[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 41238]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3980-000]

ORNI 14; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based Rate
Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
ORNI 14's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 27, 2011.
    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 Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding 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>.

    Dated: July 7, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17598 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day period of time to review the proposed regulations is insufficient.  We are requesting that the review period be extended to 180 days.


Formetanate HCl Meeting July 20, 2004 Name Vincent J Piccirillo/ Consultant Demson Fuller/ SRRD US EPA Betsy Codrea/ Gowan Vicki Dellarco/ HED US EPA Cindy Baker/ Gowan John Doherty/ HED US EPA Teung Chin/ USDA Cathy Eiden/ HED US EPA Karl Baetcke/ HED US EPA Laura Parsons/ SRRD US EPA Dannete Drew/ HED US EPA Susan Lewis/ SRRD US EPA The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the rationale behind the human health risk assessment for formetanate HCl. The comment period for this chemical closed on May 24 and the registrant, Gowan Company, requested a meeting with the Agency to discuss the responses they had submitted.

The meeting began at 2: 00 PM. Introductions were given.

Gowan wanted clarification as to why a 10X database uncertainty factor was needed for formetanate. They stated that available data for fometanate indicates that age dependent sensitivity would not be seen. This argument was based on the HIARC report for formetanate. HIARC concluded " that the there was no quantitative or qualitative increase in the susceptibility of young animals in either the rate or rabbit developmental toxicity studies.

EPA explained that this statement is made in the context of the traditional results from the standard 2 gen and prenatal toxicity studies which do not include measures of cholinesterase inhibition, which is the principle effect of concern and mode of action for the N methyl carbamates.

Gowan wanted further evidence by the Agency regarding the issue of susceptibility. Based on their literature search regarding other cholinesterase inhibitors, increased sensitivity to the young was not present.

EPA responded by stating that there are limited data on the comparative sensitivity to cholinesterase inhibition for the N methyl carbamates. However, the absence of data is not a basis to dismiss a concern for the young, particularly in light of the fact that the Agency has data on another class of cholinesterase inhibitors  organophosphate ( OPs) pesticides. Certain OPs can result in age dependent sensitivity to cholinesterase inhibition ( i. e., cholinesterase inhibition in the young will occurred at lower doses of the chemical or the young will show a higher level of cholinesterase inhibition at comparable doses). For OPs the limited ability of the young to detoxify the OP appears to be involved in their age dependent sensitivity. For example OPs bind to carboxylesterases, a reaction which effectively lessens the amount of pesticide available for inhibiting cholinesterase. N methyl carbamates can also interact with carboxylesterases, albeit we do not have data demonstrating this may be involved in age dependent sensitivity to cholinesterase for this class of pestcide. Gowan spoke about reversibility. In regards to carbamates, since the compounds have a quick acting recovery, there could potentially be no neurological effects to the young.

The Agency responded by stating the rapid reversibility of N methyl carbamates is not a basis to dismiss the concern for the young. Both cholinesterase and acetylcholine are highly conserved molecules which have multiple roles in the developing nervous system as well as extraneuronal functions. Furthermore, because of the presence of critical periods of development for the nervous system, adverse effects on the developing nervous could result from a single exposure to a chemical. Thus, is it important to evaluate whether age dependent sensitivity exists for a cholinesterase inhibitor to determine if the adult cholinesterase data are adequate in protecting the young.

Gowan believes that the Agency does not have a " for cause" to apply the safety factor. Based on Agency guidance, it states that " when additional data are required, consideration of the factor would generally occur only when a study is being required ` for cause', that is, if a significant concern is raised based upon a review of existing information". Gowan finds no evidence that increased sensitivity will occur in young from use of formetanate, therefore, the rationale of for cause should be applied.

EPA has generic information and science literature that raises the issue for cause. The existing information does not have to be chemical specific but can come from a general scientific understanding, which in this case is for cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides.

EPA further stated that for formetanate, a comparative cholinesterase assay ( CCA) study would be needed that looks at age dependent sensitivity. This study was conducted for the OPs and is validated. Further information regarding the protocol for this study could be obtained from the EPA Office of Research and Development in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Gowan was concerned about the cost, finding a suitable lab to conduct the work, and the timing of the study. Gowan stated that they would consider the study and get back to the Agency by the following week with a decision.

Gowan asked if there were any other areas in the risk assessment that could be refined. EPA mentioned that formetanate dietary risk could possibly be lowered if the company could submit a validated Level of Detection ( LOD) for field trial data. Gowan said they would look into this issue.

Gowan stated that they would follow up with EPA on Monday, July 26, 2004 regarding the CCA study and the validated LOD. EPA stated that they would provide Gowan with assumptions that were used in the dietary assessment.

Meeting adjourned.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75456-75458]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30933; Amdt. No. 3568]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective December 12, 2013. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of December 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability_All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit
nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and
Sec.  97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim

publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further,
airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their
graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical
materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are
realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP
contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides
the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the
corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the
airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and
timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only
specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to
SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all
these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30
days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs
and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure
before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the
public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for
making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 22, 2013.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC
on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35  [Amended]

    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AIRAC Date              State              City               Airport         FDC No.      FDC date                     Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/9/14..................  WA              Spokane............  Felts Field.......       3/0131     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Amdt 1.
1/9/14..................  WI              Madison............  Dane County Rgnl-        3/1049     11/20/13  VOR RWY 18, Amdt 1A.
                                                                Truax Field.
1/9/14..................  WI              Madison............  Dane County Rgnl-        3/1063     11/20/13  VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 18, Amdt 1B.
                                                                Truax Field.
1/9/14..................  TX              Dallas.............  Addison...........       3/1575     11/15/13  ILS OR LOC RWY 15, Amdt 11.
1/9/14..................  TX              Dallas.............  Addison...........       3/1582     11/15/13  ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 3.
1/9/14..................  TX              Dallas.............  Addison...........       3/1599     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1.
1/9/14..................  TX              Dallas.............  Addison...........       3/1617     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4020     11/15/13  ILS OR LOC RWY 6R, ILS RWY 6R (SA CAT II),
                                                                Intl.                                         Amdt 21A.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4023     11/15/13  ILS OR LOC RWY 24L, ILS RWY 24L (SA CAT
                                                                Intl.                                         II), Amdt 22A.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4029     11/15/13  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 24R, ILS RWY 24R (SA CAT
                                                                Intl.                                         I), ILS RWY 24R (CAT II & III), Amdt 5A.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4053     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24R, Amdt 3A.
                                                                Intl.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4058     11/15/13  LDA/DME RWY 24L, Amdt 1B.
                                                                Intl.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4059     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24L, Amdt 3A.
                                                                Intl.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4064     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6R, Amdt 2B.
                                                                Intl.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4069     11/15/13  LDA/DME RWY 6R, Amdt 1B.
                                                                Intl.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4070     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6L, Amdt 1B.
                                                                Intl.
1/9/14..................  OK              Hugo...............  Stan Stamper Muni.       3/4154     11/15/13  NDB OR GPS RWY 35, Amdt 1.
1/9/14..................  OH              Cleveland..........  Cleveland-Hopkins        3/4237     11/15/13  ILS OR LOC RWY 6L, ILS RWY 6L (CAT II &
                                                                Intl.                                         III), Amdt 2D.

1/9/14..................  IA              Sibley.............  Sibley Muni.......       3/4251     11/15/13  NDB OR GPS RWY 35, Amdt 1A.
1/9/14..................  IA              Sibley.............  Sibley Muni.......       3/4252     11/15/13  NDB OR GPS RWY 17, Amdt 1B.
1/9/14..................  CA              Crescent City......  Jack McNamara            3/5300     11/15/13  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 11, Amdt 8.
                                                                Field.
1/9/14..................  CA              Montague...........  Montague/Siskiyou        3/5899     11/20/13  Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 2.
                                                                County.
1/9/14..................  CA              Montague...........  Montague/Siskiyou        3/5905     11/20/13  NDB OR GPS-A, Amdt 7.
                                                                County.
1/9/14..................  IN              Kentland...........  Kentland Muni.....       3/6824     11/15/13  VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 27, Orig.
1/9/14..................  CA              Hawthorne..........  Jack Northrop            3/8749     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig.
                                                                Field/Hawthorne
                                                                Muni.
1/9/14..................  CA              Hawthorne..........  Jack Northrop            3/8750     11/15/13  LOC RWY 25, Amdt 11A.
                                                                Field/Hawthorne
                                                                Muni.
1/9/14..................  CA              San Bernadino......  San Bernadino Intl       3/8757     11/15/13  NDB RWY 6, Amdt 1.
1/9/14..................  CA              Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl..       3/8758     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 24L, Amdt 2.
1/9/14..................  CA              Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl..       3/8759     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) Y 25L, Amdt 3.
1/9/14..................  CA              Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl..       3/8762     11/15/13  ILS OR LOC RWY 25R, Amdt 17A.
1/9/14..................  CA              Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl..       3/8764     11/15/13  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 24L, Amdt 1A.
1/9/14..................  CA              Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl..       3/8768     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 24R, Amdt 1.
1/9/14..................  CA              Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl..       3/8775     11/15/13  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 24R, Orig-A.
1/9/14..................  CA              Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl..       3/8779     11/15/13  RNAV (GPS) RWY 25R, Amdt 2.
1/9/14..................  CA              Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl..       3/8785     11/15/13  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 25L, Amdt 1.
1/9/14..................  CA              Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl..       3/8789     11/15/13  ILS OR LOC RWY 24L, Amdt 26.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-29309 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53057-53061]
[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,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

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

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