[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32682-32689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14249]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0047; FRL-9996-02-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Montana;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
Montana's regional haze progress report, submitted by the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) as a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Montana's SIP revision addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's rules that
require states to submit periodic reports describing progress toward
Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing plan addressing
regional haze. Montana's progress report explains the measures that
have been implemented in the regional haze plan due to be in place by
the date of the progress report and that visibility in the majority
mandatory federal Class I areas affected by emissions from Montana
sources is improving, and that a revision of the plan is not needed at
this time. The EPA is proposing approval of Montana's determination
that the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet RPGs for the
first implementation period, which extended through 2018 and requires
no substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0047, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
[[Page 32683]]
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area \1\
(Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR
51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze plan. The first progress report must take the form of a
SIP revision and is due five years after submittal of the initial
regional haze SIP. Montana declined to submit a regional haze SIP
covering all required elements in EPA's Regional Haze Rule, which
resulted in the EPA administration of the majority of Regional Haze
program in the State since the effective date of the Federal
Implementation Program (FIP) of October 18, 2012.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D for list of Class I Federal areas.
\2\ 77 FR 57864 (September 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve Class I areas are located in Montana; Anaconda-Pintlar
Wilderness Area, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness Area, Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area, Glacier
National Park, Medicine Lake Wilderness Area, Mission Mountain
Wilderness Area, Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area, Scapegoat Wilderness
Area, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, U. L. Bend Wilderness Area and
Yellowstone National Park.\3\ Monitoring and data representing
visibility conditions in Montana's twelve Class I areas is based on the
ten Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring sites located across the State.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Montana Progress Report, Figure 1-1, p. 1-1.
\4\ Montana Progress Report, Figure 1-3, p. 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 7, 2017, Montana submitted a progress report, which
detailed the progress made in the first planning period toward
implementation of the Long-Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 2012
regional haze FIP, the visibility improvement measured at Class I areas
affected by emissions from Montana sources, and a determination of the
adequacy of the existing regional haze plan for Montana. The State
provided notice of the Progress Report and a 30-day comment period,
which closed on September 22, 2017. The State received one comment of
support from Montana-Dakota Utilities. The EPA is proposing to approve
Montana's November 7, 2017 SIP submittal on the basis that it satisfies
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
II. EPA's Evaluation of Montana's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section describes the contents of Montana's progress report
and the EPA's analysis of the report, as well as an evaluation of the
determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR
51.308(i).
1. Status of Implementation of Control Measures
In its Progress Report, Montana summarizes the emissions reduction
measures that were relied upon by Montana in the regional haze plan for
ensuring reasonable progress at the Class I areas within the State.
EPA's regional haze FIP established RPGs for 2018 and established a
LTS. 5 6 In its Progress Report, the State describes both
state and federal emission reduction measures including applicable
federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules, Mercury and Air Toxics
Rule), various existing Montana air quality measures (the Montana
Renewable Portfolio Standard, major source closure, cancellation, and
derating) and a description of the State's Smoke Management Plan (SMP).
Montana also reviewed the status of Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) requirements for the BART-eligible sources in the State. The
Montana FIP includes emissions limits for the BART-eligible sources
that were determined to contribute to visibility impairment.\7\ The
three units subject to BART are listed below in Table 1: Sources
Subject to BART in Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 77 FR 23995, April 20, 2012, Table 1--Visibility Impact
Reductions Needed Based on Best and Worst Days Baselines, Natural
Conditions, and Uniform Rate of Progress Goals for Montana Class I
Areas.
\6\ 77 FR 24047, April 20, 2012.
\7\ 82 FR 17951, April 14, 2017. BART emissions limits for
NOX and SO2 were vacated by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 9, 2015 for Colstrip Units 1 and
2 and remanded those portions of the FIP back to EPA for further
proceedings. National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788
F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
[[Page 32684]]
Table 1--Sources Subject to BART in Montana \8\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART-eligible source BART source category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove Cement Company............... Portland Cement Plants.
Oldcastle Cement (formerly Holcim (US), Portland Cement Plants.
Inc.).
Colstrip Steam Electric Station Units 1 Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam
& 2 (formerly PPL Montana, LLC). Electric Plants of more than
250 BTUs per hour Heat Input.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana provides the status of these BART-
eligible sources in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 77 FR 23998, April 20, 2012, Table 8--List of BART-Eligible
Sources in Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colstrip Units 1 and 2: The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit vacated the emissions limits from the FIP for Colstrip
Units 1 and 2 on June 9, 2015.\9\ The court determined the FIP
emissions limits to be arbitrary and capricious and remanded the
decision back to the EPA. The operator and part owner, Talen Energy,
did install emission control technologies, including separated overfire
air controls, prior to the vacatur of the original FIP BART limits.\10\
In its Progress Report, the State explains that nitrogen oxide
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) show a downward
trend at Colstrip Units 1 and 2.\11\ Additionally, Talen Energy and the
other owners of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 entered into an agreement with
the Sierra Club in 2016, wherein it was agreed that the units will
close by July 1, 2022.\12\ The agreement also established
NO2 and SO2 emissions limits. These emissions
limits, listed below, will stay in effect until the units ceases
operations as the Consent Decree is binding.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d
1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
\10\ Montana Progress Report, 2-5.
\11\ Montana Progress Report, p.3-3.
\12\ Montana Progress Report, pp. 2-5. Sierra Club v. Talen
Montana, LLC et al., No. 1:13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL, D. Mon. (2016), Doc.
316-1., p. 6.
\13\ Montana Progress Report, 2-5. Sierra Club v. Talen Montana,
LLC et al., No. 1:13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL, D. Mon. (2016), Doc. 316-1.,
pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 NOX limit--0.45 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average)
Unit 2 NOX limit--0.20 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average)
Units 1 and 2 SO2 limit--0.40 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average)
Oldcastle Cement: In its Progress Report, Montana describes efforts
by Oldcastle Cement to meet the BART emissions limits. While Oldcastle
Cement is meeting both particulate matter (PM) and SO2 BART
limits established by the FIP, a revision to the FIP establishing a new
NOX limit became effective on October 12, 2017.\14\
Additionally, the facility applied additional emission control
technology (i.e., selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)) in order to
meet the new NOX emissions standards and it is meeting those
limits.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 82 FR 42738.
\15\ Montana Progress Report, 2-6. See `Oldcastle Compliance
Reporting' for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove Cement: In its Progress Report, Montana states that Ash
Grove Cement installed various emission control technologies, including
SNCR modifications to kiln burners, and baghouse control technology to
meet the emission limits established for the cement plant.\16\ A
revised SO2 limit for Ash Grove Cement was reached under a
consent decree and the cement plant was required to meet the new
SO2 limit of no more than 2.0 lb/ton of clinker (30-day
rolling average) by April 8, 2015 and an initial NOx limit of no more
than 8.0 lb/ton of clinker (30-day rolling average) 30 days after
September 10, 2014.\17\ Additionally, Montana states in its Progress
Report that Ash Grove Cement is achieving all of its consent decree and
FIP emission limits.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Montana Progress Report, 2-5 to 2-6.
\17\ United States v. Ash Grove Cement Company, No. 2:13-cv-
02299-JTM-DJW, D. Kan. (2013), Doc. 27 as amended by Doc. 28.
\18\ Montana Progress Report, 2-6.
Table 2--Current Status of Montana Sources Subject to BART
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter (PM) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) Sulfur dioxides (SO2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit Status Limit Status Limit Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colstrip Units 1 & 2............ 0.10 lb/mmBtu..... In Compliance..... 0.15 lb/mmBtu..... See footnote \19\. 0.08 lb/mmBtu..... See footnote.\20\
Oldcastle Cement................ 0.77 lb/ton In Compliance..... 6.5 lb/ton clinker See footnote \21\. 1.3 lb/ton clinker In Compliance.
clinker.
Ash Grove Cement................ See footnote \22\. In Compliance..... 8.0 lb/ton clinker In Compliance..... 11.5 lb/ton In Compliance.
clinker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana provides an update on the State's
Smoke Management Plan (SMP).\23\ The State provides its open burning
rules, as are written in the Administrative Rules of Montana and
approved in the SIP, in its Progress Report, which ``considers smoke
management techniques and the visibility impacts of smoke when
developing, issuing and conditioning permits, and when making
dispersion forecast recommendations.'' \24\ The SMP is currently the
only part of the State's regional haze plan that is approved into the
SIP. In its Progress Report, the State provides a description of
coordination between Montana and the adjacent State of Idaho to
coordinate burn activities of large open burners and federal land
managers, including the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management, through participation in the Montana/Idaho Airshed
Group.\25\ Additionally, Montana describes active
[[Page 32685]]
involvement during the fall and winter burn seasons by the State's open
burn coordinator and meteorologist to evaluate burn type, size and
location, and provide close monitoring of the impacts of smoke in the
state.\26\ Finally, the State cites use of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) requirements for burners as a control measure to meet
the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As discussed above, these emissions limits were vacated by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 9, 2015.
However, the State describes emissions trending downward for
NOX and SO2 in its Progress Report given the
application of SOFA emission control technology. Montana Progress
Report, p. 3-2.
\20\ Emissions limits vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 9th Circuit on June 9, 2015.
\21\ A revision to the FIP NOX emission limit became
effective October 12, 2017. In its Progress Report, Montana
describes Oldcastle Cement's plans to install SCNR emission control,
re-commissioning and optimization to meet the new NOX
limit. Montana Progress Report, p. 2-6.
\22\ The process weight of the kiln is used to calculate the
emission limit and varies. Montana Progress Report, p. 2-4.
\23\ Montana Progress Report, p. 2-12.
\24\ Ibid. At this time, the State's Smoke Management Plan is
the only element of the regional haze program as set out in 40 CFR
51.308 that is approved in the SIP.
\25\ Ibid.
\26\ Ibid.
\27\ Montana Progress Report, p. 2-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State's Progress
Report provides documentation of the implementation of measures within
Montana, including the BART-eligible sources in the State subject to
BART.
2. Summary of Emissions Reductions
In its Progress Report, Montana presents information on emissions
reductions achieved across the State from the pollution control
strategies discussed above. The Progress Report includes statewide
SO2, NOX, and PM (fine (PM2.5) and
course (PM10)) emissions data from Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) emissions inventories.\28\ The Progress Report
includes the 2002 WRAP emissions inventory (Plan02d) as baseline, the
2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) as updated data from the
baseline, and 2018 WRAP data (Preliminary Reasonable Progress Inventory
for 2018 (2nd Revision) (PRP18b)) as projected emissions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Montana Progress Report, Tables 3-2 to 3-5, pp. 3-6 to 3-9.
The WRAP's inventories were developed using EPA's National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) and other sources (https://www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx). The NEI is based primarily upon data provided by
state, local, and tribal air agencies (including Montana) for
sources in their jurisdiction and supplemented by data developed by
the EPA.
\29\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).
Table 3--Changes in Montana Total Emissions, Statewide
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (all sources) 2002 (Plan02d) 2014 NEI Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2............................................................. 51,922.70 25,320.91 \30\ -51%
NOX............................................................. 243,141.75 165,673.41 \31\ -32%
PM2.5........................................................... 77,239.46 113,655.55 \32\ 47%
PM10............................................................ 621.276.11 556,810.28 \33\ -10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in Table 3: Changes in Montana Total Emissions,
Statewide above, the emissions data shows that there were decreases in
emissions of SO2 and NOX over the time period
(i.e., 2002 and 2014) of the two emissions inventories listed (Plan02d
and 2014 NEI). As explained in Montana's Key Findings, ``[a]nalysis
shows that, in Montana, the haziest days are primarily caused by
wildfire activity both in and outside the state,'' 34 35
(i.e., Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Canada).\36\ The Report further
explains that ``the methodology for calculating fire emissions has been
updated over the years to better reflect actual emissions; therefore,''
when compared to the methodology used for the 2002 baseline emission
inventory, ``the 2014 NEI data is likely more reflective of actual
annual emissions.'' \37\ The Progress Report explains that ``impacts
from updated emissions estimation methods are most apparent in
particulate matter emissions from fire, particularly prescribed fire.''
\38\ Based on 2002 (Plan02d) and 2014 (NEI) emissions data, total fine
PM emissions have increased from the baseline year of 2002 to 2014 by
47 percent.\39\ In its Progress Report, the State provides coarse PM
emissions data from 2002 (Plan02d) and 2014 (NEI), which shows that
while overall coarse PM emissions decreased 10% from 2002 to 2014,
emissions from anthropogenic fire significantly increased between 2002
and 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-7.
\31\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-6.
\32\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-9.
\33\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-8.
\34\ Montana Progress Report, p. i.
\35\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-8.
\36\ Ibid.
\37\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-5.
\38\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-8. Many changes in emissions
inventory methodology occurred between 2002 (Plan02d) and the most
current actual emissions inventory data presented by the State
(2014NEI), which may have resulted in an increase in fine
particulate matter in the above comparison rather than an increase
in actual emissions of this pollutant.
\39\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-9. The Report explains that
the Montana FIP had anticipated a smaller growth in the emissions of
fine particulates from 2002 to 2018, which it suggests could be
partially explained by the different methodologies used in the NEI
and a large percentage of emissions coming from both anthropogenic
and natural fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions achieved because the State identifies emissions reductions
for SO2 and NOX. Additionally, Montana presents
sufficient emission inventory information and discussion regarding
emissions trends for coarse and fine PM during the 2002 to 2014 time
period.
3. Visibility Conditions and Changes
In its Progress Report, Montana provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. The Progress
Report addressed current visibility conditions and the difference
between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, expressed in terms of 5-year rolling averages of these
annual values, with values for the most impaired (20 percent worst
days), least impaired and/or clearest days (20 percent best days). The
period for calculating current visibility conditions is the most recent
5-year period preceding the required date of the progress report for
which data were available as of a date 6 months preceding the required
date of the progress report.
Montana's Progress Report provides figures with visibility
monitoring data for the twelve Class I areas within the State and two
Class I areas outside of the state shown to be impacted by Montana
sources.\40\ Montana reported current visibility conditions for the
2011 to 2015 5-year time period and used the 2000 to 2004 baseline
period for its examination of visibility conditions and changes in the
State.\41\ In its Progress Report, Montana presents visibility data, in
deciviews, and representative IMPROVE monitors for Class I areas
without an IMPROVE monitor, as there are not IMPROVE monitors in each
of
[[Page 32686]]
Montana's twelve Class I areas. Table 4: Montana's Class I Areas and
IMPROVE Sites, below, shows the IMPROVE monitors used for each Class I
area.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-1.
\41\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000 to 2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730
(July 1, 1999).
\42\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-2.
Table 4--Montana's Class I Areas and IMPROVE Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area IMPROVE site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area................ Sula Peak (SULA1).
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area.................... Monture, MT (MONT1).
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area............... Cabinet Mountains (CABI1).
Gates of the Mtn Wilderness Area................ Gates of the Mtn (GAM01).
Glacier National Park........................... Glacier (GLAC1).
Medicine Lake Wilderness Area................... Medicine Lake (MELA1).
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area................ Monture, MT (MONT1).
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area.................. Yellowstone (YELL2).
Scapegoat Wilderness Area....................... Monture, MT (MONT1).
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area............... Sula Peak (SULA1).
UL Bend Wilderness Area......................... U.L. Bend (ULBE1).
Yellowstone National Park....................... Yellowstone (YELL2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5: Visibility Progress in Montana's Class I Areas, below,
shows the difference between the current visibility conditions
(represented by 2011-2015 data), baseline visibility conditions
(represented by 2000-2004 data), and the 2018 RPGs. In addition, EPA
has supplemented the data provided by the State by including data for
the baseline period, current period, and difference in deciviews using
the revised visibility tracking metric described in EPA's December 2018
guidance document.\43\ Although this revised visibility tracking metric
is applicable to the second and future implementation periods for
regional haze (and therefore not retroactively required for progress
reports for the first regional haze planning period), the revised
tracking metric's focus on the days with the highest daily
anthropogenic impairment shifts focus away from days influenced by fire
and dust events, and is therefore a better metric for showing
visibility progress especially for Class I areas with strong impacts
from fire, as was the case for the Class I areas within and affected by
emissions from Montana during the first regional haze planning period.
This supplemental data is shown in square brackets in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program (December
20, 2018), available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf.
Table 5--Visibility Progress in Montana's Class I Areas \44\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current period Baseline period Difference in
Montana's class I area IMPROVE site deciviews 2011- deciviews 2000- deciviews (dv) MT 2018 RPG
2015 (dv) 2004 (dv) current-baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days \45\ [20% Most Anthropogenically Impaired Days]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area.......... CABI1 14.5 [10.1] 14.1 [10.7] 0.4 [-0.6] 13.31
Gates of the Mtn Wilderness Area........... GAMO1 11.7 [7.6] 11.3 [9.0] 0.4 [-1.4] 10.82
Glacier National Park...................... GLAC1 17.0 [13.8] 22.26 [16.2] -5.26 [-2.4] 21.48
Medicine Lake Wilderness Area.............. MELA1 17.9 [15.8] 17.7 [16.6] 0.2 [-0.8] 17.36
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area............... MONT1 15.7 [9.7] 14.5 [10.8] 1.2 [-1.1] 13.83
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area........... MONT1 15.7 [9.7] 14.5 [10.8] 1.2 [-1.1] 13.83
Scapegoat Wilderness Area.................. MONT1 15.7 [9.7] 14.5 [10.8] 1.2 [-1.1] 13.83
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area.......... SULA1 16.3 [8.5] 13.4 [10.1] 2.8 [-1.6] 12.94
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area........... SULA1 16.3 [8.5] 13.4 [10.1] 2.8 [-1.6] 12.94
UL Bend Wilderness Area.................... ULBE1 14.5 [11.1] 15.1 [12.8] -0.7 [-1.7] 14.85
Yellowstone National Park.................. YELL2 12.4 [7.7] 11.8 [8.3] 0.6 [-0.6] 11.23
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area............. YELL2 12.4 [7.7] 11.8 [8.3] 0.6 [-0.6] 11.23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days \46\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area.......... CABI1 2.6 3.6 -1.0 3.27
Gates of the Mtn Wilderness Area........... GAMO1 0.6 1.7 -1.1 1.54
Glacier National Park...................... GLAC1 5.4 7.2 -1.8 6.92
Medicine Lake Wilderness Area.............. MELA1 6.5 7.3 -0.7 7.11
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area............... MONT1 2.6 3.9 -1.3 3.60
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area........... MONT1 2.6 3.9 -1.3 3.60
Scapegoat Wilderness Area.................. MONT1 2.6 3.9 -1.3 3.60
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area.......... SULA1 1.6 2.6 -0.9 2.48
Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area........... SULA1 1.6 2.6 -0.9 2.48
UL Bend Wilderness Area.................... ULBE1 3.7 4.8 -1.1 4.57
Yellowstone National Park.................. YELL2 1.5 2.6 -1.1 2.36
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area............. YELL2 1.5 2.6 -1.1 2.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32687]]
As shown in Table 5: Visibility Progress in Montana's Class I
Areas, all of the IMPROVE monitoring sites use Class I Areas within the
State show improvement in visibility conditions on the 20 percent best
days and are meeting the 2018 RPGs.\47\ However, while only two of the
Class I Areas show improvement in visibility conditions on the 20
percent worst days,\48\ all Class I areas show improvement in
visibility conditions when looking at the 20 percent most
anthropogenically impaired days (shown in square brackets). In its
Progress Report, Montana shows that organic carbon is the pollutant
that has contributed the most to light extinction at its Class I Areas
and that organic carbon is associated with fire.\49\ Montana provides
an extensive analysis of the impacts from wildfire in its Progress
Report and describes wildfire and its impacts as ``the main impediment
to visibility improvement on the 20% worst days.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-6.
\45\ 77 FR 24090 (April 20, 2012).
\46\ 77 FR 24090 (April 20, 2012).
\47\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-6.
\48\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-5.
\49\ Ibid.
\50\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in its Progress Report, Montana presents data to
confirm that wildfire activity, as can be examined through monitored
pollutants (organic and elemental carbon specifically) and satellite
and webcam imagery, are present on the majority of days selected as the
20 percent worst days.\51\ This means that webcam imagery and satellite
data correlate to monitored pollutant data and further prove wildfire
is a main impediment to visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Montana Progress Report, pp. 4-8 to 4-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding assessment of
visibility conditions because the State provided baseline visibility
conditions (2002-2004), more current conditions based on the most
recently available visibility monitoring data available at the time of
Progress Report development (2011-2015), the difference between these
current sets of visibility conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, and the change in visibility impairment from 2000 to 2015
at the Class I areas.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Montana presents data from the statewide
emissions inventory for the 2014 NEI and compares this data to the
baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d). The pollutants
inventoried include SO2, NOX and PM (fine and
coarse). The emissions inventories include the following type of source
or activity classifications: Point; area; on-road mobile; off-road
mobile; point and WRAP area (including oil and gas); fugitive and road
dust; anthropogenic fire; natural fire; biogenic; and wind-blown dust
from both anthropogenic and natural sources. Table 6 presents the 2002
baseline, 2014 more current data and the 2018 projected statewide
emission inventories. As can be seen in Table 3, statewide emissions of
both SO2 and NOX are lower than the projected
2018 emissions. Statewide emissions for both coarse and fine PM are
projected to exceed the 2018 emission projections. As is discussed
above in section 2, Montana cites changes in methodologies used in the
NEI and a larger than expected amount of emissions in anthropogenic and
natural fire as reasons for an increase in fine and coarse PM over the
time period analyzed in the Progress Report.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-8.
\53\ Montana Progress Report, Tables 3-2 to 3-5, pp. 3-6 to 3-9.
Table 6--Emissions Progress in Montana \53\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 (tons/ NOX (tons/ PM coarse PM fine (tons/
year) year) (tons/year) year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Total Emissions (Plan02d).................. 51,922.70 243,141.75 621,276.11 77,239.46
2014 Total Emissions (NEI)...................... 25,320.91 165,673.41 556,810.28 113,655.55
2018 Projected (PRP18b)......................... 45,794.76 180,043.25 675,985.25 83,046.71
Change 2002--2018 (%)........................... -12 -26 9 8
Change 2002--2014 (%)........................... -51 -32 -10 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data for emissions from anthropogenic fire increased from 713
tons per year (Plan02d) to 26,684 tons per year (2014 NEI),\54\ which
shows a significant increase rather than the projected decrease.
Montana cites changes in methodologies used in the NEI and a larger
than expected amount of emissions in anthropogenic and natural fire as
reasons for the increase in fine and coarse PM over the time period
analyzed in the Progress Report.\55\ Montana explains that because
``the methodology for calculating fire emissions has been updated over
the years to better reflect actual emissions'' that ``the 2014 NEI data
is likely more reflective of actual emissions.'' \56\ Montana further
acknowledges that ``it is very difficult to conduct trend analysis on
fire (both prescribed and natural) because of the changes in
methodology and the inherent variability of the activity.'' \57\
Finally, the State explains that ``[y]ear to year prescribed fire
activity can change due to weather and available resources, which in
turn greatly affects emissions.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-8.
\55\ Ibid.
\56\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-5.
\57\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-5.
\58\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to find that Montana adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking
because the State compared the most recent updated emission inventory
data available at the time of the Progress Report development with the
baseline emissions inventory used in the modeling for the regional haze
plan.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
In its Progress Report, Montana provided an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
State that have occurred. The State cites incomplete implementation of
BART controls, oil and gas development in Montana, and emissions from
nearby states and international sources as impediments to progress in
visibility conditions, each of which will be discussed below in turn.
At the time of the analysis done by the State for the Progress
Report, not all BART controls had been installed, as compliance dates
had not occurred for all facilities subject to BART at that time.\59\
This means the impacts of the
[[Page 32688]]
emissions reductions from BART controls have not been fully realized
and are not evident in the State's Progress Report. However, Ash Grove
Cement and Oldcastle Units 1 and 2 are currently in compliance with
emissions limits.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-1.
\60\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana discusses significant growth in the
oil and gas sector in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. Montana's oil
and gas sector is described in the Progress Report.\61\ The State
explains that emission factors for these activities are not well
documented, but are becoming larger issues as oil and gas production
increases.\62\ The State's report includes an analysis and comparison
of production data from North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.\63\
Additionally, Montana cites a Bureau of Land Management Study (BLM)
study that projected emissions from the oil and gas sector will
continue to impact visibility in the area from now into the future.\64\
The State's report concluded that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-4.
\62\ Ibid.
\63\ Montana Progress Report pp. 5-4--5-8.
\64\ Ramboll Environ US Corporation and Kleinfelder, Inc.,
``Bureau of Land Management Montana/Dakotas State Office PGM
Modeling Study Air Resource Impact Assessment,'' September 2016.
The modeling indicated that the close proximity of oil and gas
wells to these and other Class I Areas will make it challenging for
states to achieve significant visibility improvements. Montana and
neighboring states will have to further study these impacts in the
process of preparing SIP revisions for the 2018-2028 implementation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
period.\65\
\65\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana describes one of its Class I areas,
Medicine Lake, as being an example of the impacts of emissions from
international sources. Medicine Lake is very close to the Canadian
border (less than 40 miles) and has ``the worst visibility in the state
on both the clearest and haziest days.'' \66\ Montana analyzed weather
patterns (wind direction, wind speed), satellite imagery, and regional
WRAP data that showed emissions from Canada were higher than emissions
from Montana and other surrounding states near Medicine Lake.\67\ In
its Progress Report, Montana states that emissions from Canada are not
mentioned in the FIP and are outside of the State's control.\68\
Additionally, the State explains that emissions from a large electric
generating unit (EGU) located near Medicine Lake in Canada have
remained consistent over the last decade and the State concluded that
these emissions may continue to impact visibility at the Medicine Lake
Class I area.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-8.
\67\ Montana Progress Report, pp. 5-8 to 5-19.
\68\ Montana Progress Report, p. 5-20.
\69\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-8. Regarding the Canadian EGU
that the State notes is located near Medicine Lake, EPA explains
that EPA became aware of information on the SaskPower website that
suggests that emissions from this EGU may be decreasing in the next
11 years. ``SaskPower 2017-2018 Annual Report'' p. 59 (Canada has
developed regulatory requirements regarding greenhouse gas emissions
for coal-fired generation, which may also decrease emissions that
impact visibility). https://www.saskpower.com/about-us/Our-Company/Current-Reports, and ``Emission Goal Fact Sheet,'' https://www.saskpower.com/Our-Power-Future/Powering-2030/Emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions. The EPA proposes to
agree with Montana's conclusion that there have been significant
changes in non-anthropogenic emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants which have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions
and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's
sources.
6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies
In its Progress Report, Montana acknowledges the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) to assess whether the current implementation plan
elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other
states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet
all established reasonable progress goals. As seen in Table 5,
visibility conditions have improved in the State at all IMPROVE
monitoring sites and the State is meeting its RPGs in all Class I areas
on the 20 percent best days. Additionally, the State discusses how
anthropogenic components (light extinction from sulfates and nitrates)
is decreasing across all monitored sites in the State.\70\ Conversely,
the State explains that visibility conditions have not improved at the
majority of monitored sites on the 20 percent worst days. Even so, the
State is not of the opinion that the FIP is not sufficient to address
visibility impairment in its Class I areas. As discussed above,
additional emission controls at sources subject to BART and changes in
emissions inventories may contribute to increased visibility in Class I
areas within the State. As discussed below, failure to meet all RPGs
for the 20 percent worst days was due to emissions from wildfires, not
anthropogenic emissions. Because the regional haze regulations define
regional haze as ``visibility impairment that is caused by the emission
of air pollutants from numerous anthropogenic sources,'' \71\ the
inability to meet RPGs for the 20 percent worst days due to
nonanthropogenic wildfire emissions does not render Montana's regional
haze plan insufficient to enable Montana to meet RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Montana Progress Report, 6-2 and 6-3.
\71\ 40 CFR 51.301 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Montana discusses the impacts on visibility
from wildfire at length. The State presents emissions inventory data
which shows that wildfire contributes significantly more to elemental
and organic carbon emissions than anthropogenic fire and that the lack
of visibility on the 20 percent worst days was due to natural fire and
not controlling anthropogenic sources of these pollutants.\72\
Additionally, the State describes anthropogenic emissions as decreasing
over time. The State explains that ``continued implementation of air
pollution control measures . . . make it likely that anthropogenic
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants will continue to decrease
with time'' and that ``Class I Areas affected by emissions from Montana
sources will also continue to benefit from controls that have not yet
taken full effect due to the timing of the Montana FIP (2012) and the
compliance dates described therein (some as late as fall of 2017).''
\73\ International sources are also shown to impact visibility
conditions in Montana at the Medicine Lake Class I Area and Montana
acknowledges that the FIP may be insufficient due to international
emissions.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Montana Progress Report, 6-4 and 6-5.
\73\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-7.
\74\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and agrees with the State's
determination that, other than the Medicine Lake Class I area, its
regional haze plan is sufficient to meet the RPGs for its Class I
areas.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
For progress reports for the first implementation period, the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a review of the State's
visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as
necessary. In its Progress Report, Montana summarizes the existing
monitoring network in the State to monitor visibility at the twelve
Class
[[Page 32689]]
I areas within the State, which consists of Montana relying on the
national IMPROVE network to meet monitoring and data collection
goals.\75\ There are currently IMPROVE sites located near seven of the
twelve Class I areas within Montana, as well as representative
surrogate monitors located near the remaining five Class I areas in
Montana.\76\ In the Progress Report, the State concludes that no
modifications to the existing visibility monitoring strategy are
necessary. The State will continue its reliance on the IMPROVE
monitoring network. The IMPROVE monitoring network is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze, both in Montana and nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-3.
\76\ Montana Progress Report, p. 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Montana has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the monitoring
strategy because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy
and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to determine
the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet established
goals. Montana's Progress Report includes a negative declaration
regarding the need for additional actions or emissions reductions in
Montana beyond those already in place and those to be implemented by
2018 according to Montana's FIP.\77\ In its Progress Report, Montana
notifies the EPA that the FIP may be inadequate to address regional
haze at the Medicine Lake Wilderness Area Class I area due to the
influence of international emissions.\78\ Discussion of this issue is
addressed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-8.
\78\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that Montana has adequately addressed
40 CFR 51.308(h) because (1) the visibility trends in the majority of
Class I areas in the State indicate that the relevant RPGs will be met
via emission reductions already in place (except as explained above
that some RPGs will not be met due to nonanthropogenic wildfire
emissions not subject to control pursuant to Montana's regional haze
plan), and therefore the FIP does not require substantive revisions at
this time to meet those RPGs, and (2) because Montana has notified EPA
that the FIP may be inadequate to address regional haze at the Medicine
Lake Wilderness Area Class I area due to international emissions.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve Montana's November 7, 2017,
Regional Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 28, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-14249 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P