Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0851-0157
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approvals and Promulgations of Implementation Plans: State of Montana; State Implementation Plan and Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Corrections
Posted Date: 2012-05-17T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29270-29271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11967]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0851, FRL-9673-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Montana; State Implementation Plan and Regional Haze Federal 
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; corrections.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is correcting a proposed rule that appeared in the Federal 
Register on April 20, 2012. The proposed rule includes the proposed 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address regional haze in the State 
of Montana and the proposed approval of revisions to the Montana SIP 
submitted by the State of Montana through the Montana Department of 
Environmental Quality on February 17, 2012. We are correcting some 
typographical errors and clarifying some information with this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Hinkle, EPA, Region 8, (303) 
312-6561.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'' or 
``our'' is used it means the EPA.
    On April 20, 2012, EPA published the proposed rule titled 
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Montana; 
State Implementation Plan and Regional Haze Federal Implementation 
Plan'' (77 FR 23988). See docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0851. The 
following corrections are made to the proposed rule:
    1. On page 23992, Footnote 7 is amended to read as follows: 
``Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the 
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-005, available at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf, 
(hereinafter referred to as ``our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance''); 
and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, 
(September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-004, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as 
our ``2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').''
    2. On page 24002, Footnote 27 is amended to read as follows: `` 
``Modeling Protocol: Montana Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) Support'', University of North Carolina, Contract EP-D-07-102, 
November 21, 2011.''
    3. On page 24004, Footnote 40 is amended to read as follows: ``Ash 
Grove Update March 2012 (Ash Grove's letter indicates a mean of 14.4 
lbs./ton clinker and a 99th percentile of 18.6 lb NOX/ton 
clinker. This is significantly greater than the 2006 emissions shown in 
Table 10 for the Midlothian kilns.).''
    4. On pages 24013 and 24014, Footnote 75 is amended to read as 
follows: ``BART analysis by Holcim for Trident Cement Plant, Three 
Forks, MT (``Holcim Initial Response'') (July 6, 2007); Responses to 
EPA comments on BART analysis for Trident Cement Plant (``Holcim 2008 
Responses'') (Jan. 25, 2008); BART analysis by Holcim for low 
NOX burners for Trident Cement Plant (``Holcim Additional 
Response, June 2009'') (June 9, 2009); Response to EPA letter regarding 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims on BART analysis for 
Trident Cement Plant (``Holcim Additional Response, August 2009'') 
(Aug. 12, 2009); Response to EPA request for NOX and 
SO2 emissions data for 2008-2010 (``Holcim 2011 Response'') 
(June 30, 2011); Response to EPA request for emissions and clinker 
production for Holcim pursuant to CAA section 114(a) (``Holcim 2012 
Response'') (Mar. 2, 2012).''
    5. On page 24014, in the first column, the first sentence of the 
second paragraph is amended to read, ``We identified that the following 
previously described NOX control technologies are available: 
LNB, MKF, FGR, SNCR, and SCR.''
    6. On page 24018, in Table 52, the annual emissions reduction for 
fuel switching option 2 is amended to 31.1 tpy, the remaining annual 
emissions for fuel switching option 2 is amended to 19.1 tpy, the 
annual emissions reduction for fuel switching option 1 is amended to 
16.1 tpy, and the remaining annual emissions for fuel switching option 
1 is amended to 34.1 tpy.
    7. On page 24020, in Table 60, the emissions reductions from fuel 
switching option 1 are amended to 16.1 tpy, the average cost 
effectiveness for fuel switching option 1 is amended to 14,938 dollars 
per ton, the emissions reduction from fuel switching option 2 is 
amended to 31.1 tpy, and the average cost effectiveness for fuel 
switching option 2 is amended to 21,211 dollars per ton.
    8. On page 24021, in Table 63, the average cost effectiveness for 
fuel switching option 2 is amended to 21,211 dollars per ton, and the 
average cost effectiveness for fuel switching option 1 is amended to 
14,938 dollars per ton.
    9. On page 24023, Footnote 113 is amended to read as follows: 
``Baseline emissions were determined by averaging

[[Page 29271]]

the annual emissions from 2008 through 2010 as reported to the CAMD 
database available at http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/.''
    10. On page 24024, Footnote 123 is amended to read as follows: 
``EPA's CCM Sixth Edition, January 2002, EPA/452/B-02-001, Section 1, 
Chapter 2, p. 2-21.''
    11. On page 24025, Footnote 130 is amended to read as follows: 
``ICAC February 2008, p. 8.''
    12. On page 24031, Footnote 150 is amended to read as follows: 
``Baseline emissions were determined by averaging the annual emissions 
from 2008 to 2010 as reported to the CAMD database available at http://
camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/.''
    13. On page 24059, in the first column, the second paragraph is 
amended to read, ``We are eliminating the four refineries from further 
consideration as a result of consent decrees entered into by the 
owners. Under these consent decrees, emissions have been reduced 
sufficiently after the 2002 baseline so that the Q/D for each facility 
is below 10. Specifically, ExxonMobil's emissions in 2009 of 
NOX and SO2 were 1,019 tpy, resulting in a Q/D of 
6. Cenex's emissions in 2009 of NOX and SO2 were 
727 tpy, resulting in a Q/D of 5. Conoco's emissions in 2009 of 
NOX and SO2 were 1,087 tpy, resulting in a Q/D of 
8. Montana Refining's emissions in 2009 of NOX and 
SO2 were 122 tpy, resulting in a Q/D of 2. The consent 
decrees are available in the docket.''
    14. On page 24063, in the first column, the first sentence of the 
last paragraph is amended to read, ``We are relying on CELP's estimates 
that SCR would take approximately 26 months to install and that SNCR 
would take 16 to 24 weeks to install.\239\''
    15. On page 24064, the title for the last column of Table 162 is 
amended to read, ``Remaining emissions (tpy).''
    16. On page 24070, in the third column, the fourth sentence of the 
second paragraph is amended to read, ``This control option is 
functionally equivalent to LSFO in terms of concept and control 
efficiency.''
    17. On page 24071, in the first column, the second full sentence of 
the first paragraph is amended to read, ``We used 85% control for this 
analysis.''
    18. On page 24071, in the first column, the sixth sentence of the 
second paragraph is amended to read, ``We used 70% control for this 
analysis (about a 10% improvement over existing controls).''
    19. On page 24074, in the third column, the first sentence of the 
fifth paragraph is amended to read, ``We identified that the following 
technologies to be available: extending the Claus reaction into a lower 
temperature liquid phase (the Sulfreen[supreg] process) and tail gas 
scrubbing (Wellman-Lord, SCOT, and traditional FGD processes).''
    20. On page 24074, in the third column, the first sentence of the 
sixth paragraph is amended to read, ``In the Sulfreen[supreg] process, 
the Claus reaction is extended at low temperatures (260 to 300 [deg]F) 
to recover SO2 and H2S in the tail gas.''
    21. On page 24075, in the third column, the third paragraph is 
amended to read, ``Both the SCOT and Sulfreen[supreg] processes are 
feasible; however, in the BART Guidelines, EPA states that it may be 
appropriate to eliminate from further consideration technologies that 
provide similar control levels at higher cost. See 70 FR 39165 (July 6, 
2005). We think it is appropriate to do the same for RP determinations. 
In this case, Sulfreen[supreg] systems reportedly can achieve 98% to 
99.5% sulfur recovery efficiency while SCOT can reportedly achieve 
sulfur recovery as high as 99.8% to 99.9%. The cost is higher for the 
Sulfreen[supreg] system when compared to the SCOT process. Because the 
SCOT process is more effective and costs less than the Sulfreen[supreg] 
system, the Sulfreen[supreg] system was not considered further.''
    22. On page 24076, in the second column, the first sentence of the 
third paragraph is amended to read, ``Plum Creek Manufacturing's 
Columbia Falls Operation, in Columbia Falls, Montana consists of a 
sawmill, a planer, and plywood and medium density fiberboard (MDF) 
processes.''
    23. On page 24097, the following information is added to the third 
column after the second paragraph, ``K. Congressional Review Act
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not 
apply because this action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).''
    24. On page 24097, in the third column, under Subpart BB--Montana, 
the first line of number three is amended to read, ``3. Add section 
52.1395 to read as follows:'' On page 24097, in the third column, under 
Subpart BB--Montana, the first line of number three is amended to read, 
``3. Add section 52.1395 to read as follows:''
    25. On page 24098, section 52.1396 (c)(1) is amended to read, ``The 
owners/operators of EGUs subject to this section shall not emit or 
cause to be emitted PM, SO2 or NOX in excess of 
the following limitations, in pounds per million British thermal units 
(lb/MMBtu), averaged over a rolling 30-day period for SO2 
and NOX:''
    26. On page 24098, section 52.1396 (c)(2) is amended to read, ``The 
owners/operators of cement kilns subject to this section shall not emit 
or cause to be emitted PM, SO2 or NOX in excess 
of the following limitations, in pounds per ton of clinker produced, 
averaged over a rolling 30-day period for SO2 and 
NOX:''
    27. On page 24099, the following is added to section 52.1396 (g), 
``(5) All particulate matter stack test results.''
    28. On page 24099, section 52.1396 (h)(4) is amended to read, ``(4) 
Owner/operator of each unit shall submit results of any particulate 
matter stack tests conducted for demonstrating compliance win the 
particulate matter BART limits in section (c) above, within 60 days 
after completion of the test.''
    29. On page 24100, section 52.1396 (h)(6) is amended to read, ``(6) 
Any other records required by 40 CFR part 60, Subpart F, or 40 CFR part 
60, Appendix F, Procedure 1.''
    30. On page 24100, section 52.1396 (i)(5) is added to read, ``(5) 
Owner/operator of each unit shall submit semi-annual reports of any 
excursions under the approved CAM plan in accordance with the schedule 
specified in the source's title V permit.''

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 8, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012-11967 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P