[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33930-33931]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15311]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0639; FRL--9980-77-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Production, Import, Export, Destruction,
Transhipment, and Exempted Uses of Ozone-Depleting Substances (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Production, Import, Export,
Destruction, Transhipment, and Exempted Uses of Ozone-Depleting
Substances (EPA ICR No. 1432.34, OMB Control No. 2060-0170), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
revision of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 2018.
Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on
January 19, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for
an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the
ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 17,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HW-
OAR-2017-0639, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Sleasman, Stratospheric
Protection Division, (6205T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-7716; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: EPA is seeking to combine multiple ICRs to establish one
ICR for all recordkeeping and reporting related to the production,
import, export, transformation, destruction, transhipment, and exempted
uses of all ozone-depleting substances (ODS). As part of this
consolidation, the ICR is also being updated to include the option of
electronic reporting and improvements to the electronic forms under
Title VI of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The ICRs being consolidated into
the existing ICR for Class I ODS (ICR No. 1432.33; OMB Control No.
2060-0170) are the ICRs for Class II ODS (HCFC Allowance System--EPA
ICR Number 2014.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0498) and Methyl Bromide
Critical Use Exemptions (Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for
Applications from Critical use Exemption for the Phase-out of Methyl
Bromide--EPA ICR Number 2031.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0482).
    This ICR covers the requirements under the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) and Title
VI of the CAA that establish limits on total U.S. production, import,
and export of class I and class II controlled ODS (or controlled
substances). Production and import of class I controlled substances
(chlorofluorocarbons and others) was phased out in the United States
with exemptions for essential uses, critical uses of methyl bromide,
quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide, previously used
material, and material that will be transformed or destroyed. There are
also limits and reduction schedules leading to the eventual phaseout of
class II controlled substances, with limited exemptions for previously
used material, and material that will be transformed, destroyed, or
exported to developing countries. To implement the CAA provisions and
meet commitments under the Montreal Protocol, the ODS phaseout
regulations establish control measures for individual companies. EPA
monitors company compliance through the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements established in the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart
A. As part of this ICR renewal, EPA is also removing reporting elements
that are no longer needed, revising others to address changes to a new
electronic ODS Tracking System, and consolidating forms.
    Forms: Class I Producer Quarterly Report, Class II Producer
Quarterly Report, Methyl Bromide Producer Quarterly Report, Class I
Importer Quarterly Report, Class II Importer Quarterly Report, Methyl
bromide Importer Quarterly Report, Class I Exporter Annual Report,
Class II Exporter Quarterly Report, Methyl Bromide Exporter Quarterly
Report, Second-Party Destruction Annual Report, Second-Party
Transformation Annual Report, Class I Laboratory Supplier, Methyl
Bromide Pre-2005 Stocks Annual Report, Distributor of QPS Methyl
Bromide Quarterly Report, Methyl Bromide Trades Report, Methyl Bromide
Sales of Critical Use Annual Report, Class II Request for Additional
Consumption Allowances, and Class II Trades Report.
    Respondents/affected entities: Chemical producers, importers, and
exporters (chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons); research
and development (laboratories); and methyl bromide producers,
importers, exporters, distributors, and applicators.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory--Section 603(b) of
the Clean Air Act.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2,929 (total).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly, annually, and as needed.
    Total estimated burden: 3,763 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $442,926 (per year), which includes $13,082
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 1,726 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the three ICRs
currently approved by OMB. This decrease is a result of efficiencies
from transitioning from paper to electronic reporting. While the one-
time burden increase is associated with the transition to electronic
reporting, overall burden will decrease from efficiencies associated
with electronic reporting. Additionally, EPA estimates fewer companies
reporting on imports and exports of ODS based on 2015 reporting
activity.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-15311 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16029-16038]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05671]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0690; FRL-10006-48-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Montana; Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10
Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
fully approve three Limited Maintenance Plans (LMPs), submitted by the
State of Montana to the EPA on July 23, 2019, for the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and

Libby Moderate nonattainment areas (NAAs) for particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10) and concurrently redesignate the NAAs to attainment
of the 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). In order to approve the LMPs and redesignations, the EPA is
proposing to determine that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs have attained
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\. This
determination is based upon monitored air quality data for the
PM10 NAAQS during the years 2016-2018. The EPA is also
proposing to approve the Kalispell, Columbia Falls, and Libby LMPs as
meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0690 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail
Code 8P-ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303)
312-6175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

A. Description of the Columbia Falls NAA

    The Columbia Falls NAA is one of three NAAs in Flathead County, is
rectangularly shaped, and generally encompasses the downtown portion of
Columbia Falls and the nearby surrounding areas. Columbia Falls and was
originally designated as a Group I area on August 7, 1987, meaning it
was likely to violate the PM10 NAAQS, and was subsequently
classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694. States containing initial
Moderate PM10 NAAs were required to submit, by November 15,
1991, a Moderate NAA State Implementation Plan (SIP) that, among other
requirements, implemented Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
by December 10, 1993, and demonstrated whether it was practicable to
attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. See generally 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to
the EPA on May 6, 1992, and subsequent submissions on August 26, 1994
and July 18, 1995. The State of Montana's SIP for the Columbia Falls
Moderate NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions
inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM10
NAAQS would be achieved in Columbia Falls by December 31, 1994;
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements; and control measures
that satisfy the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9)
of the CAA. The EPA fully approved the Columbia Falls NAA
PM10 attainment plan on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11153).

B. Description of the Libby NAA

    The Libby PM10 NAA is an irregularly shaped portion of
Lincoln County, comprising of the city of Libby, and the surrounding
communities. The area was was originally designated as a Group I area
on August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate the PM10
NAAQS, and was subsequently classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987
24-hour PM10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694.
    The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to
the EPA on November 25, 1991, with revisions and corrections on May 24,
1993 and June 3, 1994. The State of Montana's SIP for the Libby
Moderate PM10 NAA included, among other things: A
comprehensive emissions inventory; RACM; a demonstration that
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS would be achieved in Libby by
December 31, 1994; RFP requirements; and control measures that satisfy
the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
The EPA approved the Libby NAA PM10 attainment plan, with
the exception of the contingency plan, on August 30, 1994 (59 FR
44627). Revisions to the contingency plan were submitted by Montana on
March 15, 1995 and subsequently approved on September 30, 1996 (61 FR
51074).

C. Description of the Kalispell NAA

    The Kalispell NAA is one of three NAAs in Flathead County. It is
irregularly shaped and generally encompasses the City of Kalispell and
the nearby surrounding areas, including the unincorporated community of
Evergreen. Kalispell was originally designated as a Group I area on
August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate the PM10
NAAQS, and was subsequently classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987
24-hour PM10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694.
    The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to
the EPA on November 25, 1991, and submitted three additional submittals
between 1991and 1994. The State of Montana's SIP for the Kalispell
Moderate NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions
inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM10
NAAQS would be achieved in Kalispell by December 31, 1994; RFP
requirements; and control measures that satisfy the contingency
measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. The EPA fully
approved the Kalispell NAA PM10 attainment plan on March 19,
1996 (61 FR 11153).

II. Requirements for Redesignation

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of NAAs

    NAAs can be redesignated to attainment after the area has measured
air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS and when certain
planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the
General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for redesignation. See
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). These criteria are further clarified in a
policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards dated September 4, 1992, ``Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.'' \1\ The criteria for
redesignation are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo) outlines the criteria for
redesignation. The Calcagni memo can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/calcagni_memo_-_procedures_for_processing_requests_to_redesignate_areas_to_attainment_090492.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS;
    (2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the
area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
    (3) The state containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
    (4) The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and
    (5) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

B. The LMP Option for PM10 NAAs

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 NAAs
seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director,
Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment
Areas,'' (hereafter the LMP Option memo)).\2\ The LMP Option memo
contains a statistical demonstration to show that areas meeting certain
air quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain
the standard 10 years into the future. Thus, the EPA has already
provided the maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria
outlined in the LMP Option memo. It follows that future year emission
inventories for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to
determine transportation conformity with the SIP are no longer
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' outlines the criteria for
development of a PM10 limited maintenance plan and can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/2001lmp-pm10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, based upon the most recent 5 years
of air quality data at all monitors in the area, and the 24-hour design
value should be at or below the Critical Design Value (CDV). The CDV is
a calculated design value that indicates that the area has a low
probability (1 in 10) of exceeding the NAAQS in the future. For the
purposes of qualifying for the LMP option, a presumptive CDV of 98
[micro]g/m\3\ is most often employed, but an area may elect to use a
site-specific CDV should the average design value be above 98 [micro]g/
m\3\, while demonstrating that the area has a low probability of
exceeding the NAAQS in the future. The annual PM10 standard
was effectively revoked on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61143), and as such
will not be discussed as a requirement for qualifying for the LMP
option. In addition, the area should expect only limited growth in on-
road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust)
and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis
test. The LMP Option memo also identifies core provisions that must be
included in the LMP. These provisions include an attainment year
emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-
approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option

    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to NAAs and
maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either
conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a federal
action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected
emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions
budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation
conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these
areas need not be capped for the maintenance period; and therefore, a
regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, federal
actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to
satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for
the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered not
limited.

III. Review of Montana's Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans

A. Have the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs attained the
applicable NAAQS?

    States must demonstrate that an area has attained the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS through analysis of ambient air quality data from
an ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM10
concentrations. The data should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) database. On January 31, 2011, the EPA determined that the
Columbia Falls NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS (76 FR 5280).
Today, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Libby and Kalispell
NAAs have attained the PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data
from calendar years 2016-2018. The 24-hour standard is attained when
the expected number of days with levels above 150 [micro]g/m\3\
(averaged over a 3-year period) is less than or equal to one. 40 CFR
50.6(a). Three consecutive years of air quality data are generally
necessary to show attainment of the 24-hour and annual standards for
PM10. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. A complete year of air
quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is
comprised of all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing
data from at least 75% of the scheduled sampling days.
    The Kalispell and Libby NAAs each have one State and Local Air
Monitoring Station (SLAMS) monitor operated by the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Tables 1 and 2 summarize the
PM10 data collected from 2014-2018 for the Kalispell and
Libby NAAs, respectively. The EPA deems the data collected from these
monitors valid, and the data have been submitted by the MDEQ to be
included in AQS.

                              Table 1--Summary of Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\) for Kalispell 2014-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex) Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0049)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Maximum       2nd maximum      Number of
                    Year                       concentration   concentration    exceedances                         Monitoring site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014........................................             108              89               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2015 \1\....................................             146             139               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2016........................................              87              84               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2017\1\.....................................             154             131               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2018........................................             131              99               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA-concurred exceptional events were are excluded from this year.

                                Table 2--Summary of Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\) for Libby 2014-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex) Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0049)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Maximum       2nd maximum      Number of
                    Year                       concentration   concentration    exceedances                         Monitoring site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014........................................              47              45               0  Courthouse Annex.
2015 \1\....................................             143             113               0  Courthouse Annex.
2016........................................              58              57               0  Courthouse Annex
2017 \1\....................................             134             104               0  Courthouse Annex.
2018........................................             112             106               0  Courthouse Annex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA-concurred exceptional events were are excluded from this year.

    The PM10 concentrations reported at the Kalispell and Libby
monitoring sites showed no measured exceedances of the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS from 2014-2018, and as such, the EPA proposes to determine that
the Kalispell and Libby Moderate NAAs have attained the standard for
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.

B. Do the Columbia Falls, Kalispell, and Libby NAA have a fully
approved SIP under CAA Section 110(k)?

    In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be
fully approved under CAA section 110(k) and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area. Section 189 of the CAA contains
requirements and milestones for all initial Moderate NAA SIPs
including: (1) Provisions to assure that RACM (including such
reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of Reasonably Available
Control Technology--RACT) shall be implemented no later than December
10, 1993; (2) A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable by no
later than December 31, 1994, or, where the state is seeking an
extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration
that attainment by December 31, 1994, is impracticable and that the
plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable (CAA sections 189(a)(1)(A)); (3) Quantitative milestones
which are to be achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate RFP toward
attainment by December 31, 1994, (CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c));
and (4) Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to
make RFP or attain by its attainment deadline. These contingency
measures are to take effect without further action by the state or the
EPA. (CAA section 172(c)(9)).
    The EPA approved the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby Moderate
area plans on March 19, 1996, March 19, 1996, and August 30, 1994,
respectively; and approved the revised contingency plan for Libby on
September 30, 1996. Each plan included RACM, an attainment
demonstration, emissions inventory, quantitative milestones, and
control and contingency measure requirements. As such, the areas have
fully approved NAA SIPs under section 110(k) of the CAA.

C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a state containing a
NAA must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D
of the CAA for an area to be redesignated to attainment. The EPA
interprets this to mean that the state must meet all requirements that
applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the submission of a
complete redesignation request. The following is a summary of how
Montana meets these requirements.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for
state implementation plans. These requirements include, but are not
limited to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit
program; provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting,
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of
these requirements. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
    For purposes of redesignation, the EPA's review of the Montana SIP
shows that the State has satisfied all requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Further, in 40 CFR 52.1372, the EPA has approved
Montana's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national
standards under section 110.
2. Part D Requirements
    Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas
designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed by a
series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10 NAAs
must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and the specific
PM10 provisions in Subpart 4,

``Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.''
The following paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs.
3. Subpart 1, Section 172(c)
    Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for NAA
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the
General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). CAA section
172(c)(2) requires nonattainment plans to provide for RFP. Section
171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions
in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part
(part D of title I) or may reasonably be required by the Administrator
for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national
ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.'' Since the EPA is
proposing to determine that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs are in
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, we believe that no further
showing of RFP or quantitative milestones is necessary.
4. Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory Section
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10 NAAs. Montana included an
emissions inventory for the calendar year 2014 with July 23, 2019
submittal of the LMP for the NAAs. The LMP Option memo states that an
attainment inventory should represent emissions during the same 5-year
period associated with the air quality data used to determine that the
area meets the applicability requirements of the LMP option. The
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs include an emission inventory
from 2014, representative of the 2013-2017 5-year period which served
as the 5-year period relied upon in the LMPs as meeting the air quality
data requirements of the LMP option memo.
5. Section 172(c)(5)--NSR
    The 1990 CAA Amendments contained revisions to the NSR program
requirements for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources located in NAA. The CAA requires states to
amend their SIPs to reflect these revisions, but does not require
submittal of this element along with the other SIP elements. The CAA
established June 30, 1992, as the submittal date for the revised NSR
programs (section 189 of the CAA).
    Montana has a fully approved nonattainment NSR program, most
recently approved on August 30, 1995 (60 FR 45051). Montana also has a
fully approved PSD program, most recently approved on August 30, 1995
(60 FR 45051). Upon the effective date of redesignation of an area from
nonattainment to attainment, the requirements of the Part D NSR program
will be replaced by the PSD program and the maintenance area NSR
program.
6. Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air
Quality Monitoring Requirements
    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify attainment status of the area. The State of Montana operates one
PM10 SLAMS in each of the NAAs. The Flathead Valley,
Kalispell and Libby monitoring sites meet EPA SLAMS network design and
siting requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. In
section 3.4 of each of the LMPs that we are proposing to approve, the
State commits to continued operation of the monitoring network.
7. Section 172(c)(9)--Contingency Measures
    The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if the area
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Since the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and
Libby NAAs have attained the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS,
contingency measures are no longer required under section 172(c)(9) of
the CAA. However, contingency provisions are required for maintenance
plans under section 175(a)(d). We describe the contingency provisions
Montana provided in the LMP section below.
8. Part D Subpart 4
    Part D subpart 4, section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to
any Moderate NAA area before the area can be redesignated to
attainment. The requirements which were applicable prior to the
submission of the request to redesignate the area must be fully
approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to attainment.
These requirements include: (a) Provisions to assure that RACM was
implemented by December 10, 1993; (b) Either a demonstration that the
plan provided for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date was impracticable; (c) Quantitative milestones which were
achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by
December 31, 1994; and (d) Provisions to assure that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM10
also apply to major stationary sources of PM10 precursors
except where the Administrator determined that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the
NAAQS in the area. These provisions were fully approved into the SIP
upon the EPA's approval of the PM10 Moderate area plan for
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs on March 19, 1996, March
19, 1996, and August 30, 1994, respectively.

D. Has the state demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions?

    The state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making
this showing, the state must demonstrate that air quality improvements
are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. This showing
should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other
related information. The analysis should assume that sources are
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic. Permanent and
enforceable control measures in the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby
NAA SIPs include RACM. Emission sources in the three NAAs have been
implementing RACM for at least 10 years.
    Areas that qualify for the LMP will meet the NAAQS, even under
worst case meteorological conditions. Under the LMP option, the
maintenance demonstration is presumed to be satisfied if an area meets
the qualifying criteria. Thus, by qualifying for the LMP, Montana has
demonstrated that the air quality improvements in the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby NAAs are the result of permanent emission
reductions and not a result of either economic trends or meteorology. A
description of the LMP qualifying criteria and how the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby areas meet these criteria is provided in the
following section.
1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions in the Columbia Falls
NAA
    Emissions in the Columbia Falls NAA have been reduced 87.8% since
1990. The primary controls incorporated into the SIP were rules
specifying the allowed material to be placed on roads and parking lots
for sanding and chip

sealing; rules specifying street sweeping and flushing requirements
during the winter and summer months to reduce fugitive road dust; rules
requiring the paving of new roads within the Columbia Falls Control
District; and permit requirements on the Plum Creek sawmill, plywood
and MDF facilities in Columbia Falls. Fugitive road dust comprised
nearly 51% of the uncontrolled emissions when the area was designated
nonattainment, and emissions from the Plum Creek facility accounted for
44% of the area's uncontrolled emissions. Based on the 2014 NEI,
current fugitive road dust emissions are less than 8% of their 1990
levels and current emissions from the Plum Creek facility are 14% of
their uncontrolled emissions.
2. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions in the Kalispell NAA
    Emissions in the Kalispell NAA have been reduced 74.0% since 1998.
The primary controls incorporated into the SIP were rules specifying
the allowed material to be placed on roads and parking lots for sanding
and chip sealing; rules specifying street sweeping and flushing
requirements during the winter and summer months to reduce fugitive
road dust; rules requiring the paving of new roads within the Kalispell
Control District; and permit requirements on 11 stationary sources in
the NAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions in the Libby NAA
    Emissions in the Libby NAA have been reduced 90.2% since 1989. The
primary controls incorporated into the SIP were air pollution control
rules in Chapter 1, Subchapters 1 through 4, addressing solid fuel
burning devices, reentrained road dust control, and outdoor burning
regulations. Additionally, the control plan accounted for industrial
emission reductions through permit revisions. These revisions required
that RACT be applied to the Champion International boilers which
resulted in derating Boiler #7, reducing allowable emissions from
Boiler #8, and adding new controls on Boiler #9. Changing economic
conditions, ultimately saw the closure of the wood products facility
after a previous sale of the facility to Stimson Lumber Company. The
source specific limits on the Champion International boilers remain in
the SIP.

E. Do the areas have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA?

    In this action, we are proposing to approve the LMPs for the
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs in accordance with the
principles outlined in the LMP Option.

F. Has the state demonstrated that the Columbia Falls, Kalispell, and
Libby NAAs qualify for the LMP option?

    The LMP Option memo outlines the requirements for an area to
qualify for the LMP Option. First, the area should be attaining the
NAAQS. As stated above in Section III.A., the EPA has determined that
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs are attaining the
PM10 NAAQS.
    Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past 5 years of
monitoring data (2014-2018) must be at or below the CDV. As noted in
Section II.B., the CDV is a margin of safety value and is the value at
which an area has been determined to have a 1 in 10 probability of
exceeding the NAAQS. The LMP Option memo provides two methods for
review of monitoring data for the purpose of qualifying for the LMP
option. The first method is a comparison of a site's ADV with the CDV
of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A second
method that applies to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is the
calculation of a site-specific CDV and a comparison of the site-
specific CDV with the ADV for the past 5 years of monitoring data.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 outline the design values for the years 2014-2018,
and present the ADV.
    Tables 6, 7 and 8 summarize the wildfire related events that were
excluded from the calculated design values in Tables 3, 4 and 5,
respectively. Tables 6, 7 and 8 include all regionally concurred
exceptional events, as well as values between 98 [micro]g/m\3\ and 155
[micro]g/m\3\, which were treated in a manner analogous to exceedance
data under the Exceptional Events Rule (EER) for the purpose of
determining the LMP option eligibility.\3\ The values between 98
[micro]g/m\3\ and 155 [micro]g/m\3\ will remain in the Air Quality
System (AQS) database for use in calculating DV's for every purpose
besides determining LMP eligibility.\3\ The EER can be found in 40 CFR
50.14 and 40 CFR 51.930, and outlines the requirements for the
treatment of monitored air quality data that has been heavily
influenced by an exceptional event. 40 CFR 50.1(j) defines an
exceptional event as an event which affects air quality, is not
reasonably controllable or preventable, is an event caused by human
activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a
natural event and is determined by the Administrator in accordance with
40 CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event. Exceptional events do not
include stagnation of air masses or meteorological inversions,
meteorological events involving high temperatures or lack of
precipitation, or air pollution relating to source noncompliance. 40
CFR 50.14(b) states that the EPA shall exclude data from use in
determinations of exceedances and NAAQS violations where a state
demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that an exceptional event caused
a specific air pollution concentration in excess of one or more NAAQS
at a particular air quality monitoring location and otherwise satisfies
the requirements of section 50.14. Tables 6, 7 and 8 below include some
exceptional events not formally concurred on by EPA. These exceptional
events were excluded by EPA in accordance with the LMP guidance (see
footnote 3). We have concurred that these values can be excluded for
the sole purpose of determining PM10 Limited Maintenance
Plan (LMP) eligibility and supporting documentation of EPA's
concurrence with the wildfire related events can be found in the
docket.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Update on Application of the Exceptional Events Rule to the
PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan Option, US EPA, William T.
Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, May 7, 2009.
    \4\ February 8, 2019 letter to MDEQ, Re: Exceptional Events
Requests Regarding Exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
and the LMP Eligibility Threshold at Montana Monitoring Sites with
PM10 Nonattainment Areas; and November 1, 2018 letter to
MDEQ, Re: Request for EPA concurrence on exceptional event claims
for fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM10) particulate
matter data impacted by wildfires in 2015 and 2016.

            Table 3--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m3) for Columbia Falls 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex.) Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0049)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Design
          Design value years              concentration                       Monitoring site
                                          ([micro]g/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016.............................                 60  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2015-2017.............................                 66  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2016-2018.............................                 74  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design      67
 Concentrations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Table 4--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m3) for Kalispell 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Based on data from Flathead Electric. Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0047)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Design
          Design value years              concentration                       Monitoring site
                                          ([micro]g/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016.............................                 89  Flathead Electric.
2015-2017.............................                 88  Flathead Electric.
2016-2018.............................                 90  Flathead Electric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design      89
 Concentrations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table 5--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m3) for Libby 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Based on data from Libby Courthouse Annex. Site, AQS Identification Number (30-053-0018)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Design
          Design value years              concentration                       Monitoring site
                                          ([micro]g/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016\1\..........................                 90  Courthouse Annex.
2015-2017\1\..........................                 92  Courthouse Annex.
2016-2018.............................                 95  Courthouse Annex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design      92
 Concentrations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table 6--24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded from 2014-2018 Columbia Falls Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          24-Hour Value
                 Date                     ([micro]g/m3)                       Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015.............................                140  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/21/2015.............................                112  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/23/2015.............................                112  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/24/2015.............................                139  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/25/2015.............................                109  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/26/2015.............................                112  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/27/2015.............................                136  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/28/2017.............................                135  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/29/2015.............................                138  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/6/2017..............................              * 182  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/7/2017..............................              * 228  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/8/2017..............................              * 225  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/9/2017..............................                126  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/13/2017.............................                102  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other exceptional events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by
  EPA in accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].

                  Table 7--24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded from 2014-2018 Kalispell Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          24-hour value
                 Date                     ([micro]g/m3)                       Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015.............................                125  Flathead Electric.
8/21/2015.............................                103  Flathead Electric.
8/24/2015.............................                139  Flathead Electric.
8/26/2015.............................                125  Flathead Electric.
8/27/2015.............................                123  Flathead Electric.

8/28/2017.............................                133  Flathead Electric.
8/29/2015.............................                146  Flathead Electric.
9/5/2017..............................                131  Flathead Electric.
9/6/2017..............................              * 171  Flathead Electric.
9/7/2017..............................              * 194  Flathead Electric.
9/8/2017..............................              * 228  Flathead Electric.
9/9/2017..............................                154  Flathead Electric.
9/13/2017.............................              * 158  Flathead Electric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by EPA in
  accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].

                    Table 8--24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded from 2014-2018 Libby Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          24-hour value
                 Date                     ([micro]g/m3)                       Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015.............................                113  Courthouse Annex.
8/24/2015.............................              * 180  Courthouse Annex.
8/25/2015.............................                102  Courthouse Annex.
8/27/2015.............................                109  Courthouse Annex.
8/29/2015.............................                143  Courthouse Annex.
9/5/2017..............................                104  Courthouse Annex.
9/6/2017..............................                101  Courthouse Annex.
9/7/2017..............................                134  Courthouse Annex.
9/8/2017..............................              * 158  Courthouse Annex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by EPA in
  accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].

    The ADV for the 24-Hour PM10 NAAQS for Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby, based on data from the SLAMS monitors for the
years 2014-2018, are 67 [micro]g/m3, 89 [micro]g/
m3, and 92 [micro]g/m3, respectively. These
values fall below the presumptive 24-Hour CDV of 98 [micro]g/
m3, and would all meet the first threshold for LMP
eligibility. However, in the case of both Kalispell and Libby, these
areas required the calculation of an area specific CDV in order to pass
the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test, described below and
in further detail in the LMP guidance document.\5\ Table 9 lists the
respective CDV for each of the NAAs based on data from 2014-2018,
utilized for satisfying all the LMP requirements. Calculation of the
2014-2018 CDV for Kalispell and Libby can be found in the supporting
documents in the docket.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Limited Maintenace Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas--Attachment B.''
    \6\ Memo to file ``Critical Design Value Calculations for the
Kalispell and Libby PM10 NAAs.''

  Table 9--Critical Design Values Used for Determining LMP Eligibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       24-Hour CDV       2013-2018 ADV
             PM10 NAA                 ([micro]g/m 3)     ([micro]g/m 3)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Falls....................               * 98                 97
Kalispell.........................                124                 89
Libby.............................              139.9                 92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Use of presumptive CDV as described in the LMP guidance document.

    In addition to having an ADV that is lower than either the
presumptive or area specific CDV, in order to qualify for the LMP, the
area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test in
attachment B of the LMP Option memo. Using the methodology outlined in
the memo, based on monitoring data for the period 2016-2018, the EPA
has determined that the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs all
pass the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test, with a
projected DV of 74.3 [micro]g/m\3\, 109.7 [micro]g/m\3\ and 100.3
[micro]g/m\3\ after 10 years, respectively, attributable to motor
vehicle emission growth. For the calculations used to determine how the
Columbia Falls, Kalsipell and Libby NAAs passed the motor vehicle
regional analysis test, see the supporting documents in the docket.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See memo to file dated October 24, 2018 titled ``Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions
Analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The monitoring data for the period 2016-2018 shows that Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby have attained the 24-hour NAAQS for
PM10, and the 24-hour ADV for each of the areas is less than
the 24-hour PM10 presumptive and area-specific CDV. Finally,
the areas have met the regional vehicle emissions analysis test. Thus,
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs qualify for the LMP Option
described in the LMP Option memo. The LMP Option memo also indicates
that once a state selects the LMP Option and it is in effect, the state
will be expected to determine, on an annual basis, that the LMP
criteria are still being met. If the state

determines that the LMP criteria are not being met, it should take
action to reduce PM10 concentrations enough to requalify for
the LMP. One possible approach the state could take is to implement
contingency measures. Please see section 3.6 of each of the three LMPs
for a description of contingency provisions submitted as part of the
State's submittal.

G. Does the state have an approved attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?

    The state's approved attainment plan should include an emissions
inventory (attainment inventory) which can be used to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions
during the same 5-year period associated with air quality data used to
determine whether the area meets the applicability requirements of the
LMP Option. The state should review its inventory every 3 years to
ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the attainment inventory if
necessary. In this instance, Montana completed an attainment year
inventory for the attainment year 2014 for all three NAAs. The EPA has
reviewed the 2014 emissions inventories and determined that they are
current, accurate and complete. In addition, the emissions inventory
submitted with the LMP for the calendar year 2014 is representative of
the level of emissions during the time period used to calculate the ADV
since 2014 is included in the 5-year period used to calculate the
design values (2013-2017).

H. Does the LMP include an Assurance of Continued Operation of an
appropriate EPA-approved Air Quality Monitoring Network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58?

    PM10 monitoring networks for the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby NAAs have been developed and maintained in
accordance with federal siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 58,
appendices D and E and in consultation with the EPA Region 8. In
Section 3.4 of the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs, Montana
states that it will continue to operate its monitoring network to meet
EPA requirements.

I. Does the plan meet the CAA requirements for contingency provisions
for maintenance plans?

    Section 175A of the CAA states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to
attainment. As explained in the LMP Option memo, these contingency
measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation.
As noted above, CAA section 175A requirements are distinct from CAA
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures. Section 3.6 of the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs describe a process and timeline to
identify and evaluate appropriate contingency measures in the event of
a quality assured violation of the PM10 NAAQS. Upon
notification of a PM10 exceedance in any of the three areas,
the MDEQ and the appropriate local government will develop contingency
measures designed to prevent or correct a violation of the
PM10 standard. This process will be completed within twelve
months of the exceedance notification. Upon violating the
PM10 standard, the MDEQ and local government will determine
if the local contingency measures will be adequate to prevent further
exceedances or violations. If the agencies determine that local
measures will be inadequate, the MDEQ and local government will adopt
state-enforceable measures.
    The current and proposed contingency provisions in the Columbia
Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs meet the requirements for contingency
provisions as outlined in the LMP Option memo.

J. Has the state met transportation and general conformity
requirements?

1. Transportation Conformity
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA section 176(c)(1)(B)). The
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule typically
requires a demonstration that emissions from the applicable Regional
Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program are
consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124). The EPA notes that a MVEB is usually defined as
the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the
attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain
compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance areas.
MVEBs are, however, treated differently with respect to LMP areas.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our LMP Option memorandum does not require that MVEBs be identified
in the maintenance plan. While the EPA's LMP Option memorandum does not
exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the
area may demonstrate transportation conformity without identifying and
submitting a MVEB. The basis for this provision is that it is
unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth
during the maintenance period that a violation of the PM10
NAAQS would result. Therefore, for transportation conformity purposes,
the EPA has concluded that mobile source emissions in LMP areas need
not be capped, with respect to a MVEB, for the maintenance period and a
regional emissions analysis (40 CFR 93.118), for transportation
conformity purposes, is also not required.
    However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects will continue to be required for transportation projects
located within the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10
maintenance areas. Specifically, for conformity determinations,
projects will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained
(40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105
and 40 CFR 93.112) and timely implementation (as applicable) of
Transportation Control Measures (40 CFR 93.113). In addition, projects
located within the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10
LMP areas will be required to be evaluated for potential
PM10 hot-spot issues in order to satisfy the ``project
level'' conformity determination requirements. As appropriate, a
project may then need to address the applicable criteria for a
PM10 hot-spot analysis as provided in 40 CFR 93.116 and 40
CFR 93.123.
    Finally, our proposed approval of the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and
Libby PM10 LMPs affect future PM10 project-level
transportation conformity determinations as prepared by the Montana
Department of Transportation in conjunction with the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. See 40 CFR
93.100. As such, the EPA is proposing to approve the Columbia Falls,
Kalispell and Libby LMPs as meeting the appropriate transportation

conformity requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
2. General Conformity
    Federal actions, other than transportation conformity, that meet
specific criteria need to be evaluated with respect to the requirements
of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B. The EPA's general conformity rule
requirements are designed to ensure that emissions from a federal
action will not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS,
exacerbate current violations, or delay timely attainment. However, as
noted in our LMP Option memorandum and similar to the above discussed
transportation conformity provisions, federal actions subject to our
general conformity requirements would be considered to satisfy the
``budget test,'' as specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A). As
discussed above, the basis for this provision in the LMP Option
memorandum is that it is unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will
experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. Therefore, for
purposes of general conformity, a general conformity PM10
emissions budget does not need to be identified in the maintenance
plan, nor submitted, and the emissions from federal agency actions are
essentially considered to not be limited.

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons explained in Section III, we are proposing to
approve the LMP for the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs and
the State's request to redesignate the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and
Libby NAAs from nonattainment to attainment for the 1987 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine
that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs have attained the NAAQS for
PM10. This determination is based upon monitored air quality
data for the PM10 NAAQS during the years 2016-2018. The EPA
is proposing to approve the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs as
meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements found in
40 CFR part 93, subpart A.

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: March 12, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-05671 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26217-26218]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Attendance at PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend
upcoming PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Members Committee and
Markets and Reliability Committee meetings, as well as other PJM
committee, subcommittee or task force meetings.\1\ The Commission and
Commission staff may attend the following meetings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, PJM subcommittees and task forces of the
standing committees (Operating, Planning and Market Implementation)
and senior standing committees (Members and Markets and Reliability)
meet on a variety of different topics; they convene and dissolve on
an as-needed basis. Therefore, the Commission and Commission staff
may monitor the various meetings posted on the PJM Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PJM Members Committee

 April 28, 2016--(Wilmington, DE)
 May 17-19, 2016--(Cambridge, MD)
 June 30, 2016--(Wilmington, DE)
 July 28, 2016--(TBD)
 September 29, 2016--(TBD)
 October 27, 2016--(TBD)
 November 17, 2016--(TBD)

PJM Markets and Reliability Committee

 April 28, 2016--(Wilmington, DE)
 May 26, 2016--(Wilmington, DE)
 June 30, 2016--(Wilmington, DE)
 July 28, 2016--(TBD)
 August 25, 2016--(TBD)
 September 29, 2016--(TBD)
 October 27, 2016--(TBD)
 November 17, 2016--(TBD)
 December 22, 2016--(TBD)

PJM Market Implementation Committee

 May 11, 2016--(Audubon, PA)
 June 8, 2016--(Audubon, PA)
 July 13, 2016--(Audubon, PA)
 August 10, 2016--(Audubon, PA)
 September 14, 2016--(Audubon, PA)
 October 5, 2016--(Audubon, PA)
 November 2, 2016--(Audubon, PA)
 December 14, 2016--(Audubon, PA)
    The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address
matters at issue in pending proceedings before the Commission,
including the following currently pending proceedings:

Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL08-14, Black Oak Energy LLC, et al., v. FERC
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket Nos. AD12-1 and ER11-4081, Midwest Independent Transmission
System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-54, Viridity Energy, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. EL13-88, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-195, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-349, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-535, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-1654, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

Docket No. ER13-1924, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Duquesne Light
Company
Docket No. ER13-1926, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-1942, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1943, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1944, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-1945, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1955, Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1956, Cleco Power LLC
Docket No. ER13-2108, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL14-20, Independent Market Monitor v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. EL14-37, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. EL14-94, EL14-36, FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-504, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-822, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-972, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-1144, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-1145, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER14-1461, EL14-48, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-1485, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-2242, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative
Docket No. ER14-2940, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. EL15-15, ER15-696, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-18, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-38, RTO Energy Trading, LLC
Docket No. EL15-41, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, et al., v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-67, Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-79, TranSource, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-80, Advanced Energy Management Alliance Coalition v.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-95, Maryland and Delaware State Commissions v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER15-532, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER15-623, EL15-29, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER15-746, RC Cape May Holdings, LLC
Docket No. ER15-834, Illinois Municipal Electric Agency
Docket No. ER15-952, New Jersey Energy Associates, A Limited
Partnership
Docket No. ER15-994, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER15-1344, ER15-1387, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER15-2562, ER15-2563, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER15-2613, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket Nos. EL16-6, ER16-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL16-9, Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC et al. v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. EL15-73, ER16-372, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-453, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and Northeast
Transmission Development, LLC
Docket Nos. ER16-535, ER16-536, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-736, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-1004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-1150, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-1232, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-1335, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-1336, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    For additional meeting information, see: http://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups.aspx and http://www.pjm.com/Calendar.aspx.
    The meetings are open to stakeholders. For more information,
contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 25, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10095 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 3460]
[DOCID:fr21ja10-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 11, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER03-428-009.
    Applicants: ConocoPhillips Company.
    Description: Errata to the February 17, 2009 submission to Appendix
B Asset Tables of ConocoPhillips Company.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100107-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-189-001.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Compliance Refund Report of Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 01/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100108-5136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-206-001.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Mississippi Power Company submits Amended and Restated
FERC Rate Schedule No 108 etc.
    Filed Date: 01/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100108-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-567-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits Electric Interconnection
Agreement Rate Schedule 332 with Mid Kansas Electric Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 01/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100108-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-568-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Company submits a notice of succession
in order to change the name on Boston Edison Company's Rate Schedule
FERC No 205 which is a Wholesale Distribution Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: 01/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100108-0210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-569-000.
    Applicants: Powerex Corp.
    Description: Powerex Corp submits Certificate of Concurrence, in
lieu of filing to the hourly Coordination Agreement filed by Washington
Water Power Co.
    Filed Date: 01/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100108-0219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-570-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits First Revised
Sheet 70 et al. to FERC Rate Schedule 217.
    Filed Date: 01/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100108-0220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 29, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1012 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P