not in service,
before further flight, remove the affected HPT
stage 2 disk, forward seal, and stages 6–10
compressor rotor spool and replace with a
part eligible for installation.
(h) Definitions
(1) For the purpose of this AD, a ‘‘part
eligible for installation’’ is any HPT stage 2
disk, forward seal, or stages 6–10 compressor
rotor spool with a P/N and S/N not identified
in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, ‘‘engines
not in service’’ are engines that are in longterm or short-term storage as of the effective
date of this AD.
(i) Installation Prohibition
After the effective date of this AD, do not
install an HPT stage 2 disk, forward seal, or
stages 6–10 compressor rotor spool with a P/
N and S/N identified in Table 1 to paragraph
(c) of this AD onto any engine.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and
email to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(k) Related Information
For more information about this AD,
contact Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781)
238–7178; email: Alexei.T.Marqueen@
faa.gov.
Issued on July 21, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022–19397 Filed 9–8–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
Air Plan Approval; Montana; Revisions
to Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan and Partial Withdrawals to
Regional Haze Federal Implementation
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Montana on March 25, 2020, addressing
regional haze. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve a SIP revision for
the first implementation period of the
Clean Air Act’s (CAA) regional haze
program that addresses the nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) requirements for two electric
generating unit (EGU) facilities, as well
as proposing to withdraw portions of
the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
promulgated by EPA in 2012 (2012
regional haze FIP) addressing the NOX,
SO2 and particulate matter (PM) BART
requirements for two cement kilns and
the PM BART requirements for the same
two EGU facilities. This action also
addresses the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s June 9,
2015 vacatur and remand of portions of
the FIP. EPA is proposing this action
pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of
the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before November 8, 2022.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us
requesting a public hearing on or before
September 26, 2022, we will hold a
hearing. Additional information about
the hearing, if requested, will be
published in a subsequent Federal
Register document. Contact Jaslyn
Dobrahner at dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov,
to request a hearing or to determine if
a hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2021–0001, to the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55331
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. 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://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
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
electronically in www.regulations.gov.
To reduce the risk of COVID–19
transmission, for this action we do not
plan to offer hard copy review of the
docket. Please email or call the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make
alternative arrangements for access to
the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode
8ARD–IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129,
telephone number: (303) 312–6252,
email address: dobrahner.jaslyn@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and
EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable
Progress Requirements
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Recording
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
F. Clean Air Act 110(l)
G. Regulatory and Legal History of the
Montana Regional Haze FIP
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Montana’s Regional
Haze SIP Revisions
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55332
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
A. Requirements for Cement Kilns
B. Requirements for Electrical Generating
Units
C. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
IV. EPA’s Proposed Action
A. Montana Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
B. Federal Implementation Plan
Withdrawal
C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
V. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Remand
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve two
Montana Board of Environment Review
Orders pertaining to regional haze
requirements for four facilities 1 into the
state’s SIP. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve: (1) NOX, SO2, and
PM BART emission limits along with
associated requirements for the Ash
Grove Cement Company’s Montana City
Plant (Montana City) and GCC Three
Forks, LLC’s Trident Plant (Trident); (2)
the PM BART emission limits along
with associated requirements for Talen
Montana, LLC’s Colstrip Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2 (Colstrip Units 1
and 2); (3) the determination that
Colstrip Units’ 1 and 2 enforceable
shutdown date of July 1, 2022, satisfies
the outstanding NOX and SO2 BART
requirements for that facility; and (4) the
determination that the outstanding NOX
and SO2 BART requirements for Corette
(as well as the remaining PM BART
requirements for Corette in EPA’s FIP)
are satisfied because the source is no
1 Ash Grove Cement Company’s Montana City
Plant; GCC Three Forks, LLC’s Trident Plant; JE
Corette Steam Electric Station; and Talen Montana,
LLC’s Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and
2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
longer in operation and has been
demolished.
Consistent with our proposed
approval of Montana’s regional haze SIP
for the PM BART emission limits and
other requirements for Colstrip Units 1
and 2 and Corette along with the NOX,
SO2, and PM BART emission limits and
other requirements for Montana City
and Trident, we are also proposing to
withdraw those corresponding portions
of the 2012 regional haze FIP found at
40 CFR 52.1396.
In addition, through our proposed
approval of the NOX and SO2 BART
determinations for Corette and Colstrip
Units 1 and 2, we are addressing the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit’s June 9, 2015 remand of
portions of the 2012 regional haze FIP
in this action, including EPA’s response
to a public comment regarding the use
of the CALPUFF visibility model in
determining BART at Colstrip Units 1
and 2.
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act
and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
In CAA section 169A, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in certain national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes ‘‘as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.’’ 2
EPA promulgated a rule to address
regional haze, a particular type of
visibility impairment, on July 1, 1999.3
The 1999 Regional Haze Rule revised
the existing visibility regulations 4 to
2 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as
mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national
parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and
all international parks that were in existence on
August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance
with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list
of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an
important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979).
The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and
tribes may designate as Class I additional areas
which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply
only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each
mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility
of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this section,
we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
3 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) (amending 40 CFR
part 51, subpart P).
4 EPA had previously promulgated regulations to
address visibility impairment in Class I areas that
is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single source or
small group of sources, i.e., reasonably attributable
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
integrate provisions addressing regional
haze and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility
protection regulations at 40 CFR
51.300–51.309. EPA most recently
revised the Regional Haze Rule on
January 10, 2017.5
The CAA requires each state to
develop a SIP to meet various air quality
requirements, including protection of
visibility.6 Regional haze SIPs must
assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. A
state must submit its SIP and SIP
revisions to EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by EPA
and citizens under the CAA; that is, the
SIP is federally enforceable. If a state
fails to make a required SIP submittal,
or if we find that a state’s required
submittal is incomplete or not
approvable, then we must promulgate a
FIP within two years to fill this
regulatory gap, unless the state corrects
the deficiency.7
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs EPA
to require states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources to
address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires state
implementation plans to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress toward the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit
Technology’’ (BART) as determined by
the states. Under the Regional Haze
Rule, states are directed to conduct
source-by-source BART determinations
for such ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that
may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any visibility
impairment in a Class I area.8 States are
visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084, 80084
(December 2, 1980).
5 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Under the
revised Regional Haze Rule, the requirements 40
CFR 51.308(d) and (e) apply to first implementation
period SIP submissions and 51.308(f) applies to
submissions for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. 82 FR 3087; see also 81 FR
26942, 26952 (May 4, 2016).
6 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a).
7 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
8 40 CFR 51.308(e). BART-eligible sources are
those sources that have the potential to emit 250
tons or more of a visibility-impairing air pollutant,
were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
required to include emission limits and
associated requirements (e.g.,
monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements)
corresponding to their BART
determinations in their SIPs.9
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility under the Regional Haze Rule
to adopt alternative measures, as long as
the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions than BART (i.e., the
alternative must be ‘‘better than
BART’’).10
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable
Progress Requirements
In addition to the BART requirements,
the CAA’s visibility protection
provisions also require that states’
regional haze SIPs contain a ‘‘long-term
(ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal. . . .’’ 11 For the first
implementation period of the regional
haze program, the regulatory
requirements governing states’ longterm strategies are located at 40 CFR
51.308(d). Under these provisions, the
long-term strategy must address regional
haze visibility impairment for each
mandatory Class I area within the state
and for each mandatory Class I area
located outside the state that may be
affected by emissions from the state. It
must include the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals.12 The
reasonable progress goals, in turn, are
calculated for each Class I area based on
the control measures states have
selected by analyzing the four statutory
‘‘reasonable progress’’ factors, which are
‘‘the costs of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, the energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, and the
were in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose
operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically
listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
EPA designed the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule
(Guidelines) ‘‘to help States and others (1) identify
those sources that must comply with the BART
requirement, and (2) determine the level of control
technology that represents BART for each source.’’
40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section I.A. Section II
of the Guidelines describes the four steps to identify
BART sources, and section III explains how to
identify BART sources (i.e., sources that are
‘‘subject to BART’’).
9 See 40 CFR 51.301 (defining BART as an
emission limitation based on the degree of
reduction achievable through the application of the
best system of continuous emission reductions for
each pollutant emitted by an existing stationary
facility’’.
10 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
11 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B).
12 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
remaining useful life of any existing
source subject to such requirement.’’ 13
Thus, a state considers the four
reasonable progress factors in setting the
reasonable progress goal by virtue of the
state having first considered them, and
certain other factors listed in section
51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule,
when deciding what controls are
necessary for sources and must thus be
included in the long-term strategy.
Then, the numerical levels of the
reasonable progress goals are the
predicted visibility outcome of
implementing the long-term strategy in
addition to ongoing pollution control
programs stemming from other CAA
requirements.
Unlike BART determinations, which
are required only for the first regional
haze planning period SIPs,14 states are
required to submit updates to their longterm strategies, including updated fourfactor reasonable progress analyses and
reasonable progress goals, in the form of
SIP revisions on July 31, 2021, and at
specific intervals thereafter.15 In
addition, each state must periodically
submit a report to EPA at five-year
intervals beginning five years after the
submission of the initial regional haze
SIP, evaluating the state’s progress
towards meeting the reasonable progress
goals for each Class I area within the
state.16
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Recording
The CAA requires that SIPs, including
regional haze SIPs, contain elements
sufficient to ensure emission limits are
practically enforceable. CAA section
110(a)(2) states that the monitoring,
record keeping, and reporting
provisions of states’ SIPs must (A)
include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques (including
economic incentives such as fees,
marketable permits, and auctions of
emissions rights), as well as schedules
and timetables for compliance, as may
be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of this chapter;
. . . (C) include a program to provide
for the enforcement of the measures
described in paragraph (A), and
regulation of the modification and
13 42
U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i).
the Regional Haze Rule, SIPs are due for
each regional haze planning period, or
implementation period. The terms ‘‘planning
period’’ and ‘‘implementation period’’ are used
interchangeably in this document.
15 40 CFR 51.308(f). The deadline for the 2018 SIP
revision was moved to 2021. 82 FR 3078 (January
10, 2017); see also 40 CFR 51.308(f). Following the
2021 SIP revision deadline, the next SIP revision is
due in 2028. 40 CFR 51.308(f).
16 Id. § 51.308(g); § 51.309(d)(10).
14 Under
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55333
construction of any stationary source
within the areas covered by the plan as
necessary to assure that national
ambient air quality standards are
achieved, including a permit program as
required in parts C and D of this
subchapter; . . . (F) require, as may be
prescribed by the Administrator—(i) the
installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions
from such sources, (ii) periodic reports
on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions-related data from such
sources, and (iii) correlation of such
reports by the State agency with any
emission limitations or standards
established pursuant to this chapter,
which reports shall be available at
reasonable times for public
inspection.17
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 51, subpart
K, Source Surveillance, requires the SIP
to provide for monitoring the status of
compliance with the regulations in it,
including ‘‘[p]eriodic testing and
inspection of stationary sources,’’ 18 and
‘‘legally enforceable procedures’’ for
recordkeeping and reporting.19
Furthermore, 40 CFR part 51, appendix
V, Criteria for Determining the
Completeness of Plan Submissions,
states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs
contain: ‘‘(g) Evidence that the plan
contains emission limitations, work
practice standards and recordkeeping/
reporting requirements, where
necessary, to ensure emission levels’’;
and ‘‘(h) Compliance/enforcement
strategies, including how compliance
will be determined in practice.’’
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
The Regional Haze Rule requires that
a state, or EPA if promulgating a FIP,
consult with Federal Land Managers
(FLMs) before adopting and submitting
a required SIP or SIP revision or a
required FIP or FIP revision. Under 40
CFR 51.308(i)(2), a state, or EPA if
promulgating a FIP, must provide an
opportunity for consultation no less
than 60 days prior to holding any public
hearing or other public comment
opportunity on a SIP or SIP revision, or
FIP or FIP revision, for regional haze.
Further, when submitting a SIP or SIP
revision, a state must include a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Likewise, EPA must include a
description of how it addressed any
17 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A), (C), and (F).
CFR 51.212(a).
19 Id. § 51.211.
18 40
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55334
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
comments provided by the FLMs when
considering a FIP or FIP revision.20
F. Clean Air Act 110(l)
Under CAA section 110(l), EPA
cannot approve a plan revision ‘‘if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 7501 of
this title), or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.’’ 21 CAA
section 110(l) applies to all
requirements of the CAA and to all areas
of the country, whether attainment,
nonattainment, unclassifiable or
maintenance for one or more of the six
criteria pollutants. EPA interprets
section 110(l) as applying to all National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) that are in effect, including
those for which SIP submissions have
not been made.22 However, the level of
rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l)
demonstration will vary depending on
the nature and circumstances of the
revision.
G. Regulatory and Legal History of the
Montana Regional Haze FIP
On September 18, 2012, EPA
promulgated a FIP that included NOX,
SO2, and PM BART emission limits for
three units at two power plants and two
cement kilns, as well as an emission
limit for a natural gas compressor
station to satisfy the reasonable progress
requirements.23 EPA promulgated a FIP
in this instance because Montana did
not submit a regional haze SIP as
required under section 110 of the
CAA.24
Several parties challenged the portion
of the FIP addressing EPA’s NOX and
20 40
CFR 51.308(i).
U.S.C. 7410(l). Note that ‘‘reasonable further
progress’’ as used in CAA section 110(l) is a
reference to that term as defined in section 301(a)
(i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means
reductions required to attain the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set for criteria
pollutants under CAA section 109. This term as
used in section 110(l) (and defined in section
301(a)) is not synonymous with ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ as that term is used in the regional haze
program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that EPA
cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with
regional haze requirements (including reasonable
progress requirements) insofar as they are ‘‘other
applicable requirement[s]’’ of the CAA.
22 In general, a section 110(l) demonstration
should address all pollutants whose emissions and/
or ambient concentrations would change because of
a plan revision.
23 77 FR 57864 (September 18, 2012).
24 Letter from Richard H. Opper, Director
Montana Department of Environmental Quality to
Laurel Dygowski, EPA Region 8 Air Program, June
19, 2006. Based off this letter, EPA made a
determination finding of failure to submit a SIP by
Montana. This triggered a mandatory duty clock to
have EPA either promulgate a FIP or approve a SIP
within two years of the EPA finding. See 74 FR
2392 (January 15, 2009).
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
21 42
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
SO2 BART determinations at the power
plants, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and
Corette.25 On June 9, 2015, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
vacated and remanded the portions of
the FIP 26 related to the NOX and SO2
BART emission limits for Corette and
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and remanded
EPA’s response in the 2012 final rule to
a public comment regarding the use of
the CALPUFF visibility model in
determining BART for Colstrip Units 1
and 2.27 The BART emission limits for
the two cement kilns, the PM emissions
limits for the EGUs, and the reasonable
progress requirements for the
compressor station were not at issue in
the petitions filed with the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.28
On September 12, 2017, EPA
amended aspects of the remaining 2012
FIP by (1) revising the NOX emission
limit for one of the cement kilns, and (2)
correcting errors we made in our
original FIP regarding the reasonable
progress determination for the natural
gas compressor station and the
instructions for compliance
determinations for PM BART emission
limits at the electrical generating units
(EGUs) and cement kilns.29 Ultimately,
EPA removed the reasonable progress
requirements for the natural gas
compressor station from the FIP after
correcting the error that resulted in the
source no longer being subject to
reasonable progress requirements.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Montana’s
Regional Haze SIP Revision
Montana’s regional haze SIP revision
contains two Montana Board of
Environment Review Orders (Board
Orders) pertaining to regional haze
requirements for (1) cement kiln
sources, and (2) electrical generating
unit sources. The emission limits and
other requirements in these orders are
intended to address the SO2 and NOX
BART requirements for Colstrip Units 1
and 2 and Corette that were previously
vacated by the Ninth Circuit and to
replace the limits that currently exist in
EPA’s FIP with SIP-based limits for PM
BART for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and
Corette, and SO2, NOX, and PM BART
requirements for cement kilns. The 2012
25 Several parties petitioned the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals to review EPA’s NOX and SO2
BART determinations at the power plants, Colstrip
and Corette (PPL Montana, LLC, the National Parks
Conservation Association, Montana Environmental
Information Center, and the Sierra Club). National
Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d
1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
26 Id.
27 National Parks Conservation Association v.
EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
28 Id.
29 82 FR 42738 (September 12, 2017).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regional haze FIP codified those
provisions at 40 CFR 52.1396 Federal
implementation plan for regional haze
and contains the following paragraphs:
(a) Applicability, (b) Definitions, (c)
Emissions limitations, (d) Compliance
date, (e) Compliance determinations for
SO2 and NOX, (f) Compliance
determinations for particulate matter,
(g) Recordkeeping for EGUs, (h)
Recordkeeping for cement kilns, (i)
Reporting, (j)–(k) Reserved, (l)
Notifications, (m) Equipment operation,
(n) Credible evidence, (o) CFAC
notification, (p) M2Green
Redevelopment LLC notification.
To assess whether the SIP revision is
consistent with the regional haze
requirements of the CAA, we evaluated
the revisions against the regional haze
requirements under the CAA and the
Regional Haze Rule. For those
provisions that are proposed to replace
the FIP provisions, we also compared
those components of the Board Orders
with the corresponding provisions in
the FIP as well as the regional haze
requirements under the CAA and EPA’s
regulations.
As noted previously, Montana’s 2020
regional haze SIP revision contains
enforceable emission limitations and
other enforceable requirements intended
to replace the FIP-based enforceable
requirements in the Code of Federal
Regulations. It does not, however,
contain the technical analyses and other
demonstrations and information
required to support BART
determinations pursuant to 50 CFR
51.308(e). Thus, if this rulemaking is
finalized as proposed, the State’s Board
Orders will replace the enforceable
emission limits and associated
requirements in EPA’s FIP with SIPbased requirements. However, other
regional haze requirements, including
analytical requirements associated with
both BART and reasonable progress,
will remain satisfied by EPA’s
previously promulgated FIP.
A. Requirements for Cement Kilns
Montana’s regional haze requirements
for cement kilns are contained in
Exhibit A of the Ash Grove Cement
Company’s Montana City Plant, and
GCC Three Forks, LLC’s Trident Plant
Board Order Plant dated October 18,
2019 (Board Order for cement kilns).
The applicability language of the
Board Order for cement kilns is
identical to the applicability language of
the FIP for cement kilns found at 40
CFR 52.1396(a). EPA’s FIP
determination that Ash Grove—
Montana City Plant and GCC Three
Forks—Trident Plant are subject to
BART was consistent with the
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
requirement to determine which BARTeligible sources may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in any class I area
and are thus subject to BART.30 31
Therefore, because our FIP analysis and
requirements are consistent with the
applicable regional haze requirements
and because Section 1—Applicability of
the Board Order for cement kilns is
identical to our FIP, we propose to
approve Section 1—Applicability of the
Board Order for cement kilns as
satisfying the applicable requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(e).32 33 Likewise,
the definitions found at 40 CFR
52.1396(b) in the FIP applicable to
cement kilns are identical to the
definitions in Section 2—Definitions
Board Order for cement kilns in the FIP.
Thus, we also propose to approve
Section 2—Definitions of the Board
Order for cement kilns as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements.
The BART determinations and
associated compliance dates contained
in the 2012 regional haze FIP at 40 CFR
52.1396(c)(2) and 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(4)
were made pursuant to a five-factor
analysis consistent with the regional
haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)
and Appendix Y (BART Guidelines).34
The PM, NOX, and SO2 emission
limitations and associated compliance
dates for cement kilns in Section 3—
Emissions Limitations, and Section 4—
Compliance Dates of the Board Order
for cement kilns are identical to the
requirements found in the FIP.
Therefore, because our FIP analysis and
requirements are consistent with the
regional haze requirements under the
CAA and the emission limits and
compliance dates in Section 3—
Emissions Limitations and Section 4—
Compliance Dates of the Board Order
for cement kilns are identical to our FIP,
we propose to approve these portions of
the state’s SIP revision as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements.
With respect to the compliance
determinations for NOX and SO2 for
cement kilns, the requirements in
Section 5(1)—Compliance
30 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
Docket EPA–R08–OAR –2011–0851 for
EPA’s 2012 regional haze FIP for the analysis.
32 The Trident cement kiln was previously under
the ownership of Oldcastle Materials Cement
Holdings, Inc. when the FIP was last amended. See
82 FR 42738 (September 12, 2017).
33 The notification requirements found at 40 CFR
52.1396(o) and 40 CFR 52.1396(p) for CFAC and
M2Green Redevelopment LLC, respectively, are no
longer applicable beyond July 31, 2018. Thus, the
SIP submittal does not contain requirements for
these sources. Regional haze requirements for these
sources may be addressed in future regional haze
planning periods, if applicable.
34 See Docket EPA–R08–OAR –2011–0851 for
EPA’s 2012 regional haze FIP for the analysis.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
31 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
determinations for SO2 and NOX of the
Board Order for cement kilns are
identical to the requirements found in
the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(e)(3) and 40
CFR 52.1396(e)(4). With respect to
compliance determinations for PM for
cement kilns currently found in the FIP
at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(2), Montana is
relying on requirements contained in
the Board Order for cement kilns
(Section 5(2)—Compliance
determinations for particulate matter) as
well as compliance-determination
provisions in an applicable National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories
(NESHAPS). Specifically, the state is
relying on NESHAPS LLL for portland
cement plants,35 contained in
Montana’s SIP through the reference of
40 CFR part 63 in ARM 17.8.106, to
satisfy applicable requirements related
to clinker production determinations,
required number of tests per run, and
applicable Compliance Assurance
Monitoring (CAM) plans. Together,
these requirements contain the
applicable PM compliance
determinations requirements for cement
kilns. Because Montana’s compliancedetermination provisions are the same
as the corresponding provisions in
EPA’s FIP, which were based on the
analysis and rationale that meet the
applicable regional haze requirements
under the CAA at 40 CFR 51.308(e), we
propose to approve this section as
meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements.
The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements found in the Board Order
for cement kilns (Section 6—
Recordkeeping, Section 7—Reporting)
are identical to the requirements found
in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(h) and 40
CFR 52.1396(i), respectively, for cement
kilns. Thus, because our FIP analysis
and requirements are consistent with
the regional haze requirements under 40
CFR 51.308(e) and Section 6—
Recordkeeping and Section 7—
Reporting are identical to our FIP, we
propose to approve these sections of the
SIP revision as meeting the applicable
regional haze requirements. Likewise,
the notification and equipment
operation requirements contained in the
Board Order for cement kilns (Section
8—Notifications, Section 9—Equipment
Operation) are identical to the
requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR
52.1396(l) and 40 CFR 52.1396(m),
respectively. Because our FIP analysis
and requirements are consistent with
the regional haze requirements under 40
CFR 51.308(e) and Section 8—
Notifications and Section 9—Equipment
35 40
PO 00000
CFR 63.1340–63.1359.
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55335
Operation of the Board Order for cement
kilns are identical to our FIP, we also
propose to approve these sections of the
SIP revision as meeting the applicable
regional haze requirements.36
Finally, for the purposes of
determining whether a source is in
compliance with the requirements of the
Board Order for cement kilns, Montana
will rely on ARM 17.8.132—Credible
Evidence 37 which does not preclude the
use, including the exclusive use, of any
credible evidence or information,
relevant to whether a source would have
been in compliance if the appropriate
compliance test procedures or methods
had been performed. We propose to find
this language equivalent to the language
found in the FIP as well as meeting the
applicable requirements at 40 CFR
51.212(c).
In summary, we propose to find that
the NOX, SO2, and PM BART regional
haze requirements pertaining to cement
kilns for the first planning period found
in the SIP revision are sufficient to
replace the FIP provisions for these
sources. We therefore propose to
approve the Board Order for cement
kilns in its entirety.
B. Requirements for Electrical
Generating Units
Montana’s regional haze requirements
for EGUs are contained in Exhibit A of
the Talen Montana, LLC’s Colstrip
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2;
and JE Corette Steam Electric Station
Board Order dated October 18, 2019
(Board Order for EGUs).
The Corette facility shut down
operations and surrendered its permits
in 2015 and is now dismantled, thus
making its future operation
impossible.38 39 Therefore, we propose
to find that Corette no longer has BART
obligations that need to be addressed
within Montana’s regional haze SIP.
Additionally, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 are
required, per consent decree, to
permanently cease operations by July 1,
2022, and the State is requesting EPA to
incorporate the shutdown commitment
in its SIP.40 41 On January 14, 2020,
Talen Montana, LLC informed the
Montana Department of Environmental
Quality that Colstrip Units 1 and 2
permanently ceased operation on
36 40
CFR 52.1396(j)–(k) are reserved.
17.8.132 Credible Evidence was last
updated in Montana’s SIP on November 20, 2002.
(67 FR 70009)
38 Board Order for EGUs, Sections 1 and 3.
39 81 FR 11727 (March 7, 2016); 81 FR 28718
(May 10, 2016).
40 The permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1
and 2 is required by Consent Decree in Case 1: 13–
cv–00032–DLC–JCL filed September 6, 2016.
41 Board Order for EGUs, Section 3.
37 ARM
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55336
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
January 2, 2020, and January 3, 2020,
respectively.42 However, given that the
enforceable shutdown date is still in the
future, we are analyzing the Board
Order as though Colstrip Units 1 and 2
were still in operation and will shut
down by July 1, 2022.
The applicability language of the
Board Order for EGUs is identical to the
applicability language of the FIP for
EGUs found at 40 CFR 52.1396(a). EPA’s
FIP determination that Corette and
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 are subject to
BART was consistent with the
requirement to determine which BARTeligible sources may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in any class I area
and are thus subject to BART.43 44
Therefore, because our FIP analysis and
requirements are consistent with the
regional haze requirements under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) and Section 1—
Applicability of the Board Order for
EGUs is identical to our FIP, we propose
to approve Section 1—Applicability of
the Board Order for EGUs as satisfying
the applicable requirements under 40
CFR 51.308(e).45 46 Likewise, except for
the exclusion of the definition for Boiler
Operating Day in the Board Order for
EGUs, the definitions found in Section
2—Definitions of the Board Order for
EGUs are identical to the definitions at
40 CFR 52.1396(b) of the FIP and are
based on the analysis and rationale
stated in the FIP. Because Boiler
Operating Day is used exclusively in a
section of the FIP pertaining to NOX and
SO2 compliance determinations for
EGUs that is no longer applicable due to
the Ninth Circuit vacatur and remand 47
we also propose to approve Section 2—
Definitions of the Board Order for EGUs.
With respect to NOX and SO2
emission limitations and associated
compliance dates for Colstrip Units 1
and 2, the original requirements of the
2012 regional haze FIP at 40 CFR
52.1396(c)(1) and 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(4)
were vacated by the Ninth Circuit as
42 Letter from Talen Montana to MT DEQ, January
14, 2020.
43 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
44 See Docket EPA–R08–OAR –2011–0851 for
EPA’s 2012 regional haze FIP for the analysis.
45 As previously noted in the preamble as well as
in Montana’s Board Order for EGUs, the Corette
facility no longer exists.
46 The Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Units 1
and 2 was previously under the ownership of PPL
Montana, LLC.
47 On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit vacated the NOX and SO2 BART
emission limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and
2. However, the definition for Boiler Operating Day,
used exclusively in the method for compliance
determinations for NOX and SO2 for EGUs in 40
CFR 52.1396(e)(2), remained in the FIP. See
National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA,
788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
previously described. Thus, Montana’s
regional haze SIP revision NOX and SO2
BART determinations for Colstrip Units
1 and 2 are original determinations (i.e.,
BART determinations in the first
instance). As described in Section 3—
Emissions Limitations of the Board
Order for EGUs, Montana determined
NOX and SO2 BART to be an enforceable
and permanent shutdown of Colstrip
Units 1 and 2 no later than July 1,
2022 48 due to the request of the owner/
operator. Accordingly, Montana
included the requirement that Colstrip
Units 1 and 2 cease operation no later
than July 1, 2022, in the facility’s Title
V Operating Permit 49 as well as the
Board Order for EGUs. Although EPA’s
regulations do not require states to
consider a shutdown of an existing unit
as part of their BART analyses, neither
the Regional Haze Rule or BART
Guidelines prohibit states or EPA from
considering a shutdown as part of a
BART determination if the strategy is
proposed by the source; a state can then
include such an option in their SIP as
a strategy for reducing emissions.
Because the enforceable shutdown of
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 eliminates all
emissions by July 1, 2022, which is
within the statutory timeframe for
compliance with BART (‘‘as
expeditiously as practicable but in no
event later than five years after the date
of approval of a plan revision under this
section’’ 50), the State may treat the
shutdowns as the most stringent control
option available. We propose to find
that the enforceable shutdown date
submitted in section 3(1)(b) of the Board
Order for EGUs satisfies Montana’s
obligation to require SO2 and NOX
BART for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 per 40
CFR 51.308(e).
In contrast to the SO2 and NOX BART
emission limits for Colstrip Units 1 and
2, which the Ninth Circuit vacated, the
PM limits for these units have remained
in effect. Therefore, the State’s Board
Order for EGUs incorporates the FIP’s
PM limits for inclusion in the SIP. With
respect to the PM emission limitation
and associated compliance date for
Colstrip Units 1 and 2, the requirements
found in the Board Order for EGUs in
Section 3—Emissions Limitations, and
Section 4—Compliance Dates are
identical to the requirements found in
48 The permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1
and 2 is required by Consent Decree in Case 1: 13–
cv–00032–DLC–JCL filed September 6, 2016. The
Consent Decree is in effect until January 1, 2023,
unless the two parties invoke the Dispute
Resolution provisions provided in Section VII of the
Consent Decree.
49 Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Final Operating Permit #OP0513–17, February 4,
2021.
50 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(4).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(1) and 40
CFR 52.1396(c)(4), respectively. EPA’s
FIP emission limits and compliance
dates are based on the analysis and that
meet the applicable regional haze
requirements under the CAA at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii) and the BART
Guidelines. Therefore, we propose to
approve Section 3—Emissions
Limitations, and Section 4—Compliance
Dates of the Board Order for EGUs as
meeting the applicable PM BART
requirements for Colstrip Units 1 and 2.
In addition to the FIP-equivalent PM
emission limitation and associated
compliance date that we propose to
incorporate into Montana’s SIP, the
requirement that Colstrip Units 1 and 2
cease operation no later than July 1,
2022, is also applicable.
Therefore, and for the reasons stated
previously, we are proposing to approve
the PM, NOX, and SO2 emissions
limitations and associated compliance
deadlines for EGUs contained in Section
3—Emissions Limitations and Section
4—Compliance Dates of the Board
Order for EGUs of the State’s SIP
revision in its entirety.
With respect to compliance
determinations for PM for EGUs found
in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1),
Montana is relying on identical
requirements found in the Board Order
for EGUs (Section 5—Compliance
Determinations) as well as compliance
determination provisions based in an
applicable NESHAP. Specifically, the
state is relying on NESHAP UUUUU for
coal and oil-fired EGUs 51 contained in
Montana’s SIP through the reference of
40 CFR part 63 in ARM 17.8.106 to
satisfy applicable requirements related
to the required number of tests per run
and applicable CAM plans. Together,
these requirements contain the
applicable PM compliance
determination requirements for EGUs
based on the analysis and rationale
stated in the FIP and meet the
applicable regional haze requirements at
40 CFR 51.308(e); therefore, we propose
to approve Section 5—Compliance
Determinations of the Board Order for
EGUs. We are also proposing to find that
compliance determinations for NOX and
SO2 for EGUs are not necessary, and
therefore not contained in the Board
Order for EGUs, because Montana
determined NOX and SO2 BART to be an
enforceable and permanent shutdown of
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 by July 1, 2022.
The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements found in the Board Order
for EGUs (Section 6—Recordkeeping,
Section 7—Reporting) are identical to
the requirements found in the FIP at 40
51 40
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
CFR 63.9980–63.10042.
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
CFR 52.1396(g) and 40 CFR 52.1396(i).
EPA’s requirements are based on the
analysis and rationale stated in the
FIP 52 and meet the applicable regional
haze requirements under the CAA.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve
Section 6—Recordkeeping and Section
7—Reporting of the Board Order for
EGUs as meeting the applicable regional
haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(e).
There are no SO2 and NOX notification
requirements for EGUs in the Board
Order for EGUs since the SIP revision
relies on unit shutdowns to meet the
requirements of NOX and SO2 BART.53
Lastly, the EGU equipment operation
requirements in Section 8—Equipment
Operation of the Board Order for EGUs
are the same equipment operation
requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR
52.1396(m) for EGUs. Therefore,
because our FIP analysis and
requirements are consistent with the
regional haze requirements and Section
8—Equipment Operation of the Board
Order for EGUs is identical to our FIP,
we also propose to approve Section 8—
Equipment Operation of the Board
Order for EGUs as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(e).54
Finally, for the purposes of
determining whether a source is in
compliance with the requirements of the
Board Order for EGUs, Montana will
rely on ARM 17.8.132—Credible
Evidence which does not preclude the
use, including the exclusive use, of any
credible evidence or information,
relevant to whether a source would have
been in compliance if the appropriate
compliance test procedures or methods
had been performed. We propose to find
this language equivalent to the language
found in the FIP as well as meeting the
applicable requirements at 40 CFR
51.212(c).
In summary, we propose to find that
the NOX, SO2, and PM BART regional
haze requirements pertaining to EGUs
for the first planning period found in
the SIP revision meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA and Regional
Haze Rule. These requirements include
PM BART emission limits for Colstrip
Units 1 and 2 that are identical to the
52 Except for the absence of reporting
requirements for SO2 and NOX because the SIP
relies on unit shutdowns within five years in lieu
of emission limits for compliance with SO2 and
NOX BART.
53 On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit vacated the NOX and SO2 BART
emission limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and
2; however, EPA has not yet removed the FIP NOX
and SO2 reporting and notification requirements
pertaining to both cement kiln and EGUs found at
40 CFR 52.1396(i) and 40 CFR 52.1396(l),
respectively.
54 40 CFR 52.1396(j)–(k) are reserved.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
emission limits in EPA’s FIP as well as
new SO2 and NOX BART determinations
for Colstrip Units 1 and 2. We also
propose to find that the State was not
required to make BART determinations
or include BART emission limits in its
SIP for Corette because the source is no
longer in existence. We therefore
propose to approve the Board Order for
EGUs in its entirety.
C. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
There are 12 Class I Federal areas
affected by sources in Montana. The
Forest Service manages the AnacondaPintler Wilderness Area, Bob Marshall
Wilderness Area, Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness Area, Gates of the
Mountains Wilderness Area, Mission
Mountains Wilderness Area, Scapegoat
Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitteroot
Wilderness Area. The Fish and Wildlife
Service manages the Medicine Lake
Wilderness Area, Red Rocks Lake
Wilderness Area, and UL Bend
Wilderness Area. The National Park
Service manages Glacier National Park
and Yellowstone National Park.
The Regional Haze Rule grants the
FLMs a special role in the review of
regional haze FIPs, as summarized in
section II.E in this preamble. Because
this plan revision includes a proposal to
withdraw parts of our 2012 regional
haze FIP, we consulted with the Forest
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the National Park Service on Thursday,
August 26, 2021.55
IV. EPA’s Proposed Action
A. Montana Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
We are proposing to approve the
following elements of Montana’s
Regional Haze SIP revision as satisfying
the applicable requirements for the first
regional haze planning period:
• In the Matter of an Order Setting
Air Pollutant Emission Limits that the
State of Montana may Submit to the
Federal Environmental Protection
Agency for Revision of the State
Implementation Plan Concerning
Protection of Visibility, Affecting the
Following Facilities: Ash Grove Cement
Company’s Montana City Plant, and
GCC Three Forks, LLC’s Trident Plant.
Board Order Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order. October
18, 2019, Appendix A.
• In the Matter of an Order Setting
Air Pollutant Emission Limits that the
State of Montana may Submit to the
Federal Environmental Protection
Agency for Revision of the State
Implementation Plan Concerning
Protection of Visibility, Affecting the
Following Facilities: Talen Montana,
LLC’s Colstrip Steam Electric Station,
Units 1 and 2, and JE Corette Steam
Electric Station JE Corette Steam
Electric Station. Board Order Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
October 18, 2019, Appendix A.
B. Federal Implementation Plan
Withdrawal
Because we are proposing to find that
Montana’s SIP revision satisfies the
applicable requirements related to the
obligation for states’ regional haze plans
to include BART for the first regional
haze planning period, we are also
proposing to withdraw the
corresponding portions of the 2012
regional haze FIP addressing the NOX,
SO2, and PM BART emission limits and
associated requirements for two cement
kilns and the PM BART emission limits
and associated requirements for the two
EGU facilities contained within our
2012 regional haze FIP at 40 CFR
52.1396. While EPA is proposing to
approve the emission limits, compliance
determination requirements, and other
monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements associated
with BART into Montana’s SIP as
detailed above, other regional haze
requirements for the first
implementation period, including
requirements related to reasonable
progress and analytical requirements
related to BART will remain satisfied by
EPA’s FIP.
C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
Under CAA section 110(l), EPA
cannot approve a plan revision ‘‘if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 7501 of
this title), or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.’’ 56 The
previous sections of this document, our
2012 and 2017 proposed rules, and our
2012 and 2017 final rules explain how
the proposed SIP revision will comply
with applicable regional haze
requirements and general
implementation plan requirements,
such as enforceability.57 Approval of the
proposed SIP revision would transfer
the NOX, SO2, and PM BART emission
limits for the cement kilns and the PM
BART emission limits for the EGUs
along with compliance deadlines,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
56 42
U.S.C. 7410(l).
FR 23988 (April 20, 2012), 77 FR 57864
(September 18, 2012), 82 FR 17948 (April 14, 2017),
82 FR 42738 (September 12, 2017).
57 77
55 We did not receive any formal comments from
the FLM agencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55337
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55338
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
reporting requirements, and other
associated requirements currently found
in EPA’s 2012 FIP 58 into Montana’s
Regional Haze SIP. In addition, the
proposed SIP addresses the NOX and
SO2 BART requirements for Corette and
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 in the first
instance.59 The NOX and SO2 BART
determination for Corette and Colstrip
Units 1 and 2 rely on unit shutdowns,
which is the most stringent approach to
complying with BART since there will
be no NOX or SO2 emissions (or PM
emissions) after the unit shutdowns. As
such, the SIP revision will not interfere
with attainment of the NAAQS,
reasonable further progress, or other
CAA requirements as compared to the
2012 FIP including the vacated portions
on the FIP. Accordingly, we propose to
find that an approval of the proposed
SIP as well as concurrent withdrawal of
certain portions of the FIP, are not
anticipated to interfere with applicable
requirements of the CAA and therefore
CAA section 110(l) does not prohibit
approval of this SIP revision.
V. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Remand
This proposed action also addresses
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit’s remand of the NOX and SO2
emission limits for Colstrip Units 1 and
2 and Corette as well as its remand of
EPA’s response to a public comment
regarding the use of the CALPUFF
visibility model in determining BART
for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 in the 2012
final rule.
Our proposal, if finalized, will
address the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals’ remand of NOX and SO2 BART
for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette
for the first planning period. The unit
shutdowns represent the most stringent
BART determinations and emission
limits since there will be no NOX and
SO2 emissions after the unit shutdowns,
which have occurred or will occur
within the statutory time frame for
implementing BART. With respect to
the court’s finding that we did not
provide a sufficiently reasoned response
to a public comment submitted by PPL
Montana, LLC, stating that the
maximum potential visibility benefit of
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
at Colstrip Units 1 and 2 is below the
range of perceptibility and falls within
the CALPUFF model’s margin of error,
meaning such improvement cannot be
‘‘reasonably . . . anticipated’’ as
required by the Act, our proposal
58 40
CFR 52.1396.
requirements were promulgated under
the 2012 FIP but had been vacated by the Ninth
Circuit in 2015.
59 Those
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
approving Colstrip Units 1 and 2
shutdown as meeting the requirements
of NOX and SO2 BART moots this
comment. We, however, still disagree
with the comment and provide the
following clarifying response:
We do not agree with the commenter’s
assertion that the modeled visibility
improvements from the 2012 regional
haze FIP are not reasonably anticipated
because EPA failed to account for a
‘‘margin of error’’ in the CALPUFF
model. The notion of a calculated
‘‘margin of error’’ or a level at which the
model fails to capture visibility
improvements that may be ‘‘reasonably
anticipated’’ is not part of any modeling
guidance and has no legal or regulatory
basis or applicability. We fundamentally
disagree with the commenter’s argument
that a CALPUFF result within a
purported margin of error cannot show
that a visibility improvement is
‘‘reasonably anticipated’’. The phrase
‘‘reasonably anticipated’’ in CAA
section 169A(g)(2) is ambiguous and
susceptible of interpretation. It is
certainly reasonable to anticipate the
degree of visibility improvement that
results from the correct application (i.e.,
with an appropriate modeling protocol)
of the regulatorily approved modeling
tool, even if that degree of improvement
is within an alleged margin of error. By
contrast, the statutory language of
‘‘reasonably certain’’ clearly does not
require a result that means ‘‘certain to
occur.’’ The commenter’s implied
interpretation of ‘‘reasonably
anticipated,’’ i.e. ‘‘certain to occur,’’
would be contrary to the purposes of the
statute and write the term ‘‘reasonably’’
out of it. One reason is that all models
have an inherent uncertainty. As
discussed in EPA’s modeling guidance,
the formulation and application of air
quality models are accompanied by
several sources of uncertainty.
‘‘Irreducible’’ uncertainty stems from
the ‘‘unknown’’ conditions, which may
not be explicitly accounted for in the
model (e.g., the turbulent velocity field).
Thus, there are likely to be deviations
from the observed concentrations in
individual events due to variations in
the unknown conditions. ‘‘Reducible’’
uncertainties are caused by: (1)
Uncertainties in the ‘‘known’’ input
conditions (e.g., emission characteristics
and meteorological data); (2) errors in
the measured concentrations; and (3)
inadequate model physics and
formulation.’’ 40 CFR part 51, appendix
W, 2.1.1.a.
Thus, according to the currently
promulgated version of appendix W,
there are numerous sources of
uncertainties in dispersion models.
However, the commenter’s implied
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
interpretation of ‘‘reasonably
anticipated’’ cannot be what Congress
intended. This is true even more so in
light of the fact that the BART
provisions were added in the 1977
Amendments. At the time, uncertainties
with modeling were a great concern—
for example, many states used
unsophisticated rollback models for
their attainment plans, resulting in
decisions to control sources that were
not well supported. See, e.g., Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Co. v. EPA, 572
F.2d 1150, 1160–61 (6th Cir. 1978).
Given the context, Congress cannot have
intended ‘‘reasonably anticipated’’ to
mean ‘‘certain to occur.’’ A much more
plausible interpretation of ‘‘reasonably
anticipated’’ is ‘‘can be predicted using
current models.’’
We also note that, viewed properly,
this comment was addressed by the
BART Guidelines themselves. As shown
by the above discussion, the
commenter’s theory is not about the
application of a model to a particular
situation, it is about the interpretation of
the statute itself. When we promulgated
the BART Guidelines, we essentially
interpreted the phrase ‘‘degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated’’ to be the
visibility improvement predicted by
CALPUFF, or another appropriate
dispersion model. See 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, IV.D.5 (‘‘Use CALPUFF, or
other appropriate dispersion model to
determine the visibility improvement
expected at a Class I area from the
potential BART control technology
applied to the source.’’) (emphasis
added).
Finally, the degree of visibility
improvement from emissions controls is
a relative determination. The
determination may be the degree of
visibility improvement of one control
scenario relative to an uncontrolled
baseline, or it may be the degree of
visibility improvement of one control
scenario relative to another control
scenario. CALPUFF is reliable for
determining relative differences
between situations, even when the
difference is small. We recognize that
the difference in visibility improvement
between a BART control case and a
baseline case may in some cases be
small and treat it accordingly in the
evaluation of the BART visibility
improvement factor. This is precisely
what Congress intended in determining
BART: that states (or EPA in a FIP)
consider the degree of visibility
improvement that can reasonably be
anticipated from the BART control
scenarios. That a small visibility
improvement might fall within an
alleged margin of error is a red herring—
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
a small visibility improvement will be
weighed less in the BART
determination, which is perfectly in line
with the statute and Congress’ intent.
This proposal, if finalized, will
wholly resolve the Agency’s obligations
on remand.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to
include regulatory text in an EPA final
rule that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the Montana board orders described in
section IV.A of this preamble. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region
8 Office (please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) because it applies to only 4
facilities in the State of Montana.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), because it revises the
reporting requirements for 4 facilities.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities as no small entities are subject
to the requirements of this rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action merely transfers the regional haze
requirements found in the 2012 regional
haze FIP to a SIP and approve the
State’s permanent closure of two
facilities, thus this action is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 or
205 of UMRA. This action is also not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’, requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ 60 This action does not
have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
However, EPA did send letters to each
of the Montana tribes explaining our
regional haze action and offering
consultation.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
60 65
PO 00000
FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55339
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 establishes
federal executive policy on
environmental justice.61 Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high,
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
In 2012, we determined that our final
action would ‘‘not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increased the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.’’ 62
Because this proposed rule alters the
existing requirements for regional haze
in the State of Montana by including the
enforceable shutdown of two sources
and otherwise only transfers existing
requirements from a FIP to the SIP, our
determination is unchanged from that in
2012. EPA, however, did perform a
screening analysis using the EJScreen
tool 63 to evaluate environmental and
demographic indicators for the areas
impacted by this proposed action. The
results of this assessment are in the
docket for this action. These results
indicate that areas impacted by this
proposed action are not potential areas
of EJ concern and are not candidates for
further EJ review. EPA is providing this
information for public information
purposes, and not as a basis of our
proposed action. We will consider any
input regarding environmental justice
considerations received during the
public comment period.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
61 59
FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
FR 57914 (September 18, 2012).
63 EJSCREEN is an environmental justice mapping
and screening tool that provides the EPA with a
nationally consistent dataset and approach for
combining environmental and demographic
indicators; available at https://www.epa.gov/
ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
62 77
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55340
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart BB—Montana
2. Amend § 52.1370 by revising the
table in paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1370
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
*
State effective
date
Title/subject
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
Notice of final rule
date
*
NFR citation
(1) Cascade County
1985 December 5 Stipulation and 1985 October 20 Permit for Montana Refining
Company. In the matter of the Montana Refining Company, Cascade County;
compliance with ARM 16.8.811, ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide.
12/5/1985
9/7/1990 .................
55 FR 36812.
11/16/1978
1/10/1980 ...............
45 FR 2034.
1/24/1992
9/17/1993
4/14/1994 ...............
3/19/1996 ...............
59 FR 17700.
61 FR 11153.
9/17/1993
3/19/1996 ...............
61 FR 11153.
9/17/1993
3/19/1996 ...............
61 FR 11153.
9/17/1993
3/19/1996 ...............
61 FR 11153.
9/17/1993
3/19/1996 ...............
61 FR 11153.
9/17/1993
3/19/1996 ...............
61 FR 11153.
9/17/1993
3/19/1996 ...............
61 FR 11153.
9/7/1993
3/19/1996 ...............
61 FR 11153.
9/17/1993
3/19/1996 ...............
61 FR 11153.
9/17/1993
3/19/1996 ...............
61 FR 11153.
10/18/2019
[date of publication
of the final rule in
the Federal Register].
[Federal Register
citation of the
final rule].
10/18/2019
[date of publication
of the final rule in
the Federal Register].
[Federal Register
citation of the
final rule].
4/24/1979
1/10/1980 ...............
45 FR 2034.
3/15/1994
1/27/1995 ...............
60 FR 5313.
(2) Deer Lodge County
1978 November 16 Order for Anaconda Copper Smelter. In the Matter of the Petition of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for an Order
adopting a Sulfur Oxides Control Strategy for the Anaconda Copper Smelter at
Anaconda, Montana, and requiring the Anaconda Company to comply with the
Control Strategy.
(3) Flathead County
Air Quality Permit #2667–M, Dated 1/24/92. Plum Creek Manufacturing, Inc ..........
Stipulation—A–1 Paving, In the Matter of Compliance of A–1 Paving, Kalispell,
Montana.
Stipulation—Equity Supply Company, In the Matter of Compliance of Equity Supply Company.
Stipulation—Flathead Road Department #1, In the Matter of Compliance of Flathead Road Department, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation—Flathead Road Department #2, In the Matter of Compliance of Flathead Road Department, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation—Klingler Lumber Company, In the Matter of Compliance of Klinger
Lumber Company, Inc., Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation—McElroy & Wilkens, In the Matter of Compliance of McElroy and
Wilkens, Inc., Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation—Montana Mokko, In the Matter of Compliance of Montana Mokko, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation—Pack and Company, In the Matter of Compliance of Pack and Company, Inc., Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation—Pack Concrete, In the Matter of Compliance of Pack Concrete, Inc.,
Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation—Plum Creek, In the Matter of Compliance of Plum Creek Manufacturing, L.P., Kalispell, Montana.
(4) Gallatin County
GCC Three Forks, LLC’s Trident Plant October 18, 2019 Board Order Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Setting Air Pollutant Emission Limits For
Revision of the State Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of Visibility,
Appendix A.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
(5) Jefferson County
Ash Grove Cement Company’s Montana City Plant October 18, 2019 Board Order
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Setting Air Pollutant Emission
Limits For Revision of the State Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of
Visibility, Appendix A.
(6) Lewis and Clark County
Total Suspended Particulate NAAQS—East Helena, ASARCO Application for Revisions of Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan—Only as it
applies to Total Suspended Particulate.
Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments,
Asarco Stipulation—1994 March 15.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
State effective
date
Title/subject
Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments,
Exhibit A—Asarco Emission Limitations and Conditions, Asarco Incorporated,
East Helena, Montana.
Asarco Board Order—1994 March 18. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana
State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from the Lead Smelter Located at East Helena, Montana, owned
and operated by Asarco Incorporated.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, American
Chemet Stipulation—1995 June 30.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, American
Chemet Board Order—1995 August 4.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Exhibit A—
American Chemet Emissions Limitations and Conditions, American Chemet
Corporation, East Helena, Montana.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco
Stipulation—1996 June 11.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco
Board Order—1996 June 26.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Exhibit A—
Asarco Emission Limitations and Conditions with attachments 1–7, Asarco Lead
Smelter, East Helena, Montana.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco
Stipulation—1998 August 13.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco
Board Order—1998 August 28.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco
Stipulation—2000 July 18.
Lead NAAQS—Board Orders, Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco
Board Order—2000 September 15.
Notice of final rule
date
55341
NFR citation
3/15/1994
1/27/1995 ...............
60 FR 5313.
3/18/1994
1/27/1995 ...............
60 FR 5313.
6/30/1995
6/18/2001 ...............
66 FR 32760.
8/4/1995
6/18/2001 ...............
66 FR 32760.
6/10/2013
3/28/2018 ...............
83 FR 13196.
6/11/1996
6/18/2001 ...............
66 FR 32760.
6/26/1996
6/18/2001 ...............
66 FR 32760.
6/26/1996
6/18/2001 ...............
66 FR 32760.
8/28/1998
6/18/2001 ...............
66 FR 32760.
8/28/1998
6/18/2001 ...............
66 FR 32760.
9/15/2000
6/18/2001 ...............
66 FR 32767.
9/15/2000
6/18/2001 ...............
66 FR 32767.
12/16/1994
9/30/1996 ...............
61 FR 51014.
3/19/1993
8/30/1994 ...............
59 FR 44627.
12/16/1994
9/30/1996 ...............
61 FR 51014.
3/20/1992
1/24/1992
1/18/1994 ...............
1/18/1994 ...............
59 FR 2537.
59 FR 2537.
10/22/1980
10/18/2019
4/26/1985 ...............
[date of publication
of the final rule in
the Federal Register].
50 FR 16475.
[Federal Register
citation of the
final rule].
8/22/1996
12/6/1999 ...............
64 FR 68034.
1/5/1994
3/22/1995 ...............
60 FR 15056.
6/12/1998
5/2/2002 .................
67 FR 22168.
3/17/2000
5/22/2003 ...............
68 FR 27908.
3/17/2000
5/22/2003 ...............
68 FR 27908.
(7) Lincoln County
Board Order—1994 December 16 (Stimson Lumber). In the Matter of Compliance
of Stimson Lumber Company, Libby, Montana.
Air Quality Permit #2627–M Dated 7/25/91. Stimson Lumber Company (formerly
Champion International Corp).
Stipulation—Stimson Lumber. In the Matter of Compliance of Stimson Lumber
Company, Libby, Montana.
(8) Missoula County
Air Quality Permit #2303M, Dated 3/20/92. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation ..............
Air Quality Permit #2589M, Dated 1/23/92. Stone Container Corporation ...............
(9) Rosebud County
1980 October 22 Permit for Western Energy Company ...........................................
Talen Montana, LLC’s Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 October 18,
2019 Board Order Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Setting Air
Pollutant Emission Limits For Revision of the State Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of Visibility, Appendix A.
(10) Silver Bow County
Air Quality Permit #1636–06 dated 8/22/96. Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals
Company.
Air Quality Permit #1749–05 dated 1/5/94. Montana Resources, Inc .......................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
(11) Yellowstone County
Cenex June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of
the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to Control
of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area.
Cenex June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 Revisions) Emission Limitations and
Other Conditions.
Cenex March 17, 2000 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Environmental Quality for Revision of the Montana
State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55342
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules
State effective
date
Title/subject
Conoco June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of
the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to Control
of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area.
Conoco June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission Limitations and Other Conditions ........
Exxon June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the
Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area.
Exxon June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 Revisions). Emission Limitations and
Other Conditions.
Exxon March 17, 2000 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Environmental Quality for Revision of the Montana
State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area.
Montana Power June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the
Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to
Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area.
Montana Power June 12, 1998 Exhibit A, Emission Limitations and Conditions .....
Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
Laurel Area.
Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission Limitations and Other Conditions.
Western Sugar June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the
Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to
Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area.
Western Sugar June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission Limitations and Other Conditions.
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
Laurel Area.
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 revisions) Emission Limitations and Other Conditions.
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership March 17, 2000 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Environmental Quality
for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel Area.
Notice of final rule
date
NFR citation
6/12/1998
5/2/2002 .................
67 FR 22168.
6/12/1998
6/12/1998
5/2/2002 .................
5/2/2002 .................
67 FR 22168.
67 FR 22168.
3/17/2000
5/22/2003 ...............
68 FR 27908.
3/17/2000
5/22/2003 ...............
68 FR 27908.
6/12/1998
5/2/2002 .................
67 FR 22168.
6/12/1998
6/12/1998
5/2/2002 .................
5/2/2002 .................
67 FR 22168.
67 FR 22168.
6/12/1998
5/2/2002 .................
67 FR 22168.
6/12/1998
5/2/2002 .................
67 FR 22168.
6/12/1998
5/2/2002 .................
67 FR 22168.
6/12/1998
5/2/2002 .................
67 FR 22168.
3/17/2000
5/22/2003 ...............
68 FR 27908.
3/17/2000
5/22/2003 ...............
68 FR 27908.
10/18/2019
[date of publication
of the final rule in
the Federal Register].
[Federal Register
citation of the
final rule].
(12) Other
JE Corette Steam Electric Station October 18, 2019 Board Order Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order. Setting Air Pollutant Emission Limits For Revision of the State Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of Visibility, Appendix A.
*
*
§ 52.1396
■
*
*
*
[Removed and Reserved]
3. Remove and reserve § 52.1396.
[FR Doc. 2022–18680 Filed 9–8–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2022–0679, 0680 and
EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–0002; FRL–10160–
01–OLEM]
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal of
proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Sep 08, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
requires that the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United
States. The National Priorities List
(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide the
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining
which sites warrant further
investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to
assess the nature and extent of public
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55331-55342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18680]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0001; FRL-10014-01-R8]
Air Plan Approval; Montana; Revisions to Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan and Partial Withdrawals to Regional Haze Federal
Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Montana on March 25, 2020, addressing regional haze.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision for the first
implementation period of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) regional haze
program that addresses the nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements for two electric generating unit (EGU) facilities, as well
as proposing to withdraw portions of the Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) promulgated by EPA in 2012 (2012 regional haze FIP) addressing
the NOX, SO2 and particulate matter (PM) BART
requirements for two cement kilns and the PM BART requirements for the
same two EGU facilities. This action also addresses the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's June 9, 2015 vacatur and
remand of portions of the FIP. EPA is proposing this action pursuant to
sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 8, 2022.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or
before September 26, 2022, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document. Contact Jaslyn Dobrahner at
[email protected], to request a hearing or to determine if a
hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2021-0001, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. 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. 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://www.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 electronically in
www.regulations.gov. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for
this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket.
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access
to the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6252, email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze
Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Recording
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
F. Clean Air Act 110(l)
G. Regulatory and Legal History of the Montana Regional Haze FIP
III. EPA's Evaluation of Montana's Regional Haze SIP Revisions
[[Page 55332]]
A. Requirements for Cement Kilns
B. Requirements for Electrical Generating Units
C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
A. Montana Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
B. Federal Implementation Plan Withdrawal
C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
V. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Remand
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve two Montana Board of Environment Review
Orders pertaining to regional haze requirements for four facilities \1\
into the state's SIP. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve: (1)
NOX, SO2, and PM BART emission limits along with
associated requirements for the Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City
Plant (Montana City) and GCC Three Forks, LLC's Trident Plant
(Trident); (2) the PM BART emission limits along with associated
requirements for Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric Station,
Units 1 and 2 (Colstrip Units 1 and 2); (3) the determination that
Colstrip Units' 1 and 2 enforceable shutdown date of July 1, 2022,
satisfies the outstanding NOX and SO2 BART
requirements for that facility; and (4) the determination that the
outstanding NOX and SO2 BART requirements for
Corette (as well as the remaining PM BART requirements for Corette in
EPA's FIP) are satisfied because the source is no longer in operation
and has been demolished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City Plant; GCC Three
Forks, LLC's Trident Plant; JE Corette Steam Electric Station; and
Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with our proposed approval of Montana's regional haze
SIP for the PM BART emission limits and other requirements for Colstrip
Units 1 and 2 and Corette along with the NOX,
SO2, and PM BART emission limits and other requirements for
Montana City and Trident, we are also proposing to withdraw those
corresponding portions of the 2012 regional haze FIP found at 40 CFR
52.1396.
In addition, through our proposed approval of the NOX
and SO2 BART determinations for Corette and Colstrip Units 1
and 2, we are addressing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit's June 9, 2015 remand of portions of the 2012 regional haze FIP
in this action, including EPA's response to a public comment regarding
the use of the CALPUFF visibility model in determining BART at Colstrip
Units 1 and 2.
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In CAA section 169A, Congress created a program for protecting
visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas. This section
of the CAA establishes ``as a national goal the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres,
and all international parks that were in existence on August 7,
1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA,
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important
value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory
Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C.
7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, a particular type
of visibility impairment, on July 1, 1999.\3\ The 1999 Regional Haze
Rule revised the existing visibility regulations \4\ to integrate
provisions addressing regional haze and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for
regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309. EPA most
recently revised the Regional Haze Rule on January 10, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) (amending 40 CFR part 51, subpart
P).
\4\ EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084,
80084 (December 2, 1980).
\5\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Under the revised Regional
Haze Rule, the requirements 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e) apply to first
implementation period SIP submissions and 51.308(f) applies to
submissions for the second and subsequent implementation periods. 82
FR 3087; see also 81 FR 26942, 26952 (May 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\6\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to EPA for approval. Once approved, a
SIP is enforceable by EPA and citizens under the CAA; that is, the SIP
is federally enforceable. If a state fails to make a required SIP
submittal, or if we find that a state's required submittal is
incomplete or not approvable, then we must promulgate a FIP within two
years to fill this regulatory gap, unless the state corrects the
deficiency.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a).
\7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs EPA to require states to evaluate
the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled,
older stationary sources to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires state
implementation plans to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the
``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' (BART) as determined by the
states. Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are directed to conduct
source-by-source BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources
that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.\8\ States are
[[Page 55333]]
required to include emission limits and associated requirements (e.g.,
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements) corresponding to
their BART determinations in their SIPs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 40 CFR 51.308(e). BART-eligible sources are those sources
that have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-
impairing air pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7,
1962, but were in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations
fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source categories.
40 CFR 51.301.
EPA designed the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the
Regional Haze Rule (Guidelines) ``to help States and others (1)
identify those sources that must comply with the BART requirement,
and (2) determine the level of control technology that represents
BART for each source.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section I.A.
Section II of the Guidelines describes the four steps to identify
BART sources, and section III explains how to identify BART sources
(i.e., sources that are ``subject to BART'').
\9\ See 40 CFR 51.301 (defining BART as an emission limitation
based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application
of the best system of continuous emission reductions for each
pollutant emitted by an existing stationary facility''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also
have the flexibility under the Regional Haze Rule to adopt alternative
measures, as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable
progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART (i.e., the
alternative must be ``better than BART'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to the BART requirements, the CAA's visibility
protection provisions also require that states' regional haze SIPs
contain a ``long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal. . . .'' \11\ For
the first implementation period of the regional haze program, the
regulatory requirements governing states' long-term strategies are
located at 40 CFR 51.308(d). Under these provisions, the long-term
strategy must address regional haze visibility impairment for each
mandatory Class I area within the state and for each mandatory Class I
area located outside the state that may be affected by emissions from
the state. It must include the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals.\12\ The reasonable progress goals, in turn,
are calculated for each Class I area based on the control measures
states have selected by analyzing the four statutory ``reasonable
progress'' factors, which are ``the costs of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing
source subject to such requirement.'' \13\ Thus, a state considers the
four reasonable progress factors in setting the reasonable progress
goal by virtue of the state having first considered them, and certain
other factors listed in section 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule,
when deciding what controls are necessary for sources and must thus be
included in the long-term strategy. Then, the numerical levels of the
reasonable progress goals are the predicted visibility outcome of
implementing the long-term strategy in addition to ongoing pollution
control programs stemming from other CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B).
\12\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
\13\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike BART determinations, which are required only for the first
regional haze planning period SIPs,\14\ states are required to submit
updates to their long-term strategies, including updated four-factor
reasonable progress analyses and reasonable progress goals, in the form
of SIP revisions on July 31, 2021, and at specific intervals
thereafter.\15\ In addition, each state must periodically submit a
report to EPA at five-year intervals beginning five years after the
submission of the initial regional haze SIP, evaluating the state's
progress towards meeting the reasonable progress goals for each Class I
area within the state.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Under the Regional Haze Rule, SIPs are due for each
regional haze planning period, or implementation period. The terms
``planning period'' and ``implementation period'' are used
interchangeably in this document.
\15\ 40 CFR 51.308(f). The deadline for the 2018 SIP revision
was moved to 2021. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017); see also 40 CFR
51.308(f). Following the 2021 SIP revision deadline, the next SIP
revision is due in 2028. 40 CFR 51.308(f).
\16\ Id. Sec. 51.308(g); Sec. 51.309(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Recording
The CAA requires that SIPs, including regional haze SIPs, contain
elements sufficient to ensure emission limits are practically
enforceable. CAA section 110(a)(2) states that the monitoring, record
keeping, and reporting provisions of states' SIPs must (A) include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable
permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet
the applicable requirements of this chapter; . . . (C) include a
program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in
paragraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of
any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary
to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved,
including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this
subchapter; . . . (F) require, as may be prescribed by the
Administrator--(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of
equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners
or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such
sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of
such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter, which reports shall be
available at reasonable times for public inspection.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A), (C), and (F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 51, subpart K, Source Surveillance,
requires the SIP to provide for monitoring the status of compliance
with the regulations in it, including ``[p]eriodic testing and
inspection of stationary sources,'' \18\ and ``legally enforceable
procedures'' for recordkeeping and reporting.\19\ Furthermore, 40 CFR
part 51, appendix V, Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan
Submissions, states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs contain: ``(g)
Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice
standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to
ensure emission levels''; and ``(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies,
including how compliance will be determined in practice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 40 CFR 51.212(a).
\19\ Id. Sec. 51.211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The Regional Haze Rule requires that a state, or EPA if
promulgating a FIP, consult with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) before
adopting and submitting a required SIP or SIP revision or a required
FIP or FIP revision. Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), a state, or EPA if
promulgating a FIP, must provide an opportunity for consultation no
less than 60 days prior to holding any public hearing or other public
comment opportunity on a SIP or SIP revision, or FIP or FIP revision,
for regional haze. Further, when submitting a SIP or SIP revision, a
state must include a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Likewise, EPA must include a description of how
it addressed any
[[Page 55334]]
comments provided by the FLMs when considering a FIP or FIP
revision.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Clean Air Act 110(l)
Under CAA section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a plan revision ``if
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501
of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.''
\21\ CAA section 110(l) applies to all requirements of the CAA and to
all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria
pollutants. EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that are in effect, including
those for which SIP submissions have not been made.\22\ However, the
level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l) demonstration will
vary depending on the nature and circumstances of the revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Note that ``reasonable further
progress'' as used in CAA section 110(l) is a reference to that term
as defined in section 301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such
means reductions required to attain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) set for criteria pollutants under CAA section 109.
This term as used in section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a))
is not synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as that term is used
in the regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that
EPA cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with regional haze
requirements (including reasonable progress requirements) insofar as
they are ``other applicable requirement[s]'' of the CAA.
\22\ In general, a section 110(l) demonstration should address
all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations would
change because of a plan revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Regulatory and Legal History of the Montana Regional Haze FIP
On September 18, 2012, EPA promulgated a FIP that included
NOX, SO2, and PM BART emission limits for three
units at two power plants and two cement kilns, as well as an emission
limit for a natural gas compressor station to satisfy the reasonable
progress requirements.\23\ EPA promulgated a FIP in this instance
because Montana did not submit a regional haze SIP as required under
section 110 of the CAA.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 77 FR 57864 (September 18, 2012).
\24\ Letter from Richard H. Opper, Director Montana Department
of Environmental Quality to Laurel Dygowski, EPA Region 8 Air
Program, June 19, 2006. Based off this letter, EPA made a
determination finding of failure to submit a SIP by Montana. This
triggered a mandatory duty clock to have EPA either promulgate a FIP
or approve a SIP within two years of the EPA finding. See 74 FR 2392
(January 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several parties challenged the portion of the FIP addressing EPA's
NOX and SO2 BART determinations at the power
plants, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette.\25\ On June 9, 2015, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the
portions of the FIP \26\ related to the NOX and
SO2 BART emission limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1
and 2 and remanded EPA's response in the 2012 final rule to a public
comment regarding the use of the CALPUFF visibility model in
determining BART for Colstrip Units 1 and 2.\27\ The BART emission
limits for the two cement kilns, the PM emissions limits for the EGUs,
and the reasonable progress requirements for the compressor station
were not at issue in the petitions filed with the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Several parties petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to review EPA's NOX and SO2 BART
determinations at the power plants, Colstrip and Corette (PPL
Montana, LLC, the National Parks Conservation Association, Montana
Environmental Information Center, and the Sierra Club). National
Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.
2015).
\26\ Id.
\27\ National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d
1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 12, 2017, EPA amended aspects of the remaining 2012
FIP by (1) revising the NOX emission limit for one of the
cement kilns, and (2) correcting errors we made in our original FIP
regarding the reasonable progress determination for the natural gas
compressor station and the instructions for compliance determinations
for PM BART emission limits at the electrical generating units (EGUs)
and cement kilns.\29\ Ultimately, EPA removed the reasonable progress
requirements for the natural gas compressor station from the FIP after
correcting the error that resulted in the source no longer being
subject to reasonable progress requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 82 FR 42738 (September 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA's Evaluation of Montana's Regional Haze SIP Revision
Montana's regional haze SIP revision contains two Montana Board of
Environment Review Orders (Board Orders) pertaining to regional haze
requirements for (1) cement kiln sources, and (2) electrical generating
unit sources. The emission limits and other requirements in these
orders are intended to address the SO2 and NOX
BART requirements for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette that were
previously vacated by the Ninth Circuit and to replace the limits that
currently exist in EPA's FIP with SIP-based limits for PM BART for
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette, and SO2, NOX,
and PM BART requirements for cement kilns. The 2012 regional haze FIP
codified those provisions at 40 CFR 52.1396 Federal implementation plan
for regional haze and contains the following paragraphs: (a)
Applicability, (b) Definitions, (c) Emissions limitations, (d)
Compliance date, (e) Compliance determinations for SO2 and NOX, (f)
Compliance determinations for particulate matter, (g) Recordkeeping for
EGUs, (h) Recordkeeping for cement kilns, (i) Reporting, (j)-(k)
Reserved, (l) Notifications, (m) Equipment operation, (n) Credible
evidence, (o) CFAC notification, (p) M2Green Redevelopment LLC
notification.
To assess whether the SIP revision is consistent with the regional
haze requirements of the CAA, we evaluated the revisions against the
regional haze requirements under the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule.
For those provisions that are proposed to replace the FIP provisions,
we also compared those components of the Board Orders with the
corresponding provisions in the FIP as well as the regional haze
requirements under the CAA and EPA's regulations.
As noted previously, Montana's 2020 regional haze SIP revision
contains enforceable emission limitations and other enforceable
requirements intended to replace the FIP-based enforceable requirements
in the Code of Federal Regulations. It does not, however, contain the
technical analyses and other demonstrations and information required to
support BART determinations pursuant to 50 CFR 51.308(e). Thus, if this
rulemaking is finalized as proposed, the State's Board Orders will
replace the enforceable emission limits and associated requirements in
EPA's FIP with SIP-based requirements. However, other regional haze
requirements, including analytical requirements associated with both
BART and reasonable progress, will remain satisfied by EPA's previously
promulgated FIP.
A. Requirements for Cement Kilns
Montana's regional haze requirements for cement kilns are contained
in Exhibit A of the Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City Plant, and
GCC Three Forks, LLC's Trident Plant Board Order Plant dated October
18, 2019 (Board Order for cement kilns).
The applicability language of the Board Order for cement kilns is
identical to the applicability language of the FIP for cement kilns
found at 40 CFR 52.1396(a). EPA's FIP determination that Ash Grove--
Montana City Plant and GCC Three Forks--Trident Plant are subject to
BART was consistent with the
[[Page 55335]]
requirement to determine which BART-eligible sources may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in any
class I area and are thus subject to BART.30 31 Therefore,
because our FIP analysis and requirements are consistent with the
applicable regional haze requirements and because Section 1--
Applicability of the Board Order for cement kilns is identical to our
FIP, we propose to approve Section 1--Applicability of the Board Order
for cement kilns as satisfying the applicable requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(e).32 33 Likewise, the definitions found at 40 CFR
52.1396(b) in the FIP applicable to cement kilns are identical to the
definitions in Section 2--Definitions Board Order for cement kilns in
the FIP. Thus, we also propose to approve Section 2--Definitions of the
Board Order for cement kilns as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
\31\ See Docket EPA-R08-OAR -2011-0851 for EPA's 2012 regional
haze FIP for the analysis.
\32\ The Trident cement kiln was previously under the ownership
of Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc. when the FIP was last
amended. See 82 FR 42738 (September 12, 2017).
\33\ The notification requirements found at 40 CFR 52.1396(o)
and 40 CFR 52.1396(p) for CFAC and M2Green Redevelopment LLC,
respectively, are no longer applicable beyond July 31, 2018. Thus,
the SIP submittal does not contain requirements for these sources.
Regional haze requirements for these sources may be addressed in
future regional haze planning periods, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BART determinations and associated compliance dates contained
in the 2012 regional haze FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(2) and 40 CFR
52.1396(c)(4) were made pursuant to a five-factor analysis consistent
with the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and Appendix Y
(BART Guidelines).\34\ The PM, NOX, and SO2
emission limitations and associated compliance dates for cement kilns
in Section 3--Emissions Limitations, and Section 4--Compliance Dates of
the Board Order for cement kilns are identical to the requirements
found in the FIP. Therefore, because our FIP analysis and requirements
are consistent with the regional haze requirements under the CAA and
the emission limits and compliance dates in Section 3--Emissions
Limitations and Section 4--Compliance Dates of the Board Order for
cement kilns are identical to our FIP, we propose to approve these
portions of the state's SIP revision as meeting the applicable regional
haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Docket EPA-R08-OAR -2011-0851 for EPA's 2012 regional
haze FIP for the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the compliance determinations for NOX
and SO2 for cement kilns, the requirements in Section 5(1)--
Compliance determinations for SO2 and NOX of the Board Order for cement
kilns are identical to the requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR
52.1396(e)(3) and 40 CFR 52.1396(e)(4). With respect to compliance
determinations for PM for cement kilns currently found in the FIP at 40
CFR 52.1396(f)(2), Montana is relying on requirements contained in the
Board Order for cement kilns (Section 5(2)--Compliance determinations
for particulate matter) as well as compliance-determination provisions
in an applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories (NESHAPS). Specifically, the state is
relying on NESHAPS LLL for portland cement plants,\35\ contained in
Montana's SIP through the reference of 40 CFR part 63 in ARM 17.8.106,
to satisfy applicable requirements related to clinker production
determinations, required number of tests per run, and applicable
Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) plans. Together, these
requirements contain the applicable PM compliance determinations
requirements for cement kilns. Because Montana's compliance-
determination provisions are the same as the corresponding provisions
in EPA's FIP, which were based on the analysis and rationale that meet
the applicable regional haze requirements under the CAA at 40 CFR
51.308(e), we propose to approve this section as meeting the applicable
regional haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 40 CFR 63.1340-63.1359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements found in the Board
Order for cement kilns (Section 6--Recordkeeping, Section 7--Reporting)
are identical to the requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(h)
and 40 CFR 52.1396(i), respectively, for cement kilns. Thus, because
our FIP analysis and requirements are consistent with the regional haze
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e) and Section 6--Recordkeeping and
Section 7--Reporting are identical to our FIP, we propose to approve
these sections of the SIP revision as meeting the applicable regional
haze requirements. Likewise, the notification and equipment operation
requirements contained in the Board Order for cement kilns (Section 8--
Notifications, Section 9--Equipment Operation) are identical to the
requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(l) and 40 CFR
52.1396(m), respectively. Because our FIP analysis and requirements are
consistent with the regional haze requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e)
and Section 8--Notifications and Section 9--Equipment Operation of the
Board Order for cement kilns are identical to our FIP, we also propose
to approve these sections of the SIP revision as meeting the applicable
regional haze requirements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 40 CFR 52.1396(j)-(k) are reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for the purposes of determining whether a source is in
compliance with the requirements of the Board Order for cement kilns,
Montana will rely on ARM 17.8.132--Credible Evidence 37
which does not preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any
credible evidence or information, relevant to whether a source would
have been in compliance if the appropriate compliance test procedures
or methods had been performed. We propose to find this language
equivalent to the language found in the FIP as well as meeting the
applicable requirements at 40 CFR 51.212(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ARM 17.8.132 Credible Evidence was last updated in
Montana's SIP on November 20, 2002. (67 FR 70009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we propose to find that the NOX,
SO2, and PM BART regional haze requirements pertaining to
cement kilns for the first planning period found in the SIP revision
are sufficient to replace the FIP provisions for these sources. We
therefore propose to approve the Board Order for cement kilns in its
entirety.
B. Requirements for Electrical Generating Units
Montana's regional haze requirements for EGUs are contained in
Exhibit A of the Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric Station,
Units 1 and 2; and JE Corette Steam Electric Station Board Order dated
October 18, 2019 (Board Order for EGUs).
The Corette facility shut down operations and surrendered its
permits in 2015 and is now dismantled, thus making its future operation
impossible.38 39 Therefore, we propose to find that Corette
no longer has BART obligations that need to be addressed within
Montana's regional haze SIP. Additionally, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 are
required, per consent decree, to permanently cease operations by July
1, 2022, and the State is requesting EPA to incorporate the shutdown
commitment in its SIP.40 41 On January 14, 2020, Talen
Montana, LLC informed the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
that Colstrip Units 1 and 2 permanently ceased operation on
[[Page 55336]]
January 2, 2020, and January 3, 2020, respectively.\42\ However, given
that the enforceable shutdown date is still in the future, we are
analyzing the Board Order as though Colstrip Units 1 and 2 were still
in operation and will shut down by July 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Board Order for EGUs, Sections 1 and 3.
\39\ 81 FR 11727 (March 7, 2016); 81 FR 28718 (May 10, 2016).
\40\ The permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 is
required by Consent Decree in Case 1: 13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL filed
September 6, 2016.
\41\ Board Order for EGUs, Section 3.
\42\ Letter from Talen Montana to MT DEQ, January 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The applicability language of the Board Order for EGUs is identical
to the applicability language of the FIP for EGUs found at 40 CFR
52.1396(a). EPA's FIP determination that Corette and Colstrip Units 1
and 2 are subject to BART was consistent with the requirement to
determine which BART-eligible sources may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in any class I area
and are thus subject to BART.43 44 Therefore, because our
FIP analysis and requirements are consistent with the regional haze
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) and Section 1--Applicability
of the Board Order for EGUs is identical to our FIP, we propose to
approve Section 1--Applicability of the Board Order for EGUs as
satisfying the applicable requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(e).45 46 Likewise, except for the exclusion of the
definition for Boiler Operating Day in the Board Order for EGUs, the
definitions found in Section 2--Definitions of the Board Order for EGUs
are identical to the definitions at 40 CFR 52.1396(b) of the FIP and
are based on the analysis and rationale stated in the FIP. Because
Boiler Operating Day is used exclusively in a section of the FIP
pertaining to NOX and SO2 compliance
determinations for EGUs that is no longer applicable due to the Ninth
Circuit vacatur and remand \47\ we also propose to approve Section 2--
Definitions of the Board Order for EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
\44\ See Docket EPA-R08-OAR -2011-0851 for EPA's 2012 regional
haze FIP for the analysis.
\45\ As previously noted in the preamble as well as in Montana's
Board Order for EGUs, the Corette facility no longer exists.
\46\ The Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 was
previously under the ownership of PPL Montana, LLC.
\47\ On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit vacated the NOX and SO2 BART emission
limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2. However, the
definition for Boiler Operating Day, used exclusively in the method
for compliance determinations for NOX and SO2
for EGUs in 40 CFR 52.1396(e)(2), remained in the FIP. See National
Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to NOX and SO2 emission
limitations and associated compliance dates for Colstrip Units 1 and 2,
the original requirements of the 2012 regional haze FIP at 40 CFR
52.1396(c)(1) and 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(4) were vacated by the Ninth
Circuit as previously described. Thus, Montana's regional haze SIP
revision NOX and SO2 BART determinations for
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 are original determinations (i.e., BART
determinations in the first instance). As described in Section 3--
Emissions Limitations of the Board Order for EGUs, Montana determined
NOX and SO2 BART to be an enforceable and
permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 no later than July 1, 2022
\48\ due to the request of the owner/operator. Accordingly, Montana
included the requirement that Colstrip Units 1 and 2 cease operation no
later than July 1, 2022, in the facility's Title V Operating Permit
\49\ as well as the Board Order for EGUs. Although EPA's regulations do
not require states to consider a shutdown of an existing unit as part
of their BART analyses, neither the Regional Haze Rule or BART
Guidelines prohibit states or EPA from considering a shutdown as part
of a BART determination if the strategy is proposed by the source; a
state can then include such an option in their SIP as a strategy for
reducing emissions. Because the enforceable shutdown of Colstrip Units
1 and 2 eliminates all emissions by July 1, 2022, which is within the
statutory timeframe for compliance with BART (``as expeditiously as
practicable but in no event later than five years after the date of
approval of a plan revision under this section'' \50\), the State may
treat the shutdowns as the most stringent control option available. We
propose to find that the enforceable shutdown date submitted in section
3(1)(b) of the Board Order for EGUs satisfies Montana's obligation to
require SO2 and NOX BART for Colstrip Units 1 and
2 per 40 CFR 51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 is
required by Consent Decree in Case 1: 13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL filed
September 6, 2016. The Consent Decree is in effect until January 1,
2023, unless the two parties invoke the Dispute Resolution
provisions provided in Section VII of the Consent Decree.
\49\ Montana Department of Environmental Quality Final Operating
Permit #OP0513-17, February 4, 2021.
\50\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to the SO2 and NOX BART emission
limits for Colstrip Units 1 and 2, which the Ninth Circuit vacated, the
PM limits for these units have remained in effect. Therefore, the
State's Board Order for EGUs incorporates the FIP's PM limits for
inclusion in the SIP. With respect to the PM emission limitation and
associated compliance date for Colstrip Units 1 and 2, the requirements
found in the Board Order for EGUs in Section 3--Emissions Limitations,
and Section 4--Compliance Dates are identical to the requirements found
in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(1) and 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(4),
respectively. EPA's FIP emission limits and compliance dates are based
on the analysis and that meet the applicable regional haze requirements
under the CAA at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) and the BART Guidelines.
Therefore, we propose to approve Section 3--Emissions Limitations, and
Section 4--Compliance Dates of the Board Order for EGUs as meeting the
applicable PM BART requirements for Colstrip Units 1 and 2. In addition
to the FIP-equivalent PM emission limitation and associated compliance
date that we propose to incorporate into Montana's SIP, the requirement
that Colstrip Units 1 and 2 cease operation no later than July 1, 2022,
is also applicable.
Therefore, and for the reasons stated previously, we are proposing
to approve the PM, NOX, and SO2 emissions
limitations and associated compliance deadlines for EGUs contained in
Section 3--Emissions Limitations and Section 4--Compliance Dates of the
Board Order for EGUs of the State's SIP revision in its entirety.
With respect to compliance determinations for PM for EGUs found in
the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1), Montana is relying on identical
requirements found in the Board Order for EGUs (Section 5--Compliance
Determinations) as well as compliance determination provisions based in
an applicable NESHAP. Specifically, the state is relying on NESHAP
UUUUU for coal and oil-fired EGUs \51\ contained in Montana's SIP
through the reference of 40 CFR part 63 in ARM 17.8.106 to satisfy
applicable requirements related to the required number of tests per run
and applicable CAM plans. Together, these requirements contain the
applicable PM compliance determination requirements for EGUs based on
the analysis and rationale stated in the FIP and meet the applicable
regional haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(e); therefore, we propose
to approve Section 5--Compliance Determinations of the Board Order for
EGUs. We are also proposing to find that compliance determinations for
NOX and SO2 for EGUs are not necessary, and
therefore not contained in the Board Order for EGUs, because Montana
determined NOX and SO2 BART to be an enforceable
and permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 by July 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 40 CFR 63.9980-63.10042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements found in the Board
Order for EGUs (Section 6--Recordkeeping, Section 7--Reporting) are
identical to the requirements found in the FIP at 40
[[Page 55337]]
CFR 52.1396(g) and 40 CFR 52.1396(i). EPA's requirements are based on
the analysis and rationale stated in the FIP \52\ and meet the
applicable regional haze requirements under the CAA. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve Section 6--Recordkeeping and Section 7--Reporting
of the Board Order for EGUs as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(e). There are no SO2 and
NOX notification requirements for EGUs in the Board Order
for EGUs since the SIP revision relies on unit shutdowns to meet the
requirements of NOX and SO2 BART.\53\ Lastly, the
EGU equipment operation requirements in Section 8--Equipment Operation
of the Board Order for EGUs are the same equipment operation
requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(m) for EGUs. Therefore,
because our FIP analysis and requirements are consistent with the
regional haze requirements and Section 8--Equipment Operation of the
Board Order for EGUs is identical to our FIP, we also propose to
approve Section 8--Equipment Operation of the Board Order for EGUs as
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(e).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Except for the absence of reporting requirements for
SO2 and NOX because the SIP relies on unit
shutdowns within five years in lieu of emission limits for
compliance with SO2 and NOX BART.
\53\ On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit vacated the NOX and SO2 BART emission
limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2; however, EPA has not
yet removed the FIP NOX and SO2 reporting and
notification requirements pertaining to both cement kiln and EGUs
found at 40 CFR 52.1396(i) and 40 CFR 52.1396(l), respectively.
\54\ 40 CFR 52.1396(j)-(k) are reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for the purposes of determining whether a source is in
compliance with the requirements of the Board Order for EGUs, Montana
will rely on ARM 17.8.132--Credible Evidence which does not preclude
the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
if the appropriate compliance test procedures or methods had been
performed. We propose to find this language equivalent to the language
found in the FIP as well as meeting the applicable requirements at 40
CFR 51.212(c).
In summary, we propose to find that the NOX,
SO2, and PM BART regional haze requirements pertaining to
EGUs for the first planning period found in the SIP revision meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule. These
requirements include PM BART emission limits for Colstrip Units 1 and 2
that are identical to the emission limits in EPA's FIP as well as new
SO2 and NOX BART determinations for Colstrip
Units 1 and 2. We also propose to find that the State was not required
to make BART determinations or include BART emission limits in its SIP
for Corette because the source is no longer in existence. We therefore
propose to approve the Board Order for EGUs in its entirety.
C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
There are 12 Class I Federal areas affected by sources in Montana.
The Forest Service manages the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area, Bob
Marshall Wilderness Area, Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area, Gates of
the Mountains Wilderness Area, Mission Mountains Wilderness Area,
Scapegoat Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness Area. The
Fish and Wildlife Service manages the Medicine Lake Wilderness Area,
Red Rocks Lake Wilderness Area, and UL Bend Wilderness Area. The
National Park Service manages Glacier National Park and Yellowstone
National Park.
The Regional Haze Rule grants the FLMs a special role in the review
of regional haze FIPs, as summarized in section II.E in this preamble.
Because this plan revision includes a proposal to withdraw parts of our
2012 regional haze FIP, we consulted with the Forest Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service on Thursday, August 26,
2021.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ We did not receive any formal comments from the FLM
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
A. Montana Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
We are proposing to approve the following elements of Montana's
Regional Haze SIP revision as satisfying the applicable requirements
for the first regional haze planning period:
In the Matter of an Order Setting Air Pollutant Emission
Limits that the State of Montana may Submit to the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency for Revision of the State
Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of Visibility, Affecting the
Following Facilities: Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City Plant,
and GCC Three Forks, LLC's Trident Plant. Board Order Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order. October 18, 2019, Appendix A.
In the Matter of an Order Setting Air Pollutant Emission
Limits that the State of Montana may Submit to the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency for Revision of the State
Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of Visibility, Affecting the
Following Facilities: Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2, and JE Corette Steam Electric Station JE
Corette Steam Electric Station. Board Order Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order. October 18, 2019, Appendix A.
B. Federal Implementation Plan Withdrawal
Because we are proposing to find that Montana's SIP revision
satisfies the applicable requirements related to the obligation for
states' regional haze plans to include BART for the first regional haze
planning period, we are also proposing to withdraw the corresponding
portions of the 2012 regional haze FIP addressing the NOX,
SO2, and PM BART emission limits and associated requirements
for two cement kilns and the PM BART emission limits and associated
requirements for the two EGU facilities contained within our 2012
regional haze FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396. While EPA is proposing to approve
the emission limits, compliance determination requirements, and other
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements associated with
BART into Montana's SIP as detailed above, other regional haze
requirements for the first implementation period, including
requirements related to reasonable progress and analytical requirements
related to BART will remain satisfied by EPA's FIP.
C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
Under CAA section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a plan revision ``if
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501
of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.''
\56\ The previous sections of this document, our 2012 and 2017 proposed
rules, and our 2012 and 2017 final rules explain how the proposed SIP
revision will comply with applicable regional haze requirements and
general implementation plan requirements, such as enforceability.\57\
Approval of the proposed SIP revision would transfer the
NOX, SO2, and PM BART emission limits for the
cement kilns and the PM BART emission limits for the EGUs along with
compliance deadlines, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
[[Page 55338]]
reporting requirements, and other associated requirements currently
found in EPA's 2012 FIP \58\ into Montana's Regional Haze SIP. In
addition, the proposed SIP addresses the NOX and
SO2 BART requirements for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2
in the first instance.\59\ The NOX and SO2 BART
determination for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2 rely on unit
shutdowns, which is the most stringent approach to complying with BART
since there will be no NOX or SO2 emissions (or
PM emissions) after the unit shutdowns. As such, the SIP revision will
not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further
progress, or other CAA requirements as compared to the 2012 FIP
including the vacated portions on the FIP. Accordingly, we propose to
find that an approval of the proposed SIP as well as concurrent
withdrawal of certain portions of the FIP, are not anticipated to
interfere with applicable requirements of the CAA and therefore CAA
section 110(l) does not prohibit approval of this SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
\57\ 77 FR 23988 (April 20, 2012), 77 FR 57864 (September 18,
2012), 82 FR 17948 (April 14, 2017), 82 FR 42738 (September 12,
2017).
\58\ 40 CFR 52.1396.
\59\ Those requirements were promulgated under the 2012 FIP but
had been vacated by the Ninth Circuit in 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Remand
This proposed action also addresses the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit's remand of the NOX and SO2
emission limits for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette as well as its
remand of EPA's response to a public comment regarding the use of the
CALPUFF visibility model in determining BART for Colstrip Units 1 and 2
in the 2012 final rule.
Our proposal, if finalized, will address the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals' remand of NOX and SO2 BART for Colstrip
Units 1 and 2 and Corette for the first planning period. The unit
shutdowns represent the most stringent BART determinations and emission
limits since there will be no NOX and SO2
emissions after the unit shutdowns, which have occurred or will occur
within the statutory time frame for implementing BART. With respect to
the court's finding that we did not provide a sufficiently reasoned
response to a public comment submitted by PPL Montana, LLC, stating
that the maximum potential visibility benefit of selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) at Colstrip Units 1 and 2 is below the range
of perceptibility and falls within the CALPUFF model's margin of error,
meaning such improvement cannot be ``reasonably . . . anticipated'' as
required by the Act, our proposal approving Colstrip Units 1 and 2
shutdown as meeting the requirements of NOX and
SO2 BART moots this comment. We, however, still disagree
with the comment and provide the following clarifying response:
We do not agree with the commenter's assertion that the modeled
visibility improvements from the 2012 regional haze FIP are not
reasonably anticipated because EPA failed to account for a ``margin of
error'' in the CALPUFF model. The notion of a calculated ``margin of
error'' or a level at which the model fails to capture visibility
improvements that may be ``reasonably anticipated'' is not part of any
modeling guidance and has no legal or regulatory basis or
applicability. We fundamentally disagree with the commenter's argument
that a CALPUFF result within a purported margin of error cannot show
that a visibility improvement is ``reasonably anticipated''. The phrase
``reasonably anticipated'' in CAA section 169A(g)(2) is ambiguous and
susceptible of interpretation. It is certainly reasonable to anticipate
the degree of visibility improvement that results from the correct
application (i.e., with an appropriate modeling protocol) of the
regulatorily approved modeling tool, even if that degree of improvement
is within an alleged margin of error. By contrast, the statutory
language of ``reasonably certain'' clearly does not require a result
that means ``certain to occur.'' The commenter's implied interpretation
of ``reasonably anticipated,'' i.e. ``certain to occur,'' would be
contrary to the purposes of the statute and write the term
``reasonably'' out of it. One reason is that all models have an
inherent uncertainty. As discussed in EPA's modeling guidance, the
formulation and application of air quality models are accompanied by
several sources of uncertainty. ``Irreducible'' uncertainty stems from
the ``unknown'' conditions, which may not be explicitly accounted for
in the model (e.g., the turbulent velocity field). Thus, there are
likely to be deviations from the observed concentrations in individual
events due to variations in the unknown conditions. ``Reducible''
uncertainties are caused by: (1) Uncertainties in the ``known'' input
conditions (e.g., emission characteristics and meteorological data);
(2) errors in the measured concentrations; and (3) inadequate model
physics and formulation.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, 2.1.1.a.
Thus, according to the currently promulgated version of appendix W,
there are numerous sources of uncertainties in dispersion models.
However, the commenter's implied interpretation of ``reasonably
anticipated'' cannot be what Congress intended. This is true even more
so in light of the fact that the BART provisions were added in the 1977
Amendments. At the time, uncertainties with modeling were a great
concern--for example, many states used unsophisticated rollback models
for their attainment plans, resulting in decisions to control sources
that were not well supported. See, e.g., Cleveland Electric
Illuminating Co. v. EPA, 572 F.2d 1150, 1160-61 (6th Cir. 1978). Given
the context, Congress cannot have intended ``reasonably anticipated''
to mean ``certain to occur.'' A much more plausible interpretation of
``reasonably anticipated'' is ``can be predicted using current
models.''
We also note that, viewed properly, this comment was addressed by
the BART Guidelines themselves. As shown by the above discussion, the
commenter's theory is not about the application of a model to a
particular situation, it is about the interpretation of the statute
itself. When we promulgated the BART Guidelines, we essentially
interpreted the phrase ``degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated'' to be the visibility improvement predicted
by CALPUFF, or another appropriate dispersion model. See 40 CFR part
51, appendix Y, IV.D.5 (``Use CALPUFF, or other appropriate dispersion
model to determine the visibility improvement expected at a Class I
area from the potential BART control technology applied to the
source.'') (emphasis added).
Finally, the degree of visibility improvement from emissions
controls is a relative determination. The determination may be the
degree of visibility improvement of one control scenario relative to an
uncontrolled baseline, or it may be the degree of visibility
improvement of one control scenario relative to another control
scenario. CALPUFF is reliable for determining relative differences
between situations, even when the difference is small. We recognize
that the difference in visibility improvement between a BART control
case and a baseline case may in some cases be small and treat it
accordingly in the evaluation of the BART visibility improvement
factor. This is precisely what Congress intended in determining BART:
that states (or EPA in a FIP) consider the degree of visibility
improvement that can reasonably be anticipated from the BART control
scenarios. That a small visibility improvement might fall within an
alleged margin of error is a red herring--
[[Page 55339]]
a small visibility improvement will be weighed less in the BART
determination, which is perfectly in line with the statute and
Congress' intent.
This proposal, if finalized, will wholly resolve the Agency's
obligations on remand.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an
EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Montana board orders described in section IV.A of this
preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 8
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because it applies to only 4 facilities in the State of
Montana.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), because it revises
the reporting requirements for 4 facilities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities as no small
entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action merely
transfers the regional haze requirements found in the 2012 regional
haze FIP to a SIP and approve the State's permanent closure of two
facilities, thus this action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'', requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.'' \60\ This action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action. However, EPA did send letters to each of the
Montana tribes explaining our regional haze action and offering
consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 65 FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety
risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice.\61\ Its main provision directs federal agencies,
to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high, and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, we determined that our final action would ``not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increased the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.'' \62\ Because this proposed rule alters the
existing requirements for regional haze in the State of Montana by
including the enforceable shutdown of two sources and otherwise only
transfers existing requirements from a FIP to the SIP, our
determination is unchanged from that in 2012. EPA, however, did perform
a screening analysis using the EJScreen tool \63\ to evaluate
environmental and demographic indicators for the areas impacted by this
proposed action. The results of this assessment are in the docket for
this action. These results indicate that areas impacted by this
proposed action are not potential areas of EJ concern and are not
candidates for further EJ review. EPA is providing this information for
public information purposes, and not as a basis of our proposed action.
We will consider any input regarding environmental justice
considerations received during the public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ 77 FR 57914 (September 18, 2012).
\63\ EJSCREEN is an environmental justice mapping and screening
tool that provides the EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators;
available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
[[Page 55340]]
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart BB--Montana
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.1370 by revising the table in paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1370 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Title/subject effective Notice of final rule NFR citation
date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Cascade County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 December 5 Stipulation and 1985 October 20 12/5/1985 9/7/1990.............. 55 FR 36812.
Permit for Montana Refining Company. In the
matter of the Montana Refining Company, Cascade
County; compliance with ARM 16.8.811, ambient
air quality standard for carbon monoxide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Deer Lodge County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978 November 16 Order for Anaconda Copper 11/16/1978 1/10/1980............. 45 FR 2034.
Smelter. In the Matter of the Petition of the
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
for an Order adopting a Sulfur Oxides Control
Strategy for the Anaconda Copper Smelter at
Anaconda, Montana, and requiring the Anaconda
Company to comply with the Control Strategy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Flathead County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Permit #2667-M, Dated 1/24/92. Plum 1/24/1992 4/14/1994............. 59 FR 17700.
Creek Manufacturing, Inc.
Stipulation--A-1 Paving, In the Matter of 9/17/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Compliance of A-1 Paving, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Equity Supply Company, In the 9/17/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Matter of Compliance of Equity Supply Company.
Stipulation--Flathead Road Department #1, In the 9/17/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Matter of Compliance of Flathead Road
Department, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Flathead Road Department #2, In the 9/17/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Matter of Compliance of Flathead Road
Department, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Klingler Lumber Company, In the 9/17/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Matter of Compliance of Klinger Lumber Company,
Inc., Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--McElroy & Wilkens, In the Matter of 9/17/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Compliance of McElroy and Wilkens, Inc.,
Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Montana Mokko, In the Matter of 9/17/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Compliance of Montana Mokko, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Pack and Company, In the Matter of 9/7/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Compliance of Pack and Company, Inc.,
Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Pack Concrete, In the Matter of 9/17/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Compliance of Pack Concrete, Inc., Kalispell,
Montana.
Stipulation--Plum Creek, In the Matter of 9/17/1993 3/19/1996............. 61 FR 11153.
Compliance of Plum Creek Manufacturing, L.P.,
Kalispell, Montana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Gallatin County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC Three Forks, LLC's Trident Plant October 18, 10/18/2019 [date of publication [Federal Register
2019 Board Order Findings of Fact, Conclusions of the final rule in citation of the final
of Law, and Order. Setting Air Pollutant the Federal Register]. rule].
Emission Limits For Revision of the State
Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of
Visibility, Appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Jefferson County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City Plant 10/18/2019 [date of publication [Federal Register
October 18, 2019 Board Order Findings of Fact, of the final rule in citation of the final
Conclusions of Law, and Order. Setting Air the Federal Register]. rule].
Pollutant Emission Limits For Revision of the
State Implementation Plan Concerning Protection
of Visibility, Appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Lewis and Clark County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Suspended Particulate NAAQS--East Helena, 4/24/1979 1/10/1980............. 45 FR 2034.
ASARCO Application for Revisions of Montana
State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan--
Only as it applies to Total Suspended
Particulate.
Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS--Board Orders, 3/15/1994 1/27/1995............. 60 FR 5313.
Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco
Stipulation--1994 March 15.
[[Page 55341]]
Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS--Board Orders, 3/15/1994 1/27/1995............. 60 FR 5313.
Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments,
Exhibit A--Asarco Emission Limitations and
Conditions, Asarco Incorporated, East Helena,
Montana.
Asarco Board Order--1994 March 18. In the Matter 3/18/1994 1/27/1995............. 60 FR 5313.
of the Application of the Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the
Montana State Air Quality Control
Implementation Plan Relating to Control of
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from the Lead Smelter
Located at East Helena, Montana, owned and
operated by Asarco Incorporated.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 6/30/1995 6/18/2001............. 66 FR 32760.
Exhibits, and Attachments, American Chemet
Stipulation--1995 June 30.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 8/4/1995 6/18/2001............. 66 FR 32760.
Exhibits, and Attachments, American Chemet
Board Order--1995 August 4.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 6/10/2013 3/28/2018............. 83 FR 13196.
Exhibits, and Attachments, Exhibit A--American
Chemet Emissions Limitations and Conditions,
American Chemet Corporation, East Helena,
Montana.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 6/11/1996 6/18/2001............. 66 FR 32760.
Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation--
1996 June 11.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 6/26/1996 6/18/2001............. 66 FR 32760.
Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Board Order--
1996 June 26.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 6/26/1996 6/18/2001............. 66 FR 32760.
Exhibits, and Attachments, Exhibit A--Asarco
Emission Limitations and Conditions with
attachments 1-7, Asarco Lead Smelter, East
Helena, Montana.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 8/28/1998 6/18/2001............. 66 FR 32760.
Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation--
1998 August 13.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 8/28/1998 6/18/2001............. 66 FR 32760.
Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Board Order--
1998 August 28.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 9/15/2000 6/18/2001............. 66 FR 32767.
Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation--
2000 July 18.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations, 9/15/2000 6/18/2001............. 66 FR 32767.
Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Board Order--
2000 September 15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Lincoln County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board Order--1994 December 16 (Stimson Lumber). 12/16/1994 9/30/1996............. 61 FR 51014.
In the Matter of Compliance of Stimson Lumber
Company, Libby, Montana.
Air Quality Permit #2627-M Dated 7/25/91. 3/19/1993 8/30/1994............. 59 FR 44627.
Stimson Lumber Company (formerly Champion
International Corp).
Stipulation--Stimson Lumber. In the Matter of 12/16/1994 9/30/1996............. 61 FR 51014.
Compliance of Stimson Lumber Company, Libby,
Montana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Missoula County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Permit #2303M, Dated 3/20/92. 3/20/1992 1/18/1994............. 59 FR 2537.
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation.
Air Quality Permit #2589M, Dated 1/23/92. Stone 1/24/1992 1/18/1994............. 59 FR 2537.
Container Corporation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) Rosebud County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980 October 22 Permit for Western Energy 10/22/1980 4/26/1985............. 50 FR 16475.
Company.
Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric 10/18/2019 [date of publication [Federal Register
Station, Units 1 and 2 October 18, 2019 Board of the final rule in citation of the final
Order Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Federal Register]. rule].
Order. Setting Air Pollutant Emission Limits
For Revision of the State Implementation Plan
Concerning Protection of Visibility, Appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10) Silver Bow County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Permit #1636-06 dated 8/22/96. Rhone- 8/22/1996 12/6/1999............. 64 FR 68034.
Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company.
Air Quality Permit #1749-05 dated 1/5/94. 1/5/1994 3/22/1995............. 60 FR 15056.
Montana Resources, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) Yellowstone County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cenex June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
In the Matter of the Application of the
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality
Control Implementation plan Relating to Control
of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
Laurel Area.
Cenex June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 3/17/2000 5/22/2003............. 68 FR 27908.
Revisions) Emission Limitations and Other
Conditions.
Cenex March 17, 2000 Board Order and 3/17/2000 5/22/2003............. 68 FR 27908.
Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
of the Department of Environmental Quality for
Revision of the Montana State Air Quality
Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control
of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
Laurel Area.
[[Page 55342]]
Conoco June 12, 1998 Board Order and 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
of the Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air
Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to
Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the
Billings/Laurel Area.
Conoco June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
Limitations and Other Conditions.
Exxon June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
In the Matter of the Application of the
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality
Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control
of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
Laurel Area.
Exxon June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 3/17/2000 5/22/2003............. 68 FR 27908.
Revisions). Emission Limitations and Other
Conditions.
Exxon March 17, 2000 Board Order and 3/17/2000 5/22/2003............. 68 FR 27908.
Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
of the Department of Environmental Quality for
Revision of the Montana State Air Quality
Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control
of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
Laurel Area.
Montana Power June 12, 1998 Board Order and 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
of the Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air
Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to
Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the
Billings/Laurel Area.
Montana Power June 12, 1998 Exhibit A, Emission 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
Limitations and Conditions.
Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company June 12, 1998 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of
the Application of the Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences for Revision of the
Montana State Air Quality Control
Implementation plan Relating to Control of
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel
Area.
Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company June 12, 1998 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
Exhibit A. Emission Limitations and Other
Conditions.
Western Sugar June 12, 1998 Board Order and 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
of the Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air
Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to
Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the
Billings/Laurel Area.
Western Sugar June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
Limitations and Other Conditions.
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership June 12, 6/12/1998 5/2/2002.............. 67 FR 22168.
1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter
of the Application of the Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the
Montana State Air Quality Control
Implementation Plan Relating to Control of
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel
Area.
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership June 12, 3/17/2000 5/22/2003............. 68 FR 27908.
1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 revisions)
Emission Limitations and Other Conditions.
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership March 17, 3/17/2000 5/22/2003............. 68 FR 27908.
2000 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter
of the Application of the Department of
Environmental Quality for Revision of the
Montana State Air Quality Control
Implementation Plan Relating to Control of
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel
Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JE Corette Steam Electric Station October 18, 10/18/2019 [date of publication [Federal Register
2019 Board Order Findings of Fact, Conclusions of the final rule in citation of the final
of Law, and Order. Setting Air Pollutant the Federal Register]. rule].
Emission Limits For Revision of the State
Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of
Visibility, Appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 52.1396 [Removed and Reserved]
0
3. Remove and reserve Sec. 52.1396.
[FR Doc. 2022-18680 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
