Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0047-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Montana; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2019-07-09T04:00Z

[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 gregory.kate@epa.gov.

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