Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0001-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Montana; Revisions to Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Partial Withdrawals to Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2022-09-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55331-55342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18680]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0001; FRL-10014-01-R8]

Air Plan Approval; Montana; Revisions to Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan and Partial Withdrawals to Regional Haze Federal 
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Montana on March 25, 2020, addressing regional haze. 
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision for the first 
implementation period of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) regional haze 
program that addresses the nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
requirements for two electric generating unit (EGU) facilities, as well 
as proposing to withdraw portions of the Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) promulgated by EPA in 2012 (2012 regional haze FIP) addressing 
the NOX, SO2 and particulate matter (PM) BART 
requirements for two cement kilns and the PM BART requirements for the 
same two EGU facilities. This action also addresses the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's June 9, 2015 vacatur and 
remand of portions of the FIP. EPA is proposing this action pursuant to 
sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 8, 2022. 
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or 
before September 26, 2022, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document. Contact Jaslyn Dobrahner at 
[email protected], to request a hearing or to determine if a 
hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2021-0001, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in 
www.regulations.gov. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for 
this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket. 
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access 
to the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation 
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6252, email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background
    A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze 
Rule
    B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements
    D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Recording
    E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
    F. Clean Air Act 110(l)
    G. Regulatory and Legal History of the Montana Regional Haze FIP
III. EPA's Evaluation of Montana's Regional Haze SIP Revisions

[[Page 55332]]

    A. Requirements for Cement Kilns
    B. Requirements for Electrical Generating Units
    C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Montana Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
    B. Federal Implementation Plan Withdrawal
    C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
V. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Remand
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve two Montana Board of Environment Review 
Orders pertaining to regional haze requirements for four facilities \1\ 
into the state's SIP. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve: (1) 
NOX, SO2, and PM BART emission limits along with 
associated requirements for the Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City 
Plant (Montana City) and GCC Three Forks, LLC's Trident Plant 
(Trident); (2) the PM BART emission limits along with associated 
requirements for Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric Station, 
Units 1 and 2 (Colstrip Units 1 and 2); (3) the determination that 
Colstrip Units' 1 and 2 enforceable shutdown date of July 1, 2022, 
satisfies the outstanding NOX and SO2 BART 
requirements for that facility; and (4) the determination that the 
outstanding NOX and SO2 BART requirements for 
Corette (as well as the remaining PM BART requirements for Corette in 
EPA's FIP) are satisfied because the source is no longer in operation 
and has been demolished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City Plant; GCC Three 
Forks, LLC's Trident Plant; JE Corette Steam Electric Station; and 
Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with our proposed approval of Montana's regional haze 
SIP for the PM BART emission limits and other requirements for Colstrip 
Units 1 and 2 and Corette along with the NOX, 
SO2, and PM BART emission limits and other requirements for 
Montana City and Trident, we are also proposing to withdraw those 
corresponding portions of the 2012 regional haze FIP found at 40 CFR 
52.1396.
    In addition, through our proposed approval of the NOX 
and SO2 BART determinations for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 
and 2, we are addressing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit's June 9, 2015 remand of portions of the 2012 regional haze FIP 
in this action, including EPA's response to a public comment regarding 
the use of the CALPUFF visibility model in determining BART at Colstrip 
Units 1 and 2.

II. Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In CAA section 169A, Congress created a program for protecting 
visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas. This section 
of the CAA establishes ``as a national goal the prevention of any 
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade 
air pollution.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I 
Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, 
wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, 
and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 
1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, 
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a 
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important 
value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory 
Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park 
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have 
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility 
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal 
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 
7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we 
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, a particular type 
of visibility impairment, on July 1, 1999.\3\ The 1999 Regional Haze 
Rule revised the existing visibility regulations \4\ to integrate 
provisions addressing regional haze and established a comprehensive 
visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for 
regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309. EPA most 
recently revised the Regional Haze Rule on January 10, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) (amending 40 CFR part 51, subpart 
P).
    \4\ EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address 
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably 
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., 
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084, 
80084 (December 2, 1980).
    \5\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Under the revised Regional 
Haze Rule, the requirements 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e) apply to first 
implementation period SIP submissions and 51.308(f) applies to 
submissions for the second and subsequent implementation periods. 82 
FR 3087; see also 81 FR 26942, 26952 (May 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air 
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\6\ Regional 
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of 
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must 
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to EPA for approval. Once approved, a 
SIP is enforceable by EPA and citizens under the CAA; that is, the SIP 
is federally enforceable. If a state fails to make a required SIP 
submittal, or if we find that a state's required submittal is 
incomplete or not approvable, then we must promulgate a FIP within two 
years to fill this regulatory gap, unless the state corrects the 
deficiency.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a).
    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs EPA to require states to evaluate 
the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, 
older stationary sources to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires state 
implementation plans to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the 
``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' (BART) as determined by the 
states. Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are directed to conduct 
source-by-source BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources 
that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
visibility impairment in a Class I area.\8\ States are

[[Page 55333]]

required to include emission limits and associated requirements (e.g., 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements) corresponding to 
their BART determinations in their SIPs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 40 CFR 51.308(e). BART-eligible sources are those sources 
that have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-
impairing air pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 
1962, but were in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations 
fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 
40 CFR 51.301.
    EPA designed the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the 
Regional Haze Rule (Guidelines) ``to help States and others (1) 
identify those sources that must comply with the BART requirement, 
and (2) determine the level of control technology that represents 
BART for each source.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section I.A. 
Section II of the Guidelines describes the four steps to identify 
BART sources, and section III explains how to identify BART sources 
(i.e., sources that are ``subject to BART'').
    \9\ See 40 CFR 51.301 (defining BART as an emission limitation 
based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application 
of the best system of continuous emission reductions for each 
pollutant emitted by an existing stationary facility''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also 
have the flexibility under the Regional Haze Rule to adopt alternative 
measures, as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable 
progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART (i.e., the 
alternative must be ``better than BART'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements

    In addition to the BART requirements, the CAA's visibility 
protection provisions also require that states' regional haze SIPs 
contain a ``long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making 
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal. . . .'' \11\ For 
the first implementation period of the regional haze program, the 
regulatory requirements governing states' long-term strategies are 
located at 40 CFR 51.308(d). Under these provisions, the long-term 
strategy must address regional haze visibility impairment for each 
mandatory Class I area within the state and for each mandatory Class I 
area located outside the state that may be affected by emissions from 
the state. It must include the enforceable emission limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals.\12\ The reasonable progress goals, in turn, 
are calculated for each Class I area based on the control measures 
states have selected by analyzing the four statutory ``reasonable 
progress'' factors, which are ``the costs of compliance, the time 
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing 
source subject to such requirement.'' \13\ Thus, a state considers the 
four reasonable progress factors in setting the reasonable progress 
goal by virtue of the state having first considered them, and certain 
other factors listed in section 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule, 
when deciding what controls are necessary for sources and must thus be 
included in the long-term strategy. Then, the numerical levels of the 
reasonable progress goals are the predicted visibility outcome of 
implementing the long-term strategy in addition to ongoing pollution 
control programs stemming from other CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B).
    \12\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    \13\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike BART determinations, which are required only for the first 
regional haze planning period SIPs,\14\ states are required to submit 
updates to their long-term strategies, including updated four-factor 
reasonable progress analyses and reasonable progress goals, in the form 
of SIP revisions on July 31, 2021, and at specific intervals 
thereafter.\15\ In addition, each state must periodically submit a 
report to EPA at five-year intervals beginning five years after the 
submission of the initial regional haze SIP, evaluating the state's 
progress towards meeting the reasonable progress goals for each Class I 
area within the state.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Under the Regional Haze Rule, SIPs are due for each 
regional haze planning period, or implementation period. The terms 
``planning period'' and ``implementation period'' are used 
interchangeably in this document.
    \15\ 40 CFR 51.308(f). The deadline for the 2018 SIP revision 
was moved to 2021. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017); see also 40 CFR 
51.308(f). Following the 2021 SIP revision deadline, the next SIP 
revision is due in 2028. 40 CFR 51.308(f).
    \16\ Id. Sec.  51.308(g); Sec.  51.309(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Recording

    The CAA requires that SIPs, including regional haze SIPs, contain 
elements sufficient to ensure emission limits are practically 
enforceable. CAA section 110(a)(2) states that the monitoring, record 
keeping, and reporting provisions of states' SIPs must (A) include 
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or 
techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable 
permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and 
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet 
the applicable requirements of this chapter; . . . (C) include a 
program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in 
paragraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of 
any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary 
to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, 
including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this 
subchapter; . . . (F) require, as may be prescribed by the 
Administrator--(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of 
equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners 
or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such 
sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions 
and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of 
such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations or 
standards established pursuant to this chapter, which reports shall be 
available at reasonable times for public inspection.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A), (C), and (F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 51, subpart K, Source Surveillance, 
requires the SIP to provide for monitoring the status of compliance 
with the regulations in it, including ``[p]eriodic testing and 
inspection of stationary sources,'' \18\ and ``legally enforceable 
procedures'' for recordkeeping and reporting.\19\ Furthermore, 40 CFR 
part 51, appendix V, Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan 
Submissions, states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs contain: ``(g) 
Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice 
standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to 
ensure emission levels''; and ``(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies, 
including how compliance will be determined in practice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 40 CFR 51.212(a).
    \19\ Id. Sec.  51.211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The Regional Haze Rule requires that a state, or EPA if 
promulgating a FIP, consult with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) before 
adopting and submitting a required SIP or SIP revision or a required 
FIP or FIP revision. Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), a state, or EPA if 
promulgating a FIP, must provide an opportunity for consultation no 
less than 60 days prior to holding any public hearing or other public 
comment opportunity on a SIP or SIP revision, or FIP or FIP revision, 
for regional haze. Further, when submitting a SIP or SIP revision, a 
state must include a description of how it addressed any comments 
provided by the FLMs. Likewise, EPA must include a description of how 
it addressed any

[[Page 55334]]

comments provided by the FLMs when considering a FIP or FIP 
revision.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Clean Air Act 110(l)

    Under CAA section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a plan revision ``if 
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 
of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' 
\21\ CAA section 110(l) applies to all requirements of the CAA and to 
all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, 
unclassifiable or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria 
pollutants. EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that are in effect, including 
those for which SIP submissions have not been made.\22\ However, the 
level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l) demonstration will 
vary depending on the nature and circumstances of the revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Note that ``reasonable further 
progress'' as used in CAA section 110(l) is a reference to that term 
as defined in section 301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such 
means reductions required to attain the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) set for criteria pollutants under CAA section 109. 
This term as used in section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a)) 
is not synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as that term is used 
in the regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that 
EPA cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with regional haze 
requirements (including reasonable progress requirements) insofar as 
they are ``other applicable requirement[s]'' of the CAA.
    \22\ In general, a section 110(l) demonstration should address 
all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations would 
change because of a plan revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Regulatory and Legal History of the Montana Regional Haze FIP

    On September 18, 2012, EPA promulgated a FIP that included 
NOX, SO2, and PM BART emission limits for three 
units at two power plants and two cement kilns, as well as an emission 
limit for a natural gas compressor station to satisfy the reasonable 
progress requirements.\23\ EPA promulgated a FIP in this instance 
because Montana did not submit a regional haze SIP as required under 
section 110 of the CAA.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 77 FR 57864 (September 18, 2012).
    \24\ Letter from Richard H. Opper, Director Montana Department 
of Environmental Quality to Laurel Dygowski, EPA Region 8 Air 
Program, June 19, 2006. Based off this letter, EPA made a 
determination finding of failure to submit a SIP by Montana. This 
triggered a mandatory duty clock to have EPA either promulgate a FIP 
or approve a SIP within two years of the EPA finding. See 74 FR 2392 
(January 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several parties challenged the portion of the FIP addressing EPA's 
NOX and SO2 BART determinations at the power 
plants, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette.\25\ On June 9, 2015, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the 
portions of the FIP \26\ related to the NOX and 
SO2 BART emission limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 
and 2 and remanded EPA's response in the 2012 final rule to a public 
comment regarding the use of the CALPUFF visibility model in 
determining BART for Colstrip Units 1 and 2.\27\ The BART emission 
limits for the two cement kilns, the PM emissions limits for the EGUs, 
and the reasonable progress requirements for the compressor station 
were not at issue in the petitions filed with the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Several parties petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals to review EPA's NOX and SO2 BART 
determinations at the power plants, Colstrip and Corette (PPL 
Montana, LLC, the National Parks Conservation Association, Montana 
Environmental Information Center, and the Sierra Club). National 
Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 
2015).
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 
1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 12, 2017, EPA amended aspects of the remaining 2012 
FIP by (1) revising the NOX emission limit for one of the 
cement kilns, and (2) correcting errors we made in our original FIP 
regarding the reasonable progress determination for the natural gas 
compressor station and the instructions for compliance determinations 
for PM BART emission limits at the electrical generating units (EGUs) 
and cement kilns.\29\ Ultimately, EPA removed the reasonable progress 
requirements for the natural gas compressor station from the FIP after 
correcting the error that resulted in the source no longer being 
subject to reasonable progress requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 82 FR 42738 (September 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation of Montana's Regional Haze SIP Revision

    Montana's regional haze SIP revision contains two Montana Board of 
Environment Review Orders (Board Orders) pertaining to regional haze 
requirements for (1) cement kiln sources, and (2) electrical generating 
unit sources. The emission limits and other requirements in these 
orders are intended to address the SO2 and NOX 
BART requirements for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette that were 
previously vacated by the Ninth Circuit and to replace the limits that 
currently exist in EPA's FIP with SIP-based limits for PM BART for 
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette, and SO2, NOX, 
and PM BART requirements for cement kilns. The 2012 regional haze FIP 
codified those provisions at 40 CFR 52.1396 Federal implementation plan 
for regional haze and contains the following paragraphs: (a) 
Applicability, (b) Definitions, (c) Emissions limitations, (d) 
Compliance date, (e) Compliance determinations for SO2 and NOX, (f) 
Compliance determinations for particulate matter, (g) Recordkeeping for 
EGUs, (h) Recordkeeping for cement kilns, (i) Reporting, (j)-(k) 
Reserved, (l) Notifications, (m) Equipment operation, (n) Credible 
evidence, (o) CFAC notification, (p) M2Green Redevelopment LLC 
notification.
    To assess whether the SIP revision is consistent with the regional 
haze requirements of the CAA, we evaluated the revisions against the 
regional haze requirements under the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. 
For those provisions that are proposed to replace the FIP provisions, 
we also compared those components of the Board Orders with the 
corresponding provisions in the FIP as well as the regional haze 
requirements under the CAA and EPA's regulations.
    As noted previously, Montana's 2020 regional haze SIP revision 
contains enforceable emission limitations and other enforceable 
requirements intended to replace the FIP-based enforceable requirements 
in the Code of Federal Regulations. It does not, however, contain the 
technical analyses and other demonstrations and information required to 
support BART determinations pursuant to 50 CFR 51.308(e). Thus, if this 
rulemaking is finalized as proposed, the State's Board Orders will 
replace the enforceable emission limits and associated requirements in 
EPA's FIP with SIP-based requirements. However, other regional haze 
requirements, including analytical requirements associated with both 
BART and reasonable progress, will remain satisfied by EPA's previously 
promulgated FIP.

A. Requirements for Cement Kilns

    Montana's regional haze requirements for cement kilns are contained 
in Exhibit A of the Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City Plant, and 
GCC Three Forks, LLC's Trident Plant Board Order Plant dated October 
18, 2019 (Board Order for cement kilns).
    The applicability language of the Board Order for cement kilns is 
identical to the applicability language of the FIP for cement kilns 
found at 40 CFR 52.1396(a). EPA's FIP determination that Ash Grove--
Montana City Plant and GCC Three Forks--Trident Plant are subject to 
BART was consistent with the

[[Page 55335]]

requirement to determine which BART-eligible sources may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in any 
class I area and are thus subject to BART.30 31 Therefore, 
because our FIP analysis and requirements are consistent with the 
applicable regional haze requirements and because Section 1--
Applicability of the Board Order for cement kilns is identical to our 
FIP, we propose to approve Section 1--Applicability of the Board Order 
for cement kilns as satisfying the applicable requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(e).32 33 Likewise, the definitions found at 40 CFR 
52.1396(b) in the FIP applicable to cement kilns are identical to the 
definitions in Section 2--Definitions Board Order for cement kilns in 
the FIP. Thus, we also propose to approve Section 2--Definitions of the 
Board Order for cement kilns as meeting the applicable regional haze 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
    \31\ See Docket EPA-R08-OAR -2011-0851 for EPA's 2012 regional 
haze FIP for the analysis.
    \32\ The Trident cement kiln was previously under the ownership 
of Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc. when the FIP was last 
amended. See 82 FR 42738 (September 12, 2017).
    \33\ The notification requirements found at 40 CFR 52.1396(o) 
and 40 CFR 52.1396(p) for CFAC and M2Green Redevelopment LLC, 
respectively, are no longer applicable beyond July 31, 2018. Thus, 
the SIP submittal does not contain requirements for these sources. 
Regional haze requirements for these sources may be addressed in 
future regional haze planning periods, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART determinations and associated compliance dates contained 
in the 2012 regional haze FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(2) and 40 CFR 
52.1396(c)(4) were made pursuant to a five-factor analysis consistent 
with the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and Appendix Y 
(BART Guidelines).\34\ The PM, NOX, and SO2 
emission limitations and associated compliance dates for cement kilns 
in Section 3--Emissions Limitations, and Section 4--Compliance Dates of 
the Board Order for cement kilns are identical to the requirements 
found in the FIP. Therefore, because our FIP analysis and requirements 
are consistent with the regional haze requirements under the CAA and 
the emission limits and compliance dates in Section 3--Emissions 
Limitations and Section 4--Compliance Dates of the Board Order for 
cement kilns are identical to our FIP, we propose to approve these 
portions of the state's SIP revision as meeting the applicable regional 
haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Docket EPA-R08-OAR -2011-0851 for EPA's 2012 regional 
haze FIP for the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the compliance determinations for NOX 
and SO2 for cement kilns, the requirements in Section 5(1)--
Compliance determinations for SO2 and NOX of the Board Order for cement 
kilns are identical to the requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR 
52.1396(e)(3) and 40 CFR 52.1396(e)(4). With respect to compliance 
determinations for PM for cement kilns currently found in the FIP at 40 
CFR 52.1396(f)(2), Montana is relying on requirements contained in the 
Board Order for cement kilns (Section 5(2)--Compliance determinations 
for particulate matter) as well as compliance-determination provisions 
in an applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Source Categories (NESHAPS). Specifically, the state is 
relying on NESHAPS LLL for portland cement plants,\35\ contained in 
Montana's SIP through the reference of 40 CFR part 63 in ARM 17.8.106, 
to satisfy applicable requirements related to clinker production 
determinations, required number of tests per run, and applicable 
Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) plans. Together, these 
requirements contain the applicable PM compliance determinations 
requirements for cement kilns. Because Montana's compliance-
determination provisions are the same as the corresponding provisions 
in EPA's FIP, which were based on the analysis and rationale that meet 
the applicable regional haze requirements under the CAA at 40 CFR 
51.308(e), we propose to approve this section as meeting the applicable 
regional haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 40 CFR 63.1340-63.1359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements found in the Board 
Order for cement kilns (Section 6--Recordkeeping, Section 7--Reporting) 
are identical to the requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(h) 
and 40 CFR 52.1396(i), respectively, for cement kilns. Thus, because 
our FIP analysis and requirements are consistent with the regional haze 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e) and Section 6--Recordkeeping and 
Section 7--Reporting are identical to our FIP, we propose to approve 
these sections of the SIP revision as meeting the applicable regional 
haze requirements. Likewise, the notification and equipment operation 
requirements contained in the Board Order for cement kilns (Section 8--
Notifications, Section 9--Equipment Operation) are identical to the 
requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(l) and 40 CFR 
52.1396(m), respectively. Because our FIP analysis and requirements are 
consistent with the regional haze requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e) 
and Section 8--Notifications and Section 9--Equipment Operation of the 
Board Order for cement kilns are identical to our FIP, we also propose 
to approve these sections of the SIP revision as meeting the applicable 
regional haze requirements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 40 CFR 52.1396(j)-(k) are reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, for the purposes of determining whether a source is in 
compliance with the requirements of the Board Order for cement kilns, 
Montana will rely on ARM 17.8.132--Credible Evidence 37 
which does not preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any 
credible evidence or information, relevant to whether a source would 
have been in compliance if the appropriate compliance test procedures 
or methods had been performed. We propose to find this language 
equivalent to the language found in the FIP as well as meeting the 
applicable requirements at 40 CFR 51.212(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ ARM 17.8.132 Credible Evidence was last updated in 
Montana's SIP on November 20, 2002. (67 FR 70009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, we propose to find that the NOX, 
SO2, and PM BART regional haze requirements pertaining to 
cement kilns for the first planning period found in the SIP revision 
are sufficient to replace the FIP provisions for these sources. We 
therefore propose to approve the Board Order for cement kilns in its 
entirety.

B. Requirements for Electrical Generating Units

    Montana's regional haze requirements for EGUs are contained in 
Exhibit A of the Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric Station, 
Units 1 and 2; and JE Corette Steam Electric Station Board Order dated 
October 18, 2019 (Board Order for EGUs).
    The Corette facility shut down operations and surrendered its 
permits in 2015 and is now dismantled, thus making its future operation 
impossible.38 39 Therefore, we propose to find that Corette 
no longer has BART obligations that need to be addressed within 
Montana's regional haze SIP. Additionally, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 are 
required, per consent decree, to permanently cease operations by July 
1, 2022, and the State is requesting EPA to incorporate the shutdown 
commitment in its SIP.40 41 On January 14, 2020, Talen 
Montana, LLC informed the Montana Department of Environmental Quality 
that Colstrip Units 1 and 2 permanently ceased operation on

[[Page 55336]]

January 2, 2020, and January 3, 2020, respectively.\42\ However, given 
that the enforceable shutdown date is still in the future, we are 
analyzing the Board Order as though Colstrip Units 1 and 2 were still 
in operation and will shut down by July 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Board Order for EGUs, Sections 1 and 3.
    \39\ 81 FR 11727 (March 7, 2016); 81 FR 28718 (May 10, 2016).
    \40\ The permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 is 
required by Consent Decree in Case 1: 13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL filed 
September 6, 2016.
    \41\ Board Order for EGUs, Section 3.
    \42\ Letter from Talen Montana to MT DEQ, January 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicability language of the Board Order for EGUs is identical 
to the applicability language of the FIP for EGUs found at 40 CFR 
52.1396(a). EPA's FIP determination that Corette and Colstrip Units 1 
and 2 are subject to BART was consistent with the requirement to 
determine which BART-eligible sources may reasonably be anticipated to 
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in any class I area 
and are thus subject to BART.43 44 Therefore, because our 
FIP analysis and requirements are consistent with the regional haze 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) and Section 1--Applicability 
of the Board Order for EGUs is identical to our FIP, we propose to 
approve Section 1--Applicability of the Board Order for EGUs as 
satisfying the applicable requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(e).45 46 Likewise, except for the exclusion of the 
definition for Boiler Operating Day in the Board Order for EGUs, the 
definitions found in Section 2--Definitions of the Board Order for EGUs 
are identical to the definitions at 40 CFR 52.1396(b) of the FIP and 
are based on the analysis and rationale stated in the FIP. Because 
Boiler Operating Day is used exclusively in a section of the FIP 
pertaining to NOX and SO2 compliance 
determinations for EGUs that is no longer applicable due to the Ninth 
Circuit vacatur and remand \47\ we also propose to approve Section 2--
Definitions of the Board Order for EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
    \44\ See Docket EPA-R08-OAR -2011-0851 for EPA's 2012 regional 
haze FIP for the analysis.
    \45\ As previously noted in the preamble as well as in Montana's 
Board Order for EGUs, the Corette facility no longer exists.
    \46\ The Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 was 
previously under the ownership of PPL Montana, LLC.
    \47\ On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit vacated the NOX and SO2 BART emission 
limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2. However, the 
definition for Boiler Operating Day, used exclusively in the method 
for compliance determinations for NOX and SO2 
for EGUs in 40 CFR 52.1396(e)(2), remained in the FIP. See National 
Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to NOX and SO2 emission 
limitations and associated compliance dates for Colstrip Units 1 and 2, 
the original requirements of the 2012 regional haze FIP at 40 CFR 
52.1396(c)(1) and 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(4) were vacated by the Ninth 
Circuit as previously described. Thus, Montana's regional haze SIP 
revision NOX and SO2 BART determinations for 
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 are original determinations (i.e., BART 
determinations in the first instance). As described in Section 3--
Emissions Limitations of the Board Order for EGUs, Montana determined 
NOX and SO2 BART to be an enforceable and 
permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 no later than July 1, 2022 
\48\ due to the request of the owner/operator. Accordingly, Montana 
included the requirement that Colstrip Units 1 and 2 cease operation no 
later than July 1, 2022, in the facility's Title V Operating Permit 
\49\ as well as the Board Order for EGUs. Although EPA's regulations do 
not require states to consider a shutdown of an existing unit as part 
of their BART analyses, neither the Regional Haze Rule or BART 
Guidelines prohibit states or EPA from considering a shutdown as part 
of a BART determination if the strategy is proposed by the source; a 
state can then include such an option in their SIP as a strategy for 
reducing emissions. Because the enforceable shutdown of Colstrip Units 
1 and 2 eliminates all emissions by July 1, 2022, which is within the 
statutory timeframe for compliance with BART (``as expeditiously as 
practicable but in no event later than five years after the date of 
approval of a plan revision under this section'' \50\), the State may 
treat the shutdowns as the most stringent control option available. We 
propose to find that the enforceable shutdown date submitted in section 
3(1)(b) of the Board Order for EGUs satisfies Montana's obligation to 
require SO2 and NOX BART for Colstrip Units 1 and 
2 per 40 CFR 51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 is 
required by Consent Decree in Case 1: 13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL filed 
September 6, 2016. The Consent Decree is in effect until January 1, 
2023, unless the two parties invoke the Dispute Resolution 
provisions provided in Section VII of the Consent Decree.
    \49\ Montana Department of Environmental Quality Final Operating 
Permit #OP0513-17, February 4, 2021.
    \50\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to the SO2 and NOX BART emission 
limits for Colstrip Units 1 and 2, which the Ninth Circuit vacated, the 
PM limits for these units have remained in effect. Therefore, the 
State's Board Order for EGUs incorporates the FIP's PM limits for 
inclusion in the SIP. With respect to the PM emission limitation and 
associated compliance date for Colstrip Units 1 and 2, the requirements 
found in the Board Order for EGUs in Section 3--Emissions Limitations, 
and Section 4--Compliance Dates are identical to the requirements found 
in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(1) and 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(4), 
respectively. EPA's FIP emission limits and compliance dates are based 
on the analysis and that meet the applicable regional haze requirements 
under the CAA at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) and the BART Guidelines. 
Therefore, we propose to approve Section 3--Emissions Limitations, and 
Section 4--Compliance Dates of the Board Order for EGUs as meeting the 
applicable PM BART requirements for Colstrip Units 1 and 2. In addition 
to the FIP-equivalent PM emission limitation and associated compliance 
date that we propose to incorporate into Montana's SIP, the requirement 
that Colstrip Units 1 and 2 cease operation no later than July 1, 2022, 
is also applicable.
    Therefore, and for the reasons stated previously, we are proposing 
to approve the PM, NOX, and SO2 emissions 
limitations and associated compliance deadlines for EGUs contained in 
Section 3--Emissions Limitations and Section 4--Compliance Dates of the 
Board Order for EGUs of the State's SIP revision in its entirety.
    With respect to compliance determinations for PM for EGUs found in 
the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1), Montana is relying on identical 
requirements found in the Board Order for EGUs (Section 5--Compliance 
Determinations) as well as compliance determination provisions based in 
an applicable NESHAP. Specifically, the state is relying on NESHAP 
UUUUU for coal and oil-fired EGUs \51\ contained in Montana's SIP 
through the reference of 40 CFR part 63 in ARM 17.8.106 to satisfy 
applicable requirements related to the required number of tests per run 
and applicable CAM plans. Together, these requirements contain the 
applicable PM compliance determination requirements for EGUs based on 
the analysis and rationale stated in the FIP and meet the applicable 
regional haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(e); therefore, we propose 
to approve Section 5--Compliance Determinations of the Board Order for 
EGUs. We are also proposing to find that compliance determinations for 
NOX and SO2 for EGUs are not necessary, and 
therefore not contained in the Board Order for EGUs, because Montana 
determined NOX and SO2 BART to be an enforceable 
and permanent shutdown of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 by July 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 40 CFR 63.9980-63.10042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements found in the Board 
Order for EGUs (Section 6--Recordkeeping, Section 7--Reporting) are 
identical to the requirements found in the FIP at 40

[[Page 55337]]

CFR 52.1396(g) and 40 CFR 52.1396(i). EPA's requirements are based on 
the analysis and rationale stated in the FIP \52\ and meet the 
applicable regional haze requirements under the CAA. Therefore, we are 
proposing to approve Section 6--Recordkeeping and Section 7--Reporting 
of the Board Order for EGUs as meeting the applicable regional haze 
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(e). There are no SO2 and 
NOX notification requirements for EGUs in the Board Order 
for EGUs since the SIP revision relies on unit shutdowns to meet the 
requirements of NOX and SO2 BART.\53\ Lastly, the 
EGU equipment operation requirements in Section 8--Equipment Operation 
of the Board Order for EGUs are the same equipment operation 
requirements found in the FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396(m) for EGUs. Therefore, 
because our FIP analysis and requirements are consistent with the 
regional haze requirements and Section 8--Equipment Operation of the 
Board Order for EGUs is identical to our FIP, we also propose to 
approve Section 8--Equipment Operation of the Board Order for EGUs as 
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(e).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Except for the absence of reporting requirements for 
SO2 and NOX because the SIP relies on unit 
shutdowns within five years in lieu of emission limits for 
compliance with SO2 and NOX BART.
    \53\ On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit vacated the NOX and SO2 BART emission 
limits for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2; however, EPA has not 
yet removed the FIP NOX and SO2 reporting and 
notification requirements pertaining to both cement kiln and EGUs 
found at 40 CFR 52.1396(i) and 40 CFR 52.1396(l), respectively.
    \54\ 40 CFR 52.1396(j)-(k) are reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, for the purposes of determining whether a source is in 
compliance with the requirements of the Board Order for EGUs, Montana 
will rely on ARM 17.8.132--Credible Evidence which does not preclude 
the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or 
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance 
if the appropriate compliance test procedures or methods had been 
performed. We propose to find this language equivalent to the language 
found in the FIP as well as meeting the applicable requirements at 40 
CFR 51.212(c).
    In summary, we propose to find that the NOX, 
SO2, and PM BART regional haze requirements pertaining to 
EGUs for the first planning period found in the SIP revision meet the 
applicable requirements of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule. These 
requirements include PM BART emission limits for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 
that are identical to the emission limits in EPA's FIP as well as new 
SO2 and NOX BART determinations for Colstrip 
Units 1 and 2. We also propose to find that the State was not required 
to make BART determinations or include BART emission limits in its SIP 
for Corette because the source is no longer in existence. We therefore 
propose to approve the Board Order for EGUs in its entirety.

C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

    There are 12 Class I Federal areas affected by sources in Montana. 
The Forest Service manages the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area, Bob 
Marshall Wilderness Area, Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area, Gates of 
the Mountains Wilderness Area, Mission Mountains Wilderness Area, 
Scapegoat Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness Area. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service manages the Medicine Lake Wilderness Area, 
Red Rocks Lake Wilderness Area, and UL Bend Wilderness Area. The 
National Park Service manages Glacier National Park and Yellowstone 
National Park.
    The Regional Haze Rule grants the FLMs a special role in the review 
of regional haze FIPs, as summarized in section II.E in this preamble. 
Because this plan revision includes a proposal to withdraw parts of our 
2012 regional haze FIP, we consulted with the Forest Service, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service on Thursday, August 26, 
2021.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ We did not receive any formal comments from the FLM 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

A. Montana Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

    We are proposing to approve the following elements of Montana's 
Regional Haze SIP revision as satisfying the applicable requirements 
for the first regional haze planning period:
     In the Matter of an Order Setting Air Pollutant Emission 
Limits that the State of Montana may Submit to the Federal 
Environmental Protection Agency for Revision of the State 
Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of Visibility, Affecting the 
Following Facilities: Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City Plant, 
and GCC Three Forks, LLC's Trident Plant. Board Order Findings of Fact, 
Conclusions of Law, and Order. October 18, 2019, Appendix A.
     In the Matter of an Order Setting Air Pollutant Emission 
Limits that the State of Montana may Submit to the Federal 
Environmental Protection Agency for Revision of the State 
Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of Visibility, Affecting the 
Following Facilities: Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric 
Station, Units 1 and 2, and JE Corette Steam Electric Station JE 
Corette Steam Electric Station. Board Order Findings of Fact, 
Conclusions of Law, and Order. October 18, 2019, Appendix A.

B. Federal Implementation Plan Withdrawal

    Because we are proposing to find that Montana's SIP revision 
satisfies the applicable requirements related to the obligation for 
states' regional haze plans to include BART for the first regional haze 
planning period, we are also proposing to withdraw the corresponding 
portions of the 2012 regional haze FIP addressing the NOX, 
SO2, and PM BART emission limits and associated requirements 
for two cement kilns and the PM BART emission limits and associated 
requirements for the two EGU facilities contained within our 2012 
regional haze FIP at 40 CFR 52.1396. While EPA is proposing to approve 
the emission limits, compliance determination requirements, and other 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements associated with 
BART into Montana's SIP as detailed above, other regional haze 
requirements for the first implementation period, including 
requirements related to reasonable progress and analytical requirements 
related to BART will remain satisfied by EPA's FIP.

C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)

    Under CAA section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a plan revision ``if 
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 
of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' 
\56\ The previous sections of this document, our 2012 and 2017 proposed 
rules, and our 2012 and 2017 final rules explain how the proposed SIP 
revision will comply with applicable regional haze requirements and 
general implementation plan requirements, such as enforceability.\57\ 
Approval of the proposed SIP revision would transfer the 
NOX, SO2, and PM BART emission limits for the 
cement kilns and the PM BART emission limits for the EGUs along with 
compliance deadlines, monitoring, recordkeeping, and

[[Page 55338]]

reporting requirements, and other associated requirements currently 
found in EPA's 2012 FIP \58\ into Montana's Regional Haze SIP. In 
addition, the proposed SIP addresses the NOX and 
SO2 BART requirements for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2 
in the first instance.\59\ The NOX and SO2 BART 
determination for Corette and Colstrip Units 1 and 2 rely on unit 
shutdowns, which is the most stringent approach to complying with BART 
since there will be no NOX or SO2 emissions (or 
PM emissions) after the unit shutdowns. As such, the SIP revision will 
not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further 
progress, or other CAA requirements as compared to the 2012 FIP 
including the vacated portions on the FIP. Accordingly, we propose to 
find that an approval of the proposed SIP as well as concurrent 
withdrawal of certain portions of the FIP, are not anticipated to 
interfere with applicable requirements of the CAA and therefore CAA 
section 110(l) does not prohibit approval of this SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
    \57\ 77 FR 23988 (April 20, 2012), 77 FR 57864 (September 18, 
2012), 82 FR 17948 (April 14, 2017), 82 FR 42738 (September 12, 
2017).
    \58\ 40 CFR 52.1396.
    \59\ Those requirements were promulgated under the 2012 FIP but 
had been vacated by the Ninth Circuit in 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Remand

    This proposed action also addresses the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit's remand of the NOX and SO2 
emission limits for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette as well as its 
remand of EPA's response to a public comment regarding the use of the 
CALPUFF visibility model in determining BART for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 
in the 2012 final rule.
    Our proposal, if finalized, will address the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals' remand of NOX and SO2 BART for Colstrip 
Units 1 and 2 and Corette for the first planning period. The unit 
shutdowns represent the most stringent BART determinations and emission 
limits since there will be no NOX and SO2 
emissions after the unit shutdowns, which have occurred or will occur 
within the statutory time frame for implementing BART. With respect to 
the court's finding that we did not provide a sufficiently reasoned 
response to a public comment submitted by PPL Montana, LLC, stating 
that the maximum potential visibility benefit of selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) at Colstrip Units 1 and 2 is below the range 
of perceptibility and falls within the CALPUFF model's margin of error, 
meaning such improvement cannot be ``reasonably . . . anticipated'' as 
required by the Act, our proposal approving Colstrip Units 1 and 2 
shutdown as meeting the requirements of NOX and 
SO2 BART moots this comment. We, however, still disagree 
with the comment and provide the following clarifying response:
    We do not agree with the commenter's assertion that the modeled 
visibility improvements from the 2012 regional haze FIP are not 
reasonably anticipated because EPA failed to account for a ``margin of 
error'' in the CALPUFF model. The notion of a calculated ``margin of 
error'' or a level at which the model fails to capture visibility 
improvements that may be ``reasonably anticipated'' is not part of any 
modeling guidance and has no legal or regulatory basis or 
applicability. We fundamentally disagree with the commenter's argument 
that a CALPUFF result within a purported margin of error cannot show 
that a visibility improvement is ``reasonably anticipated''. The phrase 
``reasonably anticipated'' in CAA section 169A(g)(2) is ambiguous and 
susceptible of interpretation. It is certainly reasonable to anticipate 
the degree of visibility improvement that results from the correct 
application (i.e., with an appropriate modeling protocol) of the 
regulatorily approved modeling tool, even if that degree of improvement 
is within an alleged margin of error. By contrast, the statutory 
language of ``reasonably certain'' clearly does not require a result 
that means ``certain to occur.'' The commenter's implied interpretation 
of ``reasonably anticipated,'' i.e. ``certain to occur,'' would be 
contrary to the purposes of the statute and write the term 
``reasonably'' out of it. One reason is that all models have an 
inherent uncertainty. As discussed in EPA's modeling guidance, the 
formulation and application of air quality models are accompanied by 
several sources of uncertainty. ``Irreducible'' uncertainty stems from 
the ``unknown'' conditions, which may not be explicitly accounted for 
in the model (e.g., the turbulent velocity field). Thus, there are 
likely to be deviations from the observed concentrations in individual 
events due to variations in the unknown conditions. ``Reducible'' 
uncertainties are caused by: (1) Uncertainties in the ``known'' input 
conditions (e.g., emission characteristics and meteorological data); 
(2) errors in the measured concentrations; and (3) inadequate model 
physics and formulation.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, 2.1.1.a.
    Thus, according to the currently promulgated version of appendix W, 
there are numerous sources of uncertainties in dispersion models. 
However, the commenter's implied interpretation of ``reasonably 
anticipated'' cannot be what Congress intended. This is true even more 
so in light of the fact that the BART provisions were added in the 1977 
Amendments. At the time, uncertainties with modeling were a great 
concern--for example, many states used unsophisticated rollback models 
for their attainment plans, resulting in decisions to control sources 
that were not well supported. See, e.g., Cleveland Electric 
Illuminating Co. v. EPA, 572 F.2d 1150, 1160-61 (6th Cir. 1978). Given 
the context, Congress cannot have intended ``reasonably anticipated'' 
to mean ``certain to occur.'' A much more plausible interpretation of 
``reasonably anticipated'' is ``can be predicted using current 
models.''
    We also note that, viewed properly, this comment was addressed by 
the BART Guidelines themselves. As shown by the above discussion, the 
commenter's theory is not about the application of a model to a 
particular situation, it is about the interpretation of the statute 
itself. When we promulgated the BART Guidelines, we essentially 
interpreted the phrase ``degree of improvement in visibility which may 
reasonably be anticipated'' to be the visibility improvement predicted 
by CALPUFF, or another appropriate dispersion model. See 40 CFR part 
51, appendix Y, IV.D.5 (``Use CALPUFF, or other appropriate dispersion 
model to determine the visibility improvement expected at a Class I 
area from the potential BART control technology applied to the 
source.'') (emphasis added).
    Finally, the degree of visibility improvement from emissions 
controls is a relative determination. The determination may be the 
degree of visibility improvement of one control scenario relative to an 
uncontrolled baseline, or it may be the degree of visibility 
improvement of one control scenario relative to another control 
scenario. CALPUFF is reliable for determining relative differences 
between situations, even when the difference is small. We recognize 
that the difference in visibility improvement between a BART control 
case and a baseline case may in some cases be small and treat it 
accordingly in the evaluation of the BART visibility improvement 
factor. This is precisely what Congress intended in determining BART: 
that states (or EPA in a FIP) consider the degree of visibility 
improvement that can reasonably be anticipated from the BART control 
scenarios. That a small visibility improvement might fall within an 
alleged margin of error is a red herring--

[[Page 55339]]

a small visibility improvement will be weighed less in the BART 
determination, which is perfectly in line with the statute and 
Congress' intent.
    This proposal, if finalized, will wholly resolve the Agency's 
obligations on remand.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an 
EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the Montana board orders described in section IV.A of this 
preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials 
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 8 
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) because it applies to only 4 facilities in the State of 
Montana.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), because it revises 
the reporting requirements for 4 facilities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities as no small 
entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action merely 
transfers the regional haze requirements found in the 2012 regional 
haze FIP to a SIP and approve the State's permanent closure of two 
facilities, thus this action is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This action is also not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'', requires EPA to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal 
implications.'' \60\ This action does not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct 
effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action. However, EPA did send letters to each of the 
Montana tribes explaining our regional haze action and offering 
consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 65 FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997). EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only 
to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety 
risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 establishes federal executive policy on 
environmental justice.\61\ Its main provision directs federal agencies, 
to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high, and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, we determined that our final action would ``not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increased the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.'' \62\ Because this proposed rule alters the 
existing requirements for regional haze in the State of Montana by 
including the enforceable shutdown of two sources and otherwise only 
transfers existing requirements from a FIP to the SIP, our 
determination is unchanged from that in 2012. EPA, however, did perform 
a screening analysis using the EJScreen tool \63\ to evaluate 
environmental and demographic indicators for the areas impacted by this 
proposed action. The results of this assessment are in the docket for 
this action. These results indicate that areas impacted by this 
proposed action are not potential areas of EJ concern and are not 
candidates for further EJ review. EPA is providing this information for 
public information purposes, and not as a basis of our proposed action. 
We will consider any input regarding environmental justice 
considerations received during the public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 77 FR 57914 (September 18, 2012).
    \63\ EJSCREEN is an environmental justice mapping and screening 
tool that provides the EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and 
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators; 
available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

[[Page 55340]]

Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart BB--Montana

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.1370 by revising the table in paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  52.1370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State
                  Title/subject                      effective     Notice of final rule        NFR citation
                                                       date                date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               (1) Cascade County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 December 5 Stipulation and 1985 October 20        12/5/1985  9/7/1990..............  55 FR 36812.
 Permit for Montana Refining Company. In the
 matter of the Montana Refining Company, Cascade
 County; compliance with ARM 16.8.811, ambient
 air quality standard for carbon monoxide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              (2) Deer Lodge County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978 November 16 Order for Anaconda Copper            11/16/1978  1/10/1980.............  45 FR 2034.
 Smelter. In the Matter of the Petition of the
 Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
 for an Order adopting a Sulfur Oxides Control
 Strategy for the Anaconda Copper Smelter at
 Anaconda, Montana, and requiring the Anaconda
 Company to comply with the Control Strategy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               (3) Flathead County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Permit #2667-M, Dated 1/24/92. Plum        1/24/1992  4/14/1994.............  59 FR 17700.
 Creek Manufacturing, Inc.
Stipulation--A-1 Paving, In the Matter of              9/17/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Compliance of A-1 Paving, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Equity Supply Company, In the             9/17/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Matter of Compliance of Equity Supply Company.
Stipulation--Flathead Road Department #1, In the       9/17/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Matter of Compliance of Flathead Road
 Department, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Flathead Road Department #2, In the       9/17/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Matter of Compliance of Flathead Road
 Department, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Klingler Lumber Company, In the           9/17/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Matter of Compliance of Klinger Lumber Company,
 Inc., Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--McElroy & Wilkens, In the Matter of       9/17/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Compliance of McElroy and Wilkens, Inc.,
 Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Montana Mokko, In the Matter of           9/17/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Compliance of Montana Mokko, Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Pack and Company, In the Matter of         9/7/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Compliance of Pack and Company, Inc.,
 Kalispell, Montana.
Stipulation--Pack Concrete, In the Matter of           9/17/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Compliance of Pack Concrete, Inc., Kalispell,
 Montana.
Stipulation--Plum Creek, In the Matter of              9/17/1993  3/19/1996.............  61 FR 11153.
 Compliance of Plum Creek Manufacturing, L.P.,
 Kalispell, Montana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               (4) Gallatin County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC Three Forks, LLC's Trident Plant October 18,      10/18/2019  [date of publication    [Federal Register
 2019 Board Order Findings of Fact, Conclusions                    of the final rule in    citation of the final
 of Law, and Order. Setting Air Pollutant                          the Federal Register].  rule].
 Emission Limits For Revision of the State
 Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of
 Visibility, Appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              (5) Jefferson County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove Cement Company's Montana City Plant         10/18/2019  [date of publication    [Federal Register
 October 18, 2019 Board Order Findings of Fact,                    of the final rule in    citation of the final
 Conclusions of Law, and Order. Setting Air                        the Federal Register].  rule].
 Pollutant Emission Limits For Revision of the
 State Implementation Plan Concerning Protection
 of Visibility, Appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           (6) Lewis and Clark County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Suspended Particulate NAAQS--East Helena,        4/24/1979  1/10/1980.............  45 FR 2034.
 ASARCO Application for Revisions of Montana
 State Air Quality Control Implementation Plan--
 Only as it applies to Total Suspended
 Particulate.
Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS--Board Orders,                    3/15/1994  1/27/1995.............  60 FR 5313.
 Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco
 Stipulation--1994 March 15.

[[Page 55341]]

 
Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS--Board Orders,                    3/15/1994  1/27/1995.............  60 FR 5313.
 Stipulations, Exhibits, and Attachments,
 Exhibit A--Asarco Emission Limitations and
 Conditions, Asarco Incorporated, East Helena,
 Montana.
Asarco Board Order--1994 March 18. In the Matter       3/18/1994  1/27/1995.............  60 FR 5313.
 of the Application of the Department of Health
 and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the
 Montana State Air Quality Control
 Implementation Plan Relating to Control of
 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from the Lead Smelter
 Located at East Helena, Montana, owned and
 operated by Asarco Incorporated.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                6/30/1995  6/18/2001.............  66 FR 32760.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, American Chemet
 Stipulation--1995 June 30.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                 8/4/1995  6/18/2001.............  66 FR 32760.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, American Chemet
 Board Order--1995 August 4.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                6/10/2013  3/28/2018.............  83 FR 13196.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, Exhibit A--American
 Chemet Emissions Limitations and Conditions,
 American Chemet Corporation, East Helena,
 Montana.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                6/11/1996  6/18/2001.............  66 FR 32760.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation--
 1996 June 11.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                6/26/1996  6/18/2001.............  66 FR 32760.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Board Order--
 1996 June 26.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                6/26/1996  6/18/2001.............  66 FR 32760.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, Exhibit A--Asarco
 Emission Limitations and Conditions with
 attachments 1-7, Asarco Lead Smelter, East
 Helena, Montana.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                8/28/1998  6/18/2001.............  66 FR 32760.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation--
 1998 August 13.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                8/28/1998  6/18/2001.............  66 FR 32760.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Board Order--
 1998 August 28.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                9/15/2000  6/18/2001.............  66 FR 32767.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Stipulation--
 2000 July 18.
Lead NAAQS--Board Orders, Stipulations,                9/15/2000  6/18/2001.............  66 FR 32767.
 Exhibits, and Attachments, Asarco Board Order--
 2000 September 15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               (7) Lincoln County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board Order--1994 December 16 (Stimson Lumber).       12/16/1994  9/30/1996.............  61 FR 51014.
 In the Matter of Compliance of Stimson Lumber
 Company, Libby, Montana.
Air Quality Permit #2627-M Dated 7/25/91.              3/19/1993  8/30/1994.............  59 FR 44627.
 Stimson Lumber Company (formerly Champion
 International Corp).
Stipulation--Stimson Lumber. In the Matter of         12/16/1994  9/30/1996.............  61 FR 51014.
 Compliance of Stimson Lumber Company, Libby,
 Montana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               (8) Missoula County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Permit #2303M, Dated 3/20/92.              3/20/1992  1/18/1994.............  59 FR 2537.
 Louisiana-Pacific Corporation.
Air Quality Permit #2589M, Dated 1/23/92. Stone        1/24/1992  1/18/1994.............  59 FR 2537.
 Container Corporation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               (9) Rosebud County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980 October 22 Permit for Western Energy             10/22/1980  4/26/1985.............  50 FR 16475.
 Company.
Talen Montana, LLC's Colstrip Steam Electric          10/18/2019  [date of publication    [Federal Register
 Station, Units 1 and 2 October 18, 2019 Board                     of the final rule in    citation of the final
 Order Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and                   the Federal Register].  rule].
 Order. Setting Air Pollutant Emission Limits
 For Revision of the State Implementation Plan
 Concerning Protection of Visibility, Appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             (10) Silver Bow County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Permit #1636-06 dated 8/22/96. Rhone-      8/22/1996  12/6/1999.............  64 FR 68034.
 Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company.
Air Quality Permit #1749-05 dated 1/5/94.               1/5/1994  3/22/1995.............  60 FR 15056.
 Montana Resources, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             (11) Yellowstone County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cenex June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation.       6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 In the Matter of the Application of the
 Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
 for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality
 Control Implementation plan Relating to Control
 of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
 Laurel Area.
Cenex June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00            3/17/2000  5/22/2003.............  68 FR 27908.
 Revisions) Emission Limitations and Other
 Conditions.
Cenex March 17, 2000 Board Order and                   3/17/2000  5/22/2003.............  68 FR 27908.
 Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
 of the Department of Environmental Quality for
 Revision of the Montana State Air Quality
 Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control
 of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
 Laurel Area.

[[Page 55342]]

 
Conoco June 12, 1998 Board Order and                   6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
 of the Department of Health and Environmental
 Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air
 Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to
 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the
 Billings/Laurel Area.
Conoco June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission               6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 Limitations and Other Conditions.
Exxon June 12, 1998 Board Order and Stipulation.       6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 In the Matter of the Application of the
 Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
 for Revision of the Montana State Air Quality
 Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control
 of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
 Laurel Area.
Exxon June 12, 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00            3/17/2000  5/22/2003.............  68 FR 27908.
 Revisions). Emission Limitations and Other
 Conditions.
Exxon March 17, 2000 Board Order and                   3/17/2000  5/22/2003.............  68 FR 27908.
 Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
 of the Department of Environmental Quality for
 Revision of the Montana State Air Quality
 Control Implementation Plan Relating to Control
 of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/
 Laurel Area.
Montana Power June 12, 1998 Board Order and            6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
 of the Department of Health and Environmental
 Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air
 Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to
 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the
 Billings/Laurel Area.
Montana Power June 12, 1998 Exhibit A, Emission        6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 Limitations and Conditions.
Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company June 12, 1998       6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter of
 the Application of the Department of Health and
 Environmental Sciences for Revision of the
 Montana State Air Quality Control
 Implementation plan Relating to Control of
 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel
 Area.
Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company June 12, 1998       6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 Exhibit A. Emission Limitations and Other
 Conditions.
Western Sugar June 12, 1998 Board Order and            6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 Stipulation. In the Matter of the Application
 of the Department of Health and Environmental
 Sciences for Revision of the Montana State Air
 Quality Control Implementation plan Relating to
 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the
 Billings/Laurel Area.
Western Sugar June 12, 1998 Exhibit A. Emission        6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 Limitations and Other Conditions.
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership June 12,        6/12/1998  5/2/2002..............  67 FR 22168.
 1998 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter
 of the Application of the Department of Health
 and Environmental Sciences for Revision of the
 Montana State Air Quality Control
 Implementation Plan Relating to Control of
 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel
 Area.
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership June 12,        3/17/2000  5/22/2003.............  68 FR 27908.
 1998 Exhibit A (with 3/17/00 revisions)
 Emission Limitations and Other Conditions.
Yellowstone Energy Limited Partnership March 17,       3/17/2000  5/22/2003.............  68 FR 27908.
 2000 Board Order and Stipulation. In the Matter
 of the Application of the Department of
 Environmental Quality for Revision of the
 Montana State Air Quality Control
 Implementation Plan Relating to Control of
 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the Billings/Laurel
 Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   (12) Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JE Corette Steam Electric Station October 18,         10/18/2019  [date of publication    [Federal Register
 2019 Board Order Findings of Fact, Conclusions                    of the final rule in    citation of the final
 of Law, and Order. Setting Air Pollutant                          the Federal Register].  rule].
 Emission Limits For Revision of the State
 Implementation Plan Concerning Protection of
 Visibility, Appendix A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Sec.  52.1396  [Removed and Reserved]

0
3. Remove and reserve Sec.  52.1396.

[FR Doc. 2022-18680 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P