Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0047-0018
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Montana; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2019-10-04T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53057-53061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21266]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0047; FRL-10000-48-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Montana; 
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
approval of Montana's Regional Haze Progress Report (``Progress 
Report''), submitted by the State of Montana through the Montana 
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on November 7, 2017, as a 
revision to the Montana Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
Montana's Progress Report addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or Act) and the Federal Regional Haze Rule that require each state 
to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable 
progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination 
of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze 
(regional haze plan). The EPA is finalizing approval of Montana's 
determination that the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet 
these RPGs for the first implementation period covering through 2018.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0047. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air and Radiation 
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, gregory.kate@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a 
SIP revision for the first implementation period that evaluates 
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area \1\ 
(Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the 
state which may be affected by emissions from within the state (40 CFR 
51.308(g)). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require 
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress 
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing 
regional haze plan. The first progress report is due 5 years after 
submittal of the initial regional haze plan. Montana declined to submit 
a regional haze SIP covering all required elements in the EPA's 
Regional Haze Rule, which resulted in the EPA administration of the 
majority of the Regional Haze program in the State since the effective 
date of the Federal Implementation Program (FIP) of October 18, 
2012.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 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)). 
These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ 77 FR 57864 (September 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 7, 2017, Montana submitted its Progress Report which, 
among other things, detailed the progress made in the first 
implementation period toward the long-term strategy (LTS) outlined in 
the State's regional haze plan, the visibility improvement measured at 
the twelve Class I areas within Montana, and a determination of the 
adequacy of the State's existing regional haze plan.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 9, 2019 
(84 FR 32682), the EPA proposed to approve Montana's Progress Report. 
The details of Montana's submission and the rationale for the EPA's 
actions are explained in the NPRM.

II. Response to Comments

    Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before August 8, 
2019. The EPA received a total of three public comment submissions on 
the proposed approval. All public comments received on this rulemaking 
action are available for review by the public and may be viewed by 
following the instructions for access to docket materials as outlined 
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. After reviewing the 
comments, the EPA has determined that two of the comment submissions 
are outside the scope of our proposed action and/or fail to identify 
any material issue necessitating a response. We received one comment 
letter from the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) and the 
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), containing three 
significant comments that we are responding to here. Below is a summary 
of those comments and the EPA's responses.
    Comment: In a comment letter dated August 8, 2019, the MEIC and 
NPCA stated that one of the nitrogen oxides (NOX) control 
technologies included in Montana's report is the SmartBurn[supreg] 
technology at Colstrip that ``reduce[s] NOX emissions by 
`80% to 86%.' '' \3\ The commenters assert these reductions are 
anecdotal, do not represent an enforceable emission limit, and cannot 
be relied on to show actual reductions for NOX sufficient to 
satisfy requirements for Montana to make

[[Page 53058]]

reasonable progress towards restoring clean air to Class I areas. The 
commenters assert EPA should not rely on these anecdotal reductions to 
demonstrate compliance, rather they argue the reductions must be 
incorporated into the facility's permit and actual compliance 
monitoring must be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ It is unclear whether the commenter understands 
SmartBurn[supreg] technology to be capable of (1) reducing 
NOX between 80% and 86%, or (2) improving NOX 
reductions from 80% to 86% (i.e., by six percentage points). It is 
also unclear whether the commenter understands these reductions to 
be relative to the emission rates immediately prior to the 
SmartBurn[supreg] modifications or some even earlier baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Each state is required to submit periodic progress 
reports in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) as well 
as a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional 
haze plan in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h). To 
the extent the comment asserts that certain emission reductions should 
be included in Montana's implementation plan in order to make 
reasonable progress and addresses the enforceability of the reductions, 
these issues concern the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) and/or 40 CFR 
51.308(e) and are outside the scope of this action.\4\ Compliance with 
and enforcement of the emission reductions mentioned in the comment 
that are not included in a state's implementation plan are not covered 
by 40 CFR 51.308(g) unless EPA makes a finding that the plan is not 
sufficient. We are not making that finding here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Our proposal solicited comments on the requirements of and 
our proposed determinations regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 84 
FR 32682 (July 9, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs are not enforceable.\5\ Montana has determined, and the 
EPA agrees, that to the extent Montana is not meeting its RPGs, the 
State's failure to meet the RPGs is attributable to wildfire. The 
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the 
portions of the Montana FIP setting BART emissions limits for Colstrip 
Units 1 and 2.\6\ Therefore, commenter's assertion that Montana cannot 
meet its RPGs because they depend on vacated BART measures is a given--
the RPGs currently include the effects of measures that are not part of 
the LTS. That is, the current RPGs are not necessarily a proper 
reflection of the entire suite of determinations that may be necessary 
for Montana to make reasonable progress and may need to be revisited 
once the vacated determinations have been addressed. This obligation 
remains outstanding and is outside the scope of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 77 FR 23988, 24064-24067 (April 20, 2012).
    \6\ National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 
1134 (9th Cir. 2015) (vacating portions of the Montana FIP, 81 FR 
57864 (September 18, 2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We think it is reasonable that Montana submitted a progress report 
addressing the elements of the plan that are in place and enforceable. 
To the extent that Montana has properly evaluated the contents of its 
implementation plan and assessed the progress the State is making with 
regard to its partial implementation plan, Montana has fulfilled its 
obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(g).
    In sum, Montana has met the applicable legal requirements because 
the RPGs in the FIP are not necessarily reflective of what is necessary 
for Montana to make reasonable progress, but to the extent of the 
measures in the implementation plan, Montana has satisfied all its 
requirements for reporting on implementation and progress. This is a 
reasonable approach given where Montana is regarding development of its 
regional haze implementation plan.
    While neither the SmartBurn[supreg] controls employed at Colstrip 
nor the scheduled closure of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 are relevant to the 
evaluation under 40 CFR 51.308(g), we note the following: The comments 
are made in relation to Chapter 2 of the Montana progress report \7\ 
that provides a description of the status of implementation of all 
measures included in the implementation plan for achieving RPGs as 
required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). Chapter 2 of the progress report 
refers to the application of SmartBurn[supreg] at Colstrip Unit 2, 
which is subject to BART, and Colstrip Units 3 and 4, which are subject 
to consideration of controls under reasonable progress. The content of 
the LTS, including any control measures selected as BART or under 
reasonable progress provisions, determines the RPGs (typically by means 
of photochemical modeling). The RPGs are a projected outcome, rather 
than visibility conditions established directly, and the Regional Haze 
Rule provides that the RPGs are not directly enforceable.\8\ The rule 
further explains that the RPGs will be considered by the Administrator 
in evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the implementation plan 
to achieve the progress goal adopted by the State, which we have done 
in evaluating the State's Progress Report. Thus, we disagree with 
commenters apparent assertion that RPGs are enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ SmartBurn[supreg] is mentioned in Chapter 2, pp 2-5 and 2-8.
    \8\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the LTS does not currently include BART requirements for 
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 because, as discussed previously, these 
requirements were vacated and remanded by the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\9\ In addition, in our 2012 FIP, the EPA 
did not establish any additional controls for Units 3 and 4 under 
reasonable progress.\10\ There are currently no control measures 
required by the LTS for Colstrip in the implementation plan for which 
Montana could have provided the status. Accordingly, there is no 
deficiency in the progress report regarding the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(1) as they pertain to the Colstrip facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NPCA v. EPA, No. 12-73710, U.S. 9th Cir. (2015).
    \10\ 77 FR 23988, 24064-24067 (April 20, 2012), 77 FR 57864, 
57902-57903 (September 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though not central to our response, we are also providing 
background information regarding the NOX reductions achieved 
with various SmartBurn[supreg] configurations that have been installed 
on Colstrip Unit 2, and separately on and Units 3 and 4, which the 
State discusses generally in its SIP submittal. SmartBurn, LLC is a 
company that offers NOX reduction technologies such as 
combustion optimization and overfire air. The Title V operating permit 
for Colstrip \11\ indicates that NOx controls on Unit 2 are comprised 
of an Alstom LNCFS\TM\ II system (low-NOX concentric firing 
system and separated overfire air [SOFA]) modified with a 
Smartburn[supreg] Low NOX combustion system.\12\ The 
SmartBurn[supreg] modifications were installed on Unit 2 in 2015. 
Emissions data in EPA's Air Markets Program Database (AMPD) indicate 
that after 2015, the annual emission rate for Unit 2 decreased from 
0.321 lb/MMbtu to 0.154 lb/MMbtu, or by 52.0%.\13\ Because of the large 
decrease in the NOX emission rate, the EPA assumes that the 
modifications to Unit 2 in 2015 occurred due to additional air staging 
with overfire air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Colstrip Final Title V Operating Permit #OP0513-14, 
effective July 17, 2018.
    \12\ Title V permit, Section 2.
    \13\ See spreadsheet created by EPA titled ``AMPD Colstrip 
emissions 2000 to mid-2019.xlsx'' located in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Title V permit indicates that NOX 
controls on Unit 3 and Unit 4 are comprised of an Alstom LNCFS\TM\ III 
system (LNCFS\TM\ with both close-coupled [CCOFA] and SOFA) modified 
with a Smartburn[supreg] Low NOX combustion system.\14\ 
LNCFS\TM\ III was added to Units 3 and 4 in 2007 and 2009, 
respectively. Emissions data from AMPD indicates that, following the 
installation of LNCFS\TM\ III (i.e., both CCOFA and SOFA) at Unit 3, 
the annual emission rate decreased from 0.406 lb/MMBtu to 0.168 lb/
MMbtu, or by

[[Page 53059]]

58.6%.\15\ Comparable reductions were achieved at Unit 4. However, 
these reductions were achieved by LNCFS\TM\ III before the subsequent 
SmartBurn[supreg] modifications to Unit 3 and Unit 4 in 2016 and 2017, 
respectively. Emissions data for Unit 3, where the SmartBurn[supreg] 
modifications have been in place slightly longer than on Unit 4, 
indicate that the annual emission rate decreased from 0.167 lb/MMBtu to 
0.150 lb/MMbtu, or by 9.7%, though a clear emissions trend is difficult 
to identify.\16\ The EPA assumes that these reductions are due to 
combustion optimization (with existing equipment) because the 
reductions are modest and both SOFA and CCOFA were previously 
installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Title V permit, Section 2.
    \15\ EPA Spreadsheet.
    \16\ EPA Spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission reductions resulting from SmartBurn[supreg] 
modifications described previously are incorporated into Colstrip's 
Clean Air Act Title V permit and compliance monitoring is required. The 
Title V permit includes a 30-day rolling average emission limit of 0.20 
lb/MMbtu for Unit 2 with associated compliance measures.\17\ Likewise, 
the Title V permit includes a 30-day rolling average emission limit of 
0.18 lb/MMbtu with associated compliance measures for Unit 3 and Unit 4 
(individually).\18\ As shown by the AMPD emissions data, these emission 
limits are commensurate with the actual emission rates being achieved 
with the SmartBurn[supreg] modifications at the three units.\19\ 
However, as discussed previously, the EPA agrees that any reductions 
resulting from SmartBurn[supreg] technologies discussed in the progress 
report are not pertinent to whether the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(1) have been met. Furthermore, the commenters are mistaken in 
suggesting that it is sufficient for the emission reductions to be 
incorporated into a facility permit. Emissions limits or permits must 
be adopted into the implementation plan to meet the requirements of the 
Regional Haze Rule.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Title V permit, conditions B.4, B.19, B.27, B.29, B.32, and 
B.35.
    \18\ Title V permit, conditions C.14, C.20, C.35, C.41, C.49, 
C.51, C.53, C.54, C.55, C.57, C.58, and C.59.
    \19\ EPA spreadsheet. See charts comparing monthly actual 
emissions to the 30-day rolling average emission limits. Monthly 
emissions are used as a proxy to 30-day rolling average emission 
rates.
    \20\ Under the regional haze rule, a state's long-term strategy 
must include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance 
schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs. 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(3). Additionally, the BART Guidelines require that 
states must establish an enforceable emission limit for each subject 
emission unit at the source and for each pollutant subject to review 
that is emitted from the source. Appendix Y to part 51, section V. 
Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act also requires that SIPs 
shall ``include enforceable emission limitations . . . as may be 
necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the 
Act].'' While a state may include emission limitations in Title I 
construction permits, the emission limits and compliance 
requirements from a permit must be included in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in 2016, the owners of Colstrip (including Talen Energy, 
which also operates Colstrip) entered into a Consent Decree with the 
Sierra Club and the Montana Environmental Information Center, which 
requires closure of Colstrip Units 1 and 2 by July 1, 2022 \21\ and set 
interim emission limits.\22\ This will provide far greater NOx 
reductions at the Colstrip facility than those achieved by the 
SmartBurn[supreg] modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Sierra Club v. Talen Montana, LLC et al., No. 1:13-cv-
00032- DLC-JCL, D. Mon. (2016), Doc. 316-1.
    \22\ The Consent Decree specifies a Unit 1 NOX 
emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMbtu, and a Unit 2 NOX 
emission limit of 0.45 lb/MMBtu (both 30-day rolling average). These 
limits became effective 30 days after the date of entry by the 
court, or on October 6, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The MEIC and NPCA also assert in the comment letter that 
the increase in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) of 47% in 
the State is of concern and question the EPA's description of wildfire 
as nonanthropogenic. The commenters allege that both the EPA and the 
State are dismissive of the increase in fine PM and that wildfire is 
increasing due to climate change. Additionally, the commenters state 
that the Montana Progress Report submission is devoid of discussion 
related to wildfire as it relates to climate and for these reasons 
should be rejected by the EPA. The commenters provided a citation in 
the comments, however, the information cited was not included with the 
comments submitted.
    Response: While we agree that the increase in PM2.5 in 
the State for the time period listed is notable, we do not agree that 
we are dismissive of the increase in our proposed action. In our 
proposed action, we explain that Montana presented data in its Progress 
Report showing that wildfire activity, as can be examined through 
monitored pollutants (organic and elemental carbon specifically) and 
satellite and webcam imagery, are present on the majority of days 
selected as the 20 percent worst days.\23\ This means that webcam 
imagery and satellite data correlate to monitored pollutant data and 
demonstrate that wildfire is a main impediment to visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Montana Progress Report, pp. 4-8 to 4-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our description and assessment of wildfire in our proposal is 
consistent with the definition of wildfire in our regulations, which 
when it occurs on wildland--as it has in Montana--is a natural 
event.24 25 The purpose of the regional haze program is to 
protect visibility and remedy visibility impairment from man-made air 
pollution. We agree with MDEQ's conclusion that the plan requires no 
further revision at this time to meet the 2018 RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ EPA's regulations define a wildfire as fires that are 
started by an unplanned ignition caused by lightning; volcanoes; 
other acts of nature; unauthorized activity; or accidental, human-
caused actions, or a prescribed fire that has developed into a 
wildfire. A wildfire that predominantly occurs on wildland is a 
natural event.
    \25\ See 40 CFR 50.1(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Finally, the commenters allege that the State cannot meet 
its regional haze RPGs in the FIP because the FIP relies on 
installation of SNCR at Colstrip Units 1 and 2. While MEIC and NPCA 
acknowledge Talen's announcement that the two units will close, they 
assert that the EPA should not rely on closure of the EGU as a 
compliance mechanism unless that closure is incorporated into the SIP.
    Response: We do not agree with commenters that the lack of SNCR 
installation at Colstrip will lead to Montana not meeting its RPGs. We 
address this issue in more detail in response to the first comment 
summarized.
    The regional haze regulations require that the periodic progress 
report contain not only a description of the status of implementation 
measures and emission reductions achieved as a result of those 
measures, but importantly, an evaluation of visibility progress against 
the 2018 RPGs.\26\ The RPGs are intended to reflect the emission 
reductions in states' LTS. The fact that Montana's long-term strategy 
may ultimately contain different emissions control technologies for 
Colstrip than those initially required by the EPA's FIP does not 
necessarily preclude the State from meeting the RPGs. Furthermore, as 
is shown in the NPRM for this action and stated previously, monitored 
pollutants (organic and elemental carbon, specifically) from fire--and 
not emissions from Colstrip--are the main impediment to visibility in 
Montana.\27\ Additionally, Table 3 in the proposed action, titled 
``Changes in Montana Total Emissions, Statewide,'' shows a statewide 
decrease in NOX emissions of 32 percent between 2002 and 
2014. Additionally, as indicated in our proposed action, in Table 5, 
``Visibility Progress in Montana's Class I Areas,'' all of the IMPROVE 
monitoring sites within

[[Page 53060]]

the State show the State meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20 percent best 
days.\28\ While only two of the Class I Areas meet the 2018 RPGs on the 
20 percent worst days,\29\ all Class I areas meet the RPGs when looking 
at the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired days. In addition to 
evaluating the visibility conditions applying the regulatory test that 
applies to the 2018 RPGs, the EPA supplemented the most 
anthropogenically impaired days' data in the NPRM for the baseline 
period, current period, and difference in deciviews using the revised 
visibility tracking metric described in the EPA's December 2018 
guidance document.\30\ As explained in the NPRM for this action, though 
this revised visibility tracking metric is applicable to the second and 
future implementation periods for regional haze (and therefore not 
retroactively required for progress reports for the first regional haze 
planning period), the revised tracking metric's focus on the days with 
the highest daily anthropogenic impairment shifts focus away from days 
influenced by fire and dust events, and is therefore a better metric 
for showing visibility progress especially for Class I areas with 
strong impacts from fire, as was the case for the Class I areas within 
and affected by emissions from Montana during the first regional haze 
planning period. The Class I areas are already meeting the RPGs using 
the revised visibility metrics. For the reasons cited previously, we do 
not agree that the lack of SNCR will result in the State failing to 
meet its regional haze RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)-(3).
    \27\ Montana Progress Report, p. 3-9.
    \28\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-1.
    \29\ Montana Progress Report, p. 6-4.
    \30\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the 
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program (December 
20, 2018), available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though peripheral to our response, we also note that under the 
EPA's strategic plan's more effective partnerships approach, the EPA 
has been communicating with the State on implementation of the regional 
haze program. The EPA notes that in addition to preparing the report 
that is the subject of this SIP action, the State also intends to 
develop a SIP to replace EPA's regional haze FIP, including provisions 
for the regional haze rule and BART requirements for Colstrip Units 1 
and 2 vacated by the Ninth Circuit.\31\ As of this writing, EPA has 
reviewed pre-draft SIP submission materials from the State as it 
develops its SIP. Additionally, on August 29, 2019, the State announced 
the opportunity for public comment on the proposed incorporation of air 
pollutant emission limits, currently in EPA's FIP (40 CFR 52.1396), 
including limits on Colstrip Units 1 and 2, into a Montana Board of 
Environmental Review Board Order that may be submitted by the State 
into the SIP. The EPA intends to continue to work with the State as it 
develops its SIP for submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing its proposed approval of Montana's November 7, 
2017 Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze 
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 3, 2019. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by

[[Page 53061]]

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 25, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    Title 40 CFR part 52 is amended 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(e) in the table under the centered heading ``(1) 
Statewide'' by adding the entry ``Montana regional haze 5-year progress 
report'' following the entry ``Montana Code Annotated 2-2-121(2)(e) and 
2-2-121(8)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Notice of
                 Title/subject                        State        final rule                                  NFR citation
                                                 effective date       date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      (1) Statewide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Montana regional haze 5-year progress report...      11/07/2017       10/4/2019  [Insert Federal Register citation.]
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.1387 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1387  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (c) Montana's November 7, 2017 Progress Report meets the applicable 
regional haze requirements set forth in Sec.  51.308(g) and (h).

[FR Doc. 2019-21266 Filed 10-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P