42738 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) A notice embodied in the copies in 

machine-readable form in such a 

manner that on visually perceptible 

printouts it appears either with or near 

the title, or at the end of the work; 

(ii) A notice that is displayed at the 

user’s terminal at sign on; 

(iii) A notice that is continuously on 

terminal display; or 

(iv) A legible notice reproduced 

durably, so as to withstand normal use, 

on a gummed or other label securely 

affixed to the copies or to a box, reel, 

cartridge, cassette, or other container 

used as a permanent receptacle for the 

copies. 

(8) Motion pictures and other 

audiovisual works. (i) The following 

constitute examples of acceptable 

methods of affixation and positions of 

the copyright notice on motion pictures 

and other audiovisual works: A notice 

that is embodied in the copies by a 

photomechanical or electronic process, 

in such a position that it ordinarily 

would appear whenever the work is 

performed in its entirety, and that is 

located: 

(A) With or near the title; 

(B) With the cast, credits, and similar 

information; 

(C) At or immediately following the 

beginning of the work; or 

(D) At or immediately preceding the 

end of the work. 

(ii) In the case of an untitled motion 

picture or other audiovisual work whose 

duration is sixty seconds or less, in 

addition to any of the locations listed in 

paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, a 

notice that is embodied in the copies by 

a photomechanical or electronic 

process, in such a position that it 

ordinarily would appear to the 

projectionist or broadcaster when 

preparing the work for performance, is 

acceptable if it is located on the leader 

of the film or tape immediately 

preceding the beginning of the work. 

(iii) In the case of a motion picture or 

other audiovisual work that is 

distributed to the public for private use, 

the notice may be affixed, in addition to 

the locations specified in paragraph 

(c)(8)(i) of this section, on the housing 

or container, if it is a permanent 

receptacle for the work. 

(9) Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural 

works. The following constitute 

examples of acceptable methods of 

affixation and positions of the copyright 

notice on various forms of pictorial, 

graphic, and sculptural works: 

(i) Where a work is reproduced in 

two-dimensional copies, a notice affixed 

directly or by means of a label 

cemented, sewn, or otherwise attached 

durably, so as to withstand normal use, 

of the front or back of the copies, or to 

any backing, mounting, matting, 

framing, or other material to which the 

copies are durably attached, so as to 

withstand normal use, or in which they 

are permanently housed, is acceptable. 

(ii) Where a work is reproduced in 

three-dimensional copies, a notice 

affixed directly or by means of a label 

cemented, sewn, or otherwise attached 

durably, so as to withstand normal use, 

to any visible portion of the work, or to 

any base, mounting, framing, or other 

material on which the copies are 

durably attached, so as to withstand 

normal use, or in which they are 

permanently housed, is acceptable. 

(iii) Where, because of the size or 

physical characteristics of the material 

in which the work is reproduced in 

copies, it is impossible or extremely 

impracticable to affix a notice to the 

copies directly or by means of a durable 

label, a notice is acceptable if it appears 

on a tag that is of durable material, so 

as to withstand normal use, and that is 

attached to the copy with sufficient 

durability that it will remain with the 

copy while it is passing through its 

normal channels of commerce. 

(iv) Where a work is reproduced in 

copies consisting of sheet-like or strip 

material bearing multiple or continuous 

reproductions of the work, the notice 

may be applied: 

(A) To the reproduction itself; 

(B) To the margin, selvage, or reverse 

side of the material at frequent and 

regular intervals; or 

(C) If the material contains neither a 

selvage nor a reverse side, to tags or 

labels, attached to the copies and to any 

spools, reels, or containers housing 

them in such a way that a notice is 

visible while the copies are passing 

through their normal channels of 

commerce. 

(v) If the work is permanently housed 

in a container, such as a game or puzzle 

box, a notice reproduced on the 

permanent container is acceptable. 

§ 202.6 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 202.6(e)(1), remove ‘‘SE., an 

unpublished collection or’’ and add in 

its place ‘‘SE., an unpublished 

collection, or’’. 

Dated: August 14, 2017. 

Karyn Temple Claggett, 

Acting Register of Copyrights and Director 

of the U.S. Copyright Office. 

Approved by: 

Carla Hayden, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19285 Filed 9–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0062; FRL–9967–62– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Montana; Regional Haze Federal 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing revisions 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) to the Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing 

regional haze in the State of Montana. 

The EPA promulgated a FIP on 

September 18, 2012, in response to the 

State’s decision in 2006 to not submit a 

regional haze State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). We proposed revisions to that FIP 

on April 14, 2017, and are now 

finalizing those revisions. Specifically, 

the EPA is finalizing revisions to the 

FIP’s requirement for best available 

retrofit technology (BART) for the 

Trident cement kiln owned and 

operated by Oldcastle Materials Cement 

Holdings, Inc. (Oldcastle), located in 

Three Forks, Montana. In response to a 

request from Oldcastle, and in light of 

new information that was not available 

at the time we originally promulgated 

the FIP, we are revising the nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) emission limit for the 

Trident cement kiln. We are also 

correcting errors we made in our FIP 

regarding the reasonable progress 

determination for the Blaine County #1 

Compressor Station and the instructions 

for compliance determinations for 

particulate matter (PM) BART emission 

limits at electrical generating units 

(EGUs) and cement kilns. This action 

does not address the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s June 9, 

2015 vacatur and remand of portions of 

the FIP regarding the Colstrip and 

Corette power plants; we plan to 

address the court’s remand in a separate 

action. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 12, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0062. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42739 

1Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc., 

(Oldcastle) is the current owner and operator of the 

Trident cement kiln. 

2 77 FR 57864. 

3 82 FR 17948. 

4 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.’’ 

5 45 FR 80084, 80084 (December 2, 1980). 

6 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P). 7 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). 

8 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a), CAA 

sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B. 9 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1). 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6252, 

dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Background 

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

C. Reasonable Progress Requirements 

D. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) 

E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012 

Montana FIP 

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On September 18, 2012, the EPA 

promulgated a FIP that included a NOX

BART emission limit for the Holcim 

(US), Inc., Trident cement kiln located 

in Three Forks, Montana.1 2 On April 14, 

2017, the EPA proposed to revise the 

2012 FIP with respect to the BART 

emission limit for the Trident cement 

kiln.3 Specifically, in response to newly 

available information regarding the 

efficiency of controls we determined in 

our 2012 FIP to be BART, the EPA 

proposed to revise the NOX emission 

limit from 6.5 lb/ton clinker to 7.6 lb/ 

ton clinker (both as 30-day rolling 

averages). The EPA also proposed to 

correct errors we made in our FIP 

regarding the reasonable progress 

determination for the Blaine County #1 

Compressor Station and in the 

instructions for compliance 

determinations for PM BART emission 

limits at EGUs and cement kilns. The 

proposed correction to our erroneous 

reasonable progress determination for 

the Blaine County #1 Compressor 

Station would result in the source no 

longer being subject to reasonable 

progress requirements and would thus 

remove the NOX emission limit of 21.8 

lbs NOX/hr (average of three stack test 

runs). The proposed correction to the 

PM compliance determination 

instructions would include regulatory 

text that was inadvertently left out of 

the September 18, 2012 final rule and 

would allow sources to retain the PM 

stack testing schedule already 

established under state permits. The 

EPA proposed to revise the specific 

portions of Montana’s regional haze FIP 

under our general rulemaking and CAAspecific authorities, as appropriate. See 

5 U.S.C. 551(5); 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1), 

7410(c)(1), 7410(k)(6). We did not 

address the Ninth Circuit’s June 9, 2015 

vacatur and remand of unrelated 

portions of the FIP in this action and 

plan to address the court’s remand in a 

separate action. 

II. Background 

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s 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.’’ 4 On 

December 2, 1980, the EPA 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.5 These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. The EPA deferred 

action on regional haze that emanates 

from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling and scientific 

knowledge about the relationships 

between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999.6

The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised 

the existing visibility regulations 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 the EPA’s 

visibility protection regulations at 40 

CFR 51.300–51.309. The EPA revised 

the RHR on January 10, 2017.7

The CAA requires each state to 

develop a SIP to meet various air quality 

requirements, including protection of 

visibility.8 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 the EPA for approval. Once 

approved, a SIP is enforceable by the 

EPA and citizens under the CAA; that 

is, the SIP is federally enforceable. If a 

state elects not to make a required SIP 

submittal, 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 to fill this regulatory gap.9 Montana 

is on the path towards a regional haze 

SIP and is working closely with the 

Region to replace all or portions of the 

FIP as soon as practicable. 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states, or the EPA if developing a FIP, 

to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at 

certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 

stationary sources in order to address 

visibility impacts from these sources. 

Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires states’ 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’’ as determined by the 

states, or in the case of a FIP, the EPA. 

Under the RHR, states or the EPA are 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
42740 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

10 70 FR 39104. 

11BART-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. 

12CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). 13 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv). 14 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f). 15 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 16 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

17 77 FR 57864. 

18Letter from Richard H. Opper, Director, 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality to 

Laurel Dygowski, EPA Region 8 Air Program, June 

19, 2006. 

19Several parties petitioned the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals to review the 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). The court 

vacated the NOX and SO2 BART emission limits at 

Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette and remanded 

those portions of the FIP back to the EPA for further 

proceedings. National Parks Conservation 

Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015). 

20Letter dated May 12, 2017, from Elizabeth 

Stimatz to Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017– 

0062. 

21Letter dated May 30, 2017, from David L. 

Klemp to Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017– 

0062. 

22Letter dated May 28, 2017, from Kevin M. 

Mathews, Bison Engineering, Inc, on behalf of 

Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings to EPA, 

Region 8, Office of Air and Radiation. 

directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

On July 6, 2005, the EPA published 

the Guidelines for BART Determinations 

under the RHR at appendix Y to 40 CFR 

part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘BART Guidelines’’) to assist states and 

the EPA in determining which sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and the appropriate 

emission limits for each applicable 

source.10 The process of establishing 

BART emission limitations follows 

three steps: First, identify the sources 

that meet the definition of ‘‘BARTeligible source’’ set forth in 40 CFR 

51.301; 11 second, determine which of 

these sources ‘‘emits any air pollutant 

which may reasonably be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to any impairment 

of visibility in any such area’’ (a source 

which fits this description is ‘‘subject to 

BART’’); and third, for each source 

subject to BART, identify the best 

available type and level of control for 

reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(7) 

of the CAA requires that states, or the 

EPA if developing a FIP, must consider 

the following five factors in making 

BART determinations: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States or the 

EPA must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

NOX, and PM. 

A SIP or FIP addressing regional haze 

must include source-specific BART 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for each source subject to 

BART. Once a state or the EPA has 

made a BART determination, the BART 

controls must be installed and operated 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than five years after the date of the 

EPA’s approval of the final SIP or the 

date of the EPA’s promulgation of the 

FIP.12 In addition to what is required by 

the RHR, general SIP requirements 

mandate that the SIP or FIP include all 

regulatory requirements related to 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting for the BART emission 

limitations. See CAA section 110(a); 40 

CFR part 51, subpart K. 

C. Reasonable Progress Requirements 

In addition to BART requirements, as 

mentioned previously each regional 

haze SIP or FIP must contain measures 

as necessary to make reasonable 

progress towards the national visibility 

goals. As part of determining what 

measures are necessary to make 

reasonable progress, the SIP or FIP must 

first identify anthropogenic sources of 

visibility impairment that are to be 

considered in developing the long-term 

strategy for addressing visibility 

impairment.13 States or the EPA must 

then consider the four statutory 

reasonable progress factors in selecting 

control measures for inclusion in the 

long-term strategy—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 potentially affected sources. See 

CAA section 169A(g)(1) (defining the 

reasonable progress factors); 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Finally, the SIP or 

FIP must establish reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs) for each Class I area within 

the state for the plan implementation 

period (or ‘‘planning period’’), based on 

the measures included in the long-term 

strategy.14 If a RPG provides for a slower 

rate of improvement in visibility than 

the rate needed to attain the national 

goal by 2064, the SIP or FIP must 

demonstrate, based on the four 

reasonable progress factors, why the rate 

to attain the national goal by 2064 is not 

reasonable and the RPG is reasonable.15

D. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that a state, or the 

EPA if promulgating a FIP that fills a 

gap in the SIP with respect to this 

requirement, consult with FLMs before 

adopting and submitting a required SIP 

or SIP revision, or a required FIP or FIP 

revision.16 Further, the EPA must 

include in its proposed FIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a FIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

EPA and FLMs regarding the EPA’s FIP, 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of FIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 

2012 Montana FIP 

On September 18, 2012, the EPA 

promulgated a FIP to address Montana’s 

regional haze obligations that included 

BART emission limits for two power 

plants and two cement kilns, and an 

emission limit for a natural gas 

compressor station based on reasonable 

progress requirements.17 The EPA took 

this action because Montana decided 

not to submit a regional haze SIP, 

knowing that as a result the EPA would 

be required to promulgate a FIP.18 The 

BART emission limits for the two 

cement kilns and the reasonable 

progress requirements for the 

compressor station addressed in this 

action were not at issue in the petitions 

filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals.19 The EPA plans to address the 

court’s remand in a separate action. 

III. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

Our proposed action provided a 45- 

day public comment period and an 

opportunity to request a public hearing. 

During this period, we received eight 

comments from the following four 

commenters: NorthWestern Energy 

(NorthWestern),20 Montana Department 

of Environmental Quality (MT DEQ) 21

Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings 

(Oldcastle; through Bison Engineering, 

Inc.),22 and an anonymous public 

comment. We did not receive a request 

to hold a public hearing. The comments 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42741 

23EPA letter to Ash Grove Cement Co., December 

29, 2016. 

24Prior to the control technology demonstration, 

the EPA established a NOX BART emission limit of 

8.0 lb/ton clinker for the Montana City kiln. 

discussed portions of the proposal 

regarding the Trident cement kiln and 

Blaine County #1 Compressor station; 

we did not receive any comments on 

our proposed correction for PM 

compliance determinations for EGUs 

and cement kilns. 

Comment: NorthWestern agreed with 

us that the Q/D ratio used to determine 

that the Blaine County #1 Compressor 

Station was subject to reasonable 

progress requirements, where ‘‘Q’’ 

represents actual NOX + SO2 emissions 

in tons per year (tpy) and ‘‘D’’ 

represents the distance in kilometers 

from the Blaine County #1 Compressor 

Station to the nearest Class I area, was 

incorrect as published in our 2012 final 

rule. Specifically, Northwestern agrees 

that ‘‘D’’ should be 133 kilometers 

instead of 107 kilometers, and that the 

revised Q/D ratio would be below the 

threshold for further evaluation for 

reasonable progress controls. As such, 

explained NorthWestern, it is only 

appropriate that the reasonable progress 

requirement of a NOX emission limit of 

21.8 lb/hr (average of three stack test 

runs) as well as the corresponding 

compliance date, test method, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for the Blaine 

County #1 Compressor Station be 

removed from the FIP. Additionally, 

NorthWestern contends that NOX + SO2, 

or ‘‘Q’’, should be 745 tpy instead of 

1,155 tpy with acknowledgement that 

this revision may not affect the EPA’s 

determination that the Blaine County #1 

Compressor Station should be removed 

from the reasonable progress emission 

limit. 

Response: We acknowledge 

NorthWestern’s support for our 

correction to ‘‘D’’ in the Q/D ratio for 

the Blaine County #1 Compressor 

Station that would effectively remove 

the source from reasonable progress 

NOX requirements for the first 

implementation period of the RHR. We 

also agree with NorthWestern that a 

revision to ‘‘Q’’ from 1,155 tpy to 745 

tpy will not affect our determination 

that the Blaine County #1 Compressor 

Station should be removed from the 

reasonable progress limit; therefore, we 

are not addressing the issue of whether 

‘‘Q’’ should be 745 tpy, as opposed to 

1,155 tpy. 

Comment: An anonymous commenter 

stated that the use of Q/D to measure the 

emissions of NOX and SO2 is efficient; 

however, ‘‘D’’ can be calculated 

mistakenly which could ultimately 

affect the decision-making related to 

further investigation or evaluation. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter’s assertions that using an 

incorrect distance (D) can adversely 

impact decision making concerning 

further evaluation of a source. 

Comment: MT DEQ expressed support 

for our proposal to amend the FIP before 

the compliance dates for the two 

affected facilities and appreciated our 

consideration of input from regulated 

facilities in Montana. MT DEQ also 

noted that they are working closely with 

EPA staff to submit a regional haze SIP 

as soon as practicable. 

Response: We acknowledge MT DEQ’s 

support for our action and will continue 

working with MT DEQ as they develop 

a regional haze SIP. 

Comment: Oldcastle advocated a 

BART emission limit of 8.3 lb NOX/ton 

clinker for the Trident kiln, as opposed 

to the limit proposed by the EPA of 7.6 

lb/ton clinker (both as 30-day rolling 

averages). Oldcastle derived their 

proposed emission limit from a 

projected control efficiency of 40% 

when applied to a baseline emission 

rate of 13.9 lb/ton clinker (that is, 13.9 

lb/ton clinker × [1 ¥ 40/100] = 8.3 lb/ 

ton clinker). 

Response: We maintain that the 

appropriate BART emission limit for the 

Trident kiln is 7.6 lb NOX/ton clinker. 

In comparison to Oldcastle, we derived 

our proposed emission limit from the 

same projected control efficiency of 

40%, but applied the control efficiency 

to a lower baseline emission rate of 12.6 

lb/ton clinker (that is, 12.6 lb/ton 

clinker × [1 ¥ 40/100] = 7.6 lb/ton 

clinker). Therefore, the proposed 

emission limits differ only because of 

the different baseline emission rates 

used to calculate them. We address the 

question of the baseline emission rate in 

a separate response. 

The proposed emission limit for the 

Trident kiln of 7.6 lb/ton clinker is 

nearly equal to that for the Ash Grove 

Montana City kiln of 7.5 lb/ton clinker 

established through a control 

technology demonstration.23 The 

Montana City kiln is of the same general 

design (long wet kiln) as the Trident 

kiln, operates in a similar environment, 

and is a direct competitor in the 

regional cement market. While the 

ultimate emission limit for the Montana 

City kiln was set through a control 

technology demonstration, rather than a 

BART determination, it is a reflection of 

the level of NOX control that is feasible 

with SNCR.24 Moreover, as discussed in 

a later response, the two kilns have 

similar baseline emissions. Accordingly, 

we find that it is reasonable to expect a 

similar level of controlled NOX

emissions from the Trident kiln when 

equipped with SNCR. 

As stated in our proposed rule, it is 

challenging to predict the performance 

of SNCR for long cement kilns. For this 

reason, in the proposed rule, the EPA 

invited comment on whether, in place 

of the BART emission limit of 7.6 lb 

NOX/ton clinker, the emission limit for 

the Trident kiln should be established 

through a control technology 

demonstration in a manner similar to 

that required by consent decrees for the 

Ash Grove Montana City kiln and other 

long kilns. Such an approach would 

have served to demonstrate with some 

clarity the NOX emission limit for the 

Trident kiln. As discussed in a later 

response, Oldcastle strongly felt that a 

requirement to use this approach was 

unnecessary. In the absence of support 

for a control technology demonstration 

from Oldcastle, or from other 

commenters, and for reasons stated 

elsewhere in response to comments, the 

EPA is finalizing an emission limit of 

7.6 lb/ton clinker. 

Comment: Oldcastle agreed with the 

EPA’s assessment in the proposed rule 

that SNCR is theoretically capable of 

reducing NOX emissions from a long 

wet cement kiln by 40% on average. 

Oldcastle also recognized that the EPA 

largely based this assumption on the 

performance of SNCR demonstrated at 

the long wet kiln located at the Ash 

Grove Montana City facility. 

Response: The 40% reduction is a 

demonstrated, rather than theoretical, 

control effectiveness for SNCR when 

applied to long cement kilns. As 

acknowledged by the commenter, this 

level of control was demonstrated at the 

Montana City long wet kiln in 

association with a control technology 

demonstration. 

Moreover, in arriving at an assumed 

control effectiveness of 40%, the EPA’s 

conclusions were not strictly based on 

the performance of SNCR at the 

Montana City kiln. As explained in the 

proposal, we also re-evaluated the 

performance of SNCR at the three Ash 

Grove long wet kilns in Midlothian, 

Texas, that served as the basis for the 

emission limit for Trident in our 2012 

final rule. In addition, we reviewed the 

performance of SNCR at several LaFarge 

kilns subject to control technology 

demonstrations. The EPA’s evaluation 

of the control effectiveness of SNCR 

when applied to long cement kilns is 

further discussed in the Technical 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
42742 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

25Refer to Technical Support Document— 

Oldcastle Trident Federal Implementation Plan 

Revision, March 8, 2017 (‘‘TSD for Oldcastle’’; EPA 

docket ID EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0062–0042). 

26The original source of the 12.6 lb/ton clinker 

was a submittal from the previous owner of the 

Trident facility, Holcim, Inc. See footnote 93 in 

2012 proposed rule at 77 FR 24019. 

27See proposed rule at 82 FR 17953/4. 

28See TSD for Oldcastle, pages 8–10. 

29The baseline periods of 2008–2011 and 2013– 

2016 yield an identical baseline emission rate of 

12.6 lb/ton clinker (as the 99th percentile 30-day 

rolling average). Data for 2012, while reviewed, was 

not included in the calculation of the baseline due 

to the unusually elevated NOX emissions that 

occurred late in that year. 

30 Does not include days when the kiln was not 

operated. 

31See spreadsheet titled ‘‘Summary of Ash Grove 

Montana City Control Technology Demonstration 

Data.xlsx,’’ March 8, 2017, prepared by the EPA. 

Support Document (TSD) associated 

with this rulemaking.25

Comment: Oldcastle disagreed with 

the baseline emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton 

clinker (as the 99th percentile 30-day 

rolling average) that, after a 40% NOX

reduction with SNCR, the EPA used to 

calculate the proposed emission limit of 

7.6 lb/ton clinker. Oldcastle stated that 

the appropriate baseline emission rate is 

13.9 lb/ton clinker, reflecting a period 

during late 2012 during which optimal 

conditions were disrupted by ash ring 

build-up on the interior wall of the kiln, 

leading to elevated NOX emissions. 

Oldcastle also disagreed with the EPA’s 

characterization of operations during 

late 2012 as resulting from ‘‘exceptional 

circumstances’’ that should be excluded 

from the calculation of baseline 

emissions, and with the EPA’s 

statements in the proposed rule that 

such conditions could be avoided by 

proper kiln operation and maintenance. 

Oldcastle stated that ash rings are part 

of normal long-term operations and 

occur approximately twice every year. 

Finally, in response to the EPA’s 

statements in the proposal that a 

violation of the emission limit could be 

prevented by shutting down the kiln to 

remove ash rings, Oldcastle commented 

that multiple factors (e.g., such as harm 

to the kiln, baghouse, and other 

equipment) must be considered before 

performing an unplanned shutdown. 

Oldcastle commented that if elevated 

NOX emissions do occur as the result of 

ash ring build-up, an unplanned shut 

down could be required purely to 

ensure compliance with the emission 

limit. 

Response: We disagree that the 

appropriate baseline emission rate for 

the purpose of calculating the NOX

emission limit should be 13.9 lb/ton 

clinker. In our proposed rule, we 

explained the reasons for retaining the 

baseline emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton 

from the 2012 rule.26 27 Much of that 

explanation was in response to a letter 

submitted by Oldcastle (through Bison 

Engineering) and dated February 13, 

2017, that among other things addressed 

the baseline emission rate. Oldcastle’s 

comments on the proposed rule largely 

repeat points made in their February 13, 

2017 letter, and do not present new 

information that the EPA did not 

address in the proposed rule, or that 

would lead the EPA to choose a 

different baseline emission rate (and 

thereby a different emission limit). As 

such, in responding to Oldcastle’s 

comments here, we repeat much of the 

discussion from our proposed rule. 

In order to determine a representative 

baseline NOX emissions rate for the 

Trident kiln, the EPA reviewed nine 

years of actual emissions data (2008– 

2016, as the 99th percentile 30-day 

rolling average).28 This expanded on the 

period of actual emissions data used to 

set the baseline in the 2012 rule, which 

was limited to 2008–2011. 

The EPA recognizes that ash rings are 

part of normal long-term operations for 

long kilns, and thus the BART emission 

limit should, generally speaking, allow 

operation of a kiln while a typical ash 

ring is present, provided that the SNCR 

system is reducing emissions during the 

ash ring event as much as it reasonably 

can. Accordingly, the EPA has 

considered the ash ring issue when 

establishing the single value of the 

baseline emission rate upon which the 

BART emission limit is based. 

The original emissions baseline 

period of 2008–2011 used in the 2012 

FIP, together with the emissions for 

2013 through 2016, yield eight years of 

emissions data in support of the 12.6 lb/ 

ton clinker baseline used by the EPA.29

Assuming, as asserted by Oldcastle, that 

ash rings occur approximately twice per 

year, some 16 ash ring events can be 

statistically expected to have occurred 

during this eight-year period. 

From the set of approximately 2,400 

values for 30-day average emission 

during the eight-year period,30 the EPA 

has chosen the 99th percentile value, 

12.6 lb/ton clinker, as the baseline 

emission rate for setting the BART 

emission limit (by reducing this value 

by 40%). We believe this is a reasonable 

choice in that it will mean that for most 

ash ring events compliance with the 

BART emissions limit would not 

necessitate removing the ash ring earlier 

than when the kiln operators have seen 

fit to remove similar ash rings during 

the eight years of operation of the kiln. 

Oldcastle is arguing that the baseline 

emission rate should instead be set at 

13.9 lb/ton of clinker. Notably, there 

were about 29 30-day average emission 

values above 13.9 lb/ton during the 

2012 ash ring event. Under both the 

emission limit we proposed and the 

emission limit favored by Oldcastle, if 

an ash ring similar to the 2012 event 

were to occur in the future, the BART 

emission limit could not be met merely 

by achieving 40% emission reductions 

via SNCR. Thus, Oldcastle and we agree 

that not every ash ring event must be 

accommodated by the BART emission 

limit, and Oldcastle and we agree that 

Oldcastle should be expected to 

intervene, differently than the kiln 

operator actually did in 2012, if an 

event like the one that occurred in 2012 

occurs again (while also applying 

SNCR). Where Oldcastle and we 

disagree is that Oldcastle favors a higher 

BART limit that would allow Oldcastle 

to take no action, which is different 

from the operator’s past ash ringcorrecting practices with respect to ash 

ring events that have more moderate 

effects on emissions than the 2012 ash 

ring event. While we do not have clear 

evidence of whether and when such 

more moderate ash rings events have 

occurred in the past and what effects 

they had on NOX emissions, it 

reasonable to predict that in the future 

there may be events for which our 

proposed emission limit would require 

corrective action (beyond the 

application of SNCR) that is different 

than the operator’s ash ring-correcting 

practices of the past, while the emission 

limit favored by Oldcastle would not 

require this. The considerations on how 

to respond to Oldcastle’s comments on 

this issue are discussed in more detail 

in the paragraphs that follow. 

The representativeness of the baseline 

NOX emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton clinker 

used for setting the emission limit at the 

Trident kiln is supported by the nearly 

identical emissions observed at the 

Montana City kiln in association with 

the control technology demonstration. 

During the baseline collection period for 

the Montana City kiln, between March 

and August 2014, the 99th percentile 

30-day rolling average emission rate 

without SNCR applied was 12.8 lb NOX/ 

ton clinker.31 Though this represents a 

shorter baseline period than that 

considered for Trident, it reinforces that 

the two kilns should be subject to 

similar emission limits after being 

equipped with SNCR. By contrast, using 

the higher baseline emission rate of 13.9 

lb/ton clinker for Trident would result 

in a relatively large difference between 

the emission limits—7. 5 lb/ton clinker 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42743 

32See spreadsheet titled ‘‘Oldcastle Trident NOX

emissions 2008 through 2016 with additions by 

EPA.xlsx,’’ March 8, 2017, prepared by the EPA 

(EPA docket ID EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0062–0039). 

33Oldcastle is referring to submittals to the EPA 

that were cited in the proposed rule. See footnote 

22 at 82 FR 17952. These submittals can be found 

in the docket. 

34See, e.g., Letter dated Sept. 30, 2016, from 

Kevin M. Mathews, Bison Engineering, Inc. on 

behalf of Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings to 

EPA, Region 8, Office of Air and Radiation, pages 

2, 6, 19. 

35Letter dated May 28, 2017, from Kevin M. 

Mathews, Bison Engineering, Inc, on behalf of 

Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings to EPA, 

Region 8, Office of Air and Radiation, page 3. 36Refer to proposed rule at 71 FR 17953. 

for Montana City, and 8.3 lb/ton clinker 

for Trident. 

Moreover, if the EPA were to use the 

higher baseline emission rate of 13.9 lb/ 

ton clinker (again yielding an emission 

limit of 8.3 lb/ton clinker at a 40% 

reduction with SNCR), then the 

emission limit would be overly lenient 

during periods of otherwise normal kiln 

operation, and the SNCR could be 

operated at efficiencies well below the 

demonstrated level of control 

effectiveness. That is, when baseline 

emissions are at otherwise normal 

levels, the control effectiveness of the 

SNCR could be reduced below the level 

at which it is capable of performing by 

reducing the amount of reagent injected 

into the kiln, while still meeting the 

emission limit. For example, consider if 

SNCR had been operated in 2016, the 

last full year for which emissions data 

is available, where the uncontrolled 30- 

day rolling average emissions ranged 

from 8.9 to 12.6 lb/ton clinker, with an 

average of 10.4 lb/ton clinker.32 At an 

emission limit of 8.3 lb/ton clinker 

(corresponding to a 13.9 lb/ton clinker 

baseline), and depending on the 30-day 

period, the SNCR could have been 

operated at a control efficiency of 6.7% 

to 34.1%, and at an average of only 

20.5%. Indeed, for long periods, the 

SNCR could have been operated well 

below the 40% reduction that the EPA 

has concluded, and Oldcastle has 

agreed, SNCR can achieve. Though this 

opportunity to operate the SNCR system 

at a lesser level of effectiveness would 

also occur at the proposed emission 

limit of 7.6 lb/ton, it would occur less 

frequently and the effect would be much 

less pronounced, yet the proposed 

emission limit of 7.6 lb/ton still allows 

for normal variation in uncontrolled 

NOX emissions (to include emissions 

variation due to ash ring formation). In 

essence, allowing for the higher baseline 

advocated by the commenter would 

unnecessarily undermine the basic 

intent of the BART controls: To lower 

emissions that impact visibility using 

the best available control technology. 

In conclusion, the EPA’s thorough 

consideration of nine years of actual 

emissions data and the application of a 

40% reduction to the 99th percentile 

value of the historical set of 30-day 

average emission values, leads to an 

appropriate BART emission limit for the 

Trident kiln. 

Comment: Oldcastle stated that the 

EPA’s proposed BART determination of 

7.6 lb/ton clinker did not address 

control costs or visibility improvement. 

They commented that, based on their 

updated analysis,33 the costs associated 

with the emission limit are not justified 

by the visibility benefits. 

Response: We disagree with the 

implication that it was necessary to reweigh the costs and visibility benefits of 

SNCR in this action, which was not a 

new or updated control technology 

determination but rather a revision to 

how the EPA calculated the ultimate 

emission limit given the technology 

selected pursuant to our previous fivefactor analysis. See 82 FR 17948, 17951. 

The BART Guidelines provide that 

states or the EPA, when evaluating 

technically feasible technologies 

pursuant to a five-factor analysis, 

perform the analysis ‘‘tak[ing] into 

account the most stringent emission 

control level that the technology is 

capable of achieving.’’ 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix Y, IV.D.1. The Guidelines 

further state that the control 

effectiveness of a technology should be 

informed by, among other things, recent 

regulatory decisions, engineering 

estimates, and the experience of other 

sources. Id. The EPA determined in 

2012 that BART is based on SNCR with 

a 50% control effectiveness for the 

Trident kiln, see 77 FR 57864, 57882. 

No party requested judicial review of 

that determination. However, since the 

time of our 2012 rule, sources and the 

EPA have gained further experience 

related to using SNCR to control NOX

from long wet kilns; and additional data 

and experience indicate that the most 

stringent level of emission control 

possible under these circumstances may 

not be 50%, as previously assumed. 

However, as Oldcastle assured the EPA 

when they first approached us to 

request a revised NOX emission limit for 

the Trident kiln in May 2016 and 

throughout the process of revising the 

emission limit, they are committed to 

installing and operating SNCR on the 

kiln.34 Most recently, Oldcastle restated 

their commitment to doing so in 

comments on the proposed rule.35 For 

this reason, and as we stated in the 

proposed rule, the EPA did not find it 

necessary or appropriate to revisit the 

selection of SNCR as the BART control 

technology was determined in the 2012 

rule. 

Additionally, given that Oldcastle has 

committed to the most effective control 

technology for long kilns, SNCR, and in 

fact had largely completed construction 

by the time we published the proposed 

rule in April 2017, there would be little 

merit in retrospectively assessing less 

effective control technologies in an 

updated five-factor BART analysis. The 

BART Guidelines reflect that it is 

reasonable, if a source has already 

committed to a BART determination 

that consists of the most stringent 

controls available, to forgo completing 

the remaining analyses pursuant to a 

BART determination. 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix Y, IV.D.1. Oldcastle has 

communicated to the EPA that it is 

committed to installing and operating 

SNCR on the Trident kiln. Therefore, 

consistent with the reasoning of the 

BART Guidelines, we found that it is 

not necessary in this instance to revisit 

the cost effectiveness and visibility 

benefits associated with SNCR, and 

instead as explained in our proposal, 

constrained this FIP revision to 

considering only the appropriate control 

effectiveness associated with that 

control technology. 

Because Oldcastle has committed to 

installing SNCR as the BART control, it 

is only the emission limit that is in 

dispute. However, even if we had 

revisited the full five-factor BART 

analysis in this action, it is very likely 

we would have arrived at the same 

emission limit we are finalizing today. 

The 2012 rule established an emission 

limit of 6.5 lb/ton clinker, while we 

have proposed 7.6 lb/ton clinker, and 

Oldcastle advocates for 8.3 lb/ton 

clinker. Note that compliance with a 

more stringent emission limit requires 

that more reagent be injected into the 

kiln to reduce NOX than for a less 

stringent emission limit, thereby 

increasing Oldcastle’s annual costs to 

operate the SNCR. Though annual costs 

would increase with a more stringent 

emission limit, NOX reductions can 

generally be expected to increase in 

proportion to those costs. An exception 

is if the amount of reagent injected is 

increased to the point that it is no longer 

effective at reducing NOX and leads to 

excessive ammonia slip (that is, wasted 

reagent). However, as demonstrated at 

the Montana City kiln, a 40% reduction 

in NOX, which serves as the basis for 

Trident’s emission limit, can be 

achieved at acceptable levels of 

ammonia slip.36 Therefore, the cost 

effectiveness of SNCR, when calculated 

as the costs per ton of pollutant 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
42744 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

37 70 FR 39167. 

38More precisely, the cost effectiveness (as $/ton) 

would slightly decrease in value at a more stringent 

emission limit because the fixed capital costs would 

be distributed over a greater number of tons of NOX

reduced. 

39The table in 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(2) currently 

refers to Holcim (US) Inc. As described later on, the 

EPA is also updating this table to reflect the Trident 

kiln’s new ownership. 

40We did not receive any formal comments from 

the FLM agencies. 

41 58 FR 51735, 51738 (October 4, 1993). 

42 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

removed (i.e., $/ton) in accordance with 

the BART Guidelines,37 would be 

roughly the same at any of the three 

emission limits under consideration.38

Further, due to the increase in NOX

reductions, greater visibility benefits 

would be expected to occur as the 

emission limit becomes more stringent. 

Because the cost effectiveness would 

remain roughly constant, while the 

visibility benefits would increase, we 

see no reason that the SNCR should be 

operated below the level of control 

effectiveness demonstrated for the 

technology (i.e., a 40% NOX reduction). 

Therefore, we are finalizing an emission 

limit for the Trident kiln consistent with 

that level of control: 7.6 lb/ton clinker. 

Comment: Oldcastle commented that 

they strongly feel that a requirement to 

conduct a control technology 

demonstration, such as that conducted 

for the Ash Grove Montana City kiln 

under consent decree, is problematic 

and unnecessary. Further, they 

commented that if such a control 

technology demonstration were to be 

conducted, the results would likely be 

similar to those for the Montana City 

kiln. Finally, Oldcastle stated that a 

control technology demonstration 

would not address the economic and 

operational concerns (e.g., ash rings) 

that they also raised in comments. 

Response: Because Oldcastle, or other 

commenters, have not expressed 

support for a control technology 

demonstration, and because the results 

from the Montana City kiln 

demonstration can effectively and 

reasonably be applied to the Trident 

kiln, we are not requiring such a 

demonstration for the Trident kiln. 

Instead, we are finalizing an emission 

limit of 7.6 lb/ton clinker. 

IV. Final Action 

The EPA is taking final action to 

revise portions of the Montana Regional 

Haze FIP. Specifically, the EPA is 

revising the BART NOX emission limit 

in the second line of the table in 40 CFR 

52.1396(c)(2) for the Oldcastle Trident 

kiln from 6.5 lb NOX/ton clinker to 7.6 

lb NOX/ton clinker (30-day rolling 

averages).39 We are also making two 

corrections: (1) Removing the reasonable 

progress NOX emission limit of 21.8 lb/ 

hr (average of three stack test runs) 

found at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(3) for the 

Blaine County #1 Compressor Station, 

Engine #1 and #2, including removing 

the corresponding compliance date at 40 

CFR 52.1396(d), test method (40 CFR 

52.1396(e)(5)), testing requirements (40 

CFR 52.1396(j)) and monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements found at 40 CFR 

52.1396(k) from the FIP, and (2) revising 

the regulatory text found at 40 CFR 

52.1396(f)(1) and (2) related to 

compliance determinations for 

particulate matter for electrical 

generating units and cement kilns. 

Finally, we are changing ‘‘Holcim’’ 

references to ‘‘Oldcastle’’ and ‘‘Trident’’ 

at 40 CFR 52.1396(a), (c)(2), and (f)(2)(ii) 

and replacing the compliance date 

timeframes in 40 CFR 52.1396(d) with 

the actual compliance dates based on 

the effective date of the 2012 FIP. 

We find that the revisions will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment, 

reasonable progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA, 

because the FIP, as revised by this 

action, will result in a significant 

reduction in emissions compared to 

current levels. Although this revision 

will allow an increase in emissions after 

October 2017 as compared to the prior 

FIP, the FIP as a whole will still result 

in overall NOX and SO2 reductions 

compared to those currently allowed. In 

addition, the areas where the Trident 

cement kiln and the Blaine County #1 

Compressor Station are located have not 

been designated nonattainment for any 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). We also find that we satisfied 

the applicable requirements for 

coordination and consultation with the 

Federal Land Managers (FLMs) because 

we described the proposed revisions to 

the regional haze FIP with the Forest 

Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Park Service on 

Thursday, March 2, 2017, and sent a 

draft of our proposed regional haze FIP 

revisions to the Forest Service, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National 

Park Service on March 9, 2017.40

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 41 and was 

therefore not submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. This final rule revision applies 

to only five facilities in the State of 

Montana. It is therefore not a rule of 

general applicability. 

B. Executive Order 13711: Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 action because it 

is not subject to Executive Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA).42 Because this final rule 

revises the reporting requirements for 4 

facilities and removes all requirements 

for an additional facility, the PRA does 

not apply. 

D. 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 rule does not 

impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities as no small 

entities are subject to the requirements 

of this rule. 

E. 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 

revisions to the FIP reduce private 

sector expenditures. Additionally, we 

do not foresee significant costs (if any) 

for state and local governments. 

F. 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. 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42745 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

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 rule. However, the EPA did 

send letters to each of the Montana 

tribes explaining our regional haze FIP 

revision action and offering 

consultation; however, no tribe asked 

for consultation. 

H. 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). The EPA interprets Executive 

Order 13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the 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. 

I. 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. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

As explained previously, the Montana 

Regional Haze FIP, as revised by this 

action, will result in a significant 

reduction in emissions compared to 

current levels. 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This rule is exempt from the CRA 

because it is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

M. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 13, 2017. Pursuant 

to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this section 

is subject to the requirements of the 

CAA section 307(d) as it promulgates a 

FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See CAA 

section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Sulfur oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 1, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart BB—Montana 

■ 2. Section 52.1396 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(2); 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(3); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (d); 

■ e. Removing paragraph (e)(5); 

■ f. Revising the heading of paragraph 

(f) and paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2) 

introductory text, and (f)(2)(ii); and 

■ g. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(j) and (k). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 52.1396 Federal implementation plan for 

regional haze. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to each owner and operator of the 

following coal-fired electric generating 

units (EGUs) in the State of Montana: 

PPL Montana, LLC, Colstrip Power 

Plant, Units 1, 2; and PPL Montana, 

LLC, JE Corette Steam Electric Station. 

This section also applies to each owner 

and operator of cement kilns at the 

following cement production plants: 

Ash Grove Cement, Montana City Plant; 

and Oldcastle Materials Cement 

Holdings, Inc., Trident Plant. This 

section also applies to each owner and 

operator of CFAC and M2 Green 

Redevelopment LLC, Missoula site. 

Note to Paragraph (a): On June 9, 2015, the 

NOX and SO2 emission limits for Colstrip 

Units 1 and 2 and Corette were vacated by 

court order. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) The owners/operators of cement 

kilns subject to this section shall not 

emit or cause to be emitted PM, SO2 or 

NOX in excess of the following 

limitations, in pounds per ton of clinker 

produced, averaged over a rolling 30- 

day period for SO2 and NOX: 

Source name PM emission limit 

SO2 emission 

limit 

(lb/ton clinker) 

NOX emission 

limit 

(lb/ton clinker) 

Ash Grove, Montana City ........ If the process weight rate of the kiln is less than or equal to 30 tons per 

hour, then the emission limit shall be calculated using E = 4.10p0.67 where 

E = rate of emission in pounds per hour and p = process weight rate in 

tons per hour; however, if the process weight rate of the kiln is greater 

than 30 tons per hour, then the emission limit shall be calculated using E 

= 55.0p0.11¥40, where E = rate of emission in pounds per hour and P = 

process weight rate in tons per hour..

11.5 8.0 

Oldcastle, Trident ..................... 0.77 lb/ton clinker .............................................................................................. 1.3 7.6 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
42746 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

(d) Compliance date. The owners and 

operators of the BART sources subject to 

this section shall comply with the 

emission limitations and other 

requirements of this section as follows, 

unless otherwise indicated in specific 

paragraphs: Compliance with PM 

emission limits is required by November 

17, 2012. Compliance with SO2 and 

NOX emission limits is required by 

April 16, 2013, unless installation of 

additional emission controls is 

necessary to comply with emission 

limitations under this rule, in which 

case compliance is required by October 

18, 2017. 

Note to Paragraph (d): On June 9, 2015, the 

NOX and SO2 emission limits, and thereby 

compliance dates, for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 

and Corette were vacated by court order. 

* * * * * 

(f) Compliance determinations for 

particulate matter—(1) EGU particulate 

matter BART emission limits. 

Compliance with the particulate matter 

BART emission limits for each EGU 

BART unit shall be determined by the 

owner/operator from annual 

performance stack tests. Within 60 days 

of the compliance deadline specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section, and on at 

least an annual basis thereafter, the 

owner/operator of each unit shall 

conduct a stack test on each unit to 

measure the particulate emissions using 

EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17, as 

appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A. A test shall consist of three 

runs, with each run at least 120 minutes 

in duration and each run collecting a 

minimum sample of 60 dry standard 

cubic feet. Results shall be reported by 

the owner/operator in lb/MMBtu. The 

results from a stack test meeting the 

requirements of this paragraph (f)(1) that 

was completed within 12 months prior 

to the compliance deadline can be used 

in lieu of the first stack test required. If 

this option is chosen, then the next 

annual stack test shall be due no more 

than 12 months after the stack test that 

was used. In addition to annual stack 

tests, owner/operator shall monitor 

particulate emissions for compliance 

with the BART emission limits in 

accordance with the applicable 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring 

(CAM) plan developed and approved in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 64. 

(2) Cement kiln particulate matter 

BART emission limits. Compliance with 

the particulate matter BART emission 

limits for each cement kiln shall be 

determined by the owner/operator from 

annual performance stack tests. Within 

60 days of the compliance deadline 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, and on at least an annual basis 

thereafter, the owner/operator of each 

unit shall conduct a stack test on each 

unit to measure particulate matter 

emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, 

or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A. A test shall consist of three 

runs, with each run at least 120 minutes 

in duration and each run collecting a 

minimum sample of 60 dry standard 

cubic feet. The average of the results of 

three test runs shall be used by the 

owner/operator for demonstrating 

compliance. The results from a stack 

test meeting the requirements of this 

paragraph (f)(2) that was completed 

within 12 months prior to the 

compliance deadline can be used in lieu 

of the first stack test required. If this 

option is chosen, then the next annual 

stack test shall be due no more than 12 

months after the stack test that was 

used. Clinker production shall be 

determined in accordance with the 

requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(b). 

Results of each test shall be reported by 

the owner/operator as the average of 

three valid test runs. In addition to 

annual stack tests, owner/operator shall 

monitor particulate emissions for 

compliance with the BART emission 

limits in accordance with the applicable 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring 

(CAM) plan developed and approved in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 64. 

* * * * * 

(ii) For Trident, the emission rate (E) 

of particulate matter shall be computed 

by the owner/operator for each run in 

lb/ton clinker, using the following 

equation: 

E = (CsQs)/PK 

Where: 

E = emission rate of PM, lb/ton of clinker 

produced; 

Cs = concentration of PM in grains per 

standard cubic foot (gr/scf); 

Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, 

where Cs and Qs are on the same basis 

(either wet or dry), scf/hr; 

P = total kiln clinker production, tons/hr; and 

K = conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–19210 Filed 9–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0361; FRL–9967–57– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; KY; Revisions to 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, through 

the Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

(KDAQ), on September 9, 2016. The 

changes to the SIP that EPA is taking 

final action to approve pertain to 

changes to the Commonwealth’s air 

quality standards for carbon monoxide 

(CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

ozone, particulate matter (both PM10

and PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) to 

reflect the historical and current 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). EPA has determined that the 

September 9, 2016, SIP revision is 

consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). KDAQ’s submission also 

included additional air quality 

standards for hydrogen sulfide, 

fluorides, and odor; however, EPA is not 

approving these state standards into the 

SIP. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

October 12, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2017–0361. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1