Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71057 

cite the regulation that provides for 

collection of permitting fees under the 

State’s EPA-approved title V permit 

program (ARSD 74:37:01), which we 

approved and became effective February 

28, 1996 (61 FR 2720, Jan. 29, 1996). 

Therefore, based on the State’s 

experience in relying on the grant and 

general funds for PSD permits, and the 

use of title V fees to implement and 

enforce PSD permits once they are 

incorporated into title V permits, we 

propose to approve the submissions as 

supplemented by the State for the 1997 

and 2006 p.m.2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

13. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

The statutory provisions cited in 

South Dakota’s SIP submittals 

(contained within this docket) meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve 

South Dakota’s SIP as meeting these 

requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. 

VII. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the following infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to 

minor NSR and PSD requirements, 

(D)(i)(II) prongs 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is also 

proposing to approve revisions to ARSD 

74:36:09 submitted on July 29, 2013, 

which incorporate by reference the 

requirements of the 2010 PM2.5

Increment Rule. Specifically, we 

propose to approve the adoption of the 

text of 40 CFR 52.21, paragraphs 

(b)(14)(i),(ii),(iii), (b)(15)(i),(ii), and 

paragraph (c) as they existed on July 1, 

2012 by proposing to approve revisions 

to: ARSD 74:34:09:02 (Prevention of 

significant deterioration) and 

74:36:09:03 (Public participation). EPA 

is also proposing to approve revisions to 

ARSD 74:09 and SDCL 1–40–25.1 

submitted on June 11, 2014 to satisfy 

requirements of element (E)(ii), state 

boards. Finally, EPA proposes approval 

of D(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

EPA will act separately on infrastructure 

element (D)(i)(I), interstate transport for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

VIII. 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, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, 1993); 

• 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 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 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, Feb. 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

Nov. 9, 2000), because the SIP is not 

approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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. 

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

Dated: November 19, 2014. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28301 Filed 11–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0353; FRL–9919–96– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Montana Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Great 

Falls 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Montana. On July 13, 2011, the 

Governor of Montana’s designee 

submitted to EPA a second 10-year 

maintenance plan for the Great Falls 

area for the carbon monoxide (CO) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This maintenance plan 

addresses maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS for a second 10-year period 

beyond the original redesignation. EPA 

is also proposing approval of an 

alternative monitoring strategy for the 

Great Falls CO maintenance area, which 

was submitted by the Governor’s 

designee on June 22, 2012. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0353, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71058 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0353. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

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 http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. 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: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region 

8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials ADT mean or refer to 

Average Daily Traffic. 

(iii) The initials CO mean or refer to 

carbon monoxide. 

(iv) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(v) The initials LMP mean or refer to 

Limited Maintenance Plan. 

(vi) The initials MDEQ mean or refer 

to Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(vii) The initials MVEB mean or refer 

to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget. 

(viii) The initials NAAQS mean or 

refer to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

(ix) The initials ppm mean or refer to 

parts per million. 

(x) The initials RTP mean or refer to 

Regional Transportation Plan. 

(xi) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(xii) The initials TIP mean or refer to 

Transportation Improvement Plan. 

(xiii) The words Montana and State 

mean or refer to the State of Montana. 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register, date, and page number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. Great Falls CO Maintenance Plan 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1990, the Great Falls 

area was designated as nonattainment 

and classified as a ‘‘not classified’’ CO 

area. This was because the area had 

been designated as nonattainment 

before November 15, 1990, but had not 

violated the CO NAAQS in 1988 and 

1989 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). 

On February 9, 2001, the Governor of 

Montana submitted to us a request to 

redesignate the Great Falls CO 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

CO NAAQS. Along with this request, 

the Governor submitted a CAA section 

175A(a) maintenance plan which 

demonstrated that the area would 

maintain the CO NAAQS for the first 10 

years following our approval of the 

redesignation request. We approved the 

State’s redesignation request and 10- 

year maintenance plan on May 9, 2002 

(67 FR 31143). 

Eight years after an area is 

redesignated to attainment, CAA section 

175A(b) requires the state to submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan to EPA, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71059 

1 In this case, the initial maintenance period 

extended through 2012. Thus, the second 10-year 

period extends through 2022. 

2Memorandum ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas’’ from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, EPA 

Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air 

Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995. 

3See Table 2 below. Additionally, according to 

the LMP guidance, an area using the LMP option 

must continue to have a design value ‘‘at or below 

7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA action on the 

redesignation.’’ Table 2, below, demonstrates that 

the area meets this requirement. 

4 In addition to Great Falls and Billings, the 

Missoula, MT CO maintenance area was included 

in the July 13, 2011 Alternative Monitoring 

Strategy. 

5See Table 2 below. Design values were derived 

from the EPA AirData (http://www.epa.gov/ 

airdata/) Web site. 

6See ‘‘Review of National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Carbon Monoxide,’’ 76 FR 54294, 

August 31, 2011. 

7 Design values were derived from the EPA 

AirData (http://www.epa.gov/airdata/) Web site. 

covering a second 10-year period.1 This 

second 10-year maintenance plan must 

demonstrate continued compliance with 

the NAAQS during this second 10-year 

period. To fulfill this requirement of the 

CAA, the Governor of Montana’s 

designee submitted the second 10-year 

update of the Great Falls CO 

maintenance plan (hereafter; ‘‘revised 

Great Falls Maintenance Plan’’) to us on 

July 13, 2011. With this action, we are 

proposing approval of the revised Great 

Falls Maintenance Plan. 

The 8-hour CO NAAQS—9.0 parts per 

million (ppm)—is attained when such 

value is not exceeded more than once a 

year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Great Falls 

area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS 

from 1988 to the present. In October 

1995, EPA issued guidance that 

provided nonclassifiable CO 

nonattainment areas the option of using 

a less rigorous ‘‘limited maintenance 

plan’’ (LMP) option to demonstrate 

continued attainment and maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS.2 According to this 

guidance, areas that can demonstrate 

design values (2nd highest max) at or 

below 7.65 ppm (85% of exceedance 

levels of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for 

eight consecutive quarters qualify to use 

an LMP. The area qualified for and used 

EPA’s LMP option for the first 10-year 

Great Falls CO maintenance plan (67 FR 

31143, May 9, 2002). For the revised 

Great Falls Maintenance Plan the State 

again used the LMP option to 

demonstrate continued maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS in the Great Falls area. 

We have determined that the Great Falls 

area continues to qualify for the LMP 

option because the maximum design 

value for the most recent eight 

consecutive quarters with certified data 

at the time the State adopted the plan 

(years 2008 and 2009) was 1.6 ppm.3

B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy 

Along with the revised Great Falls 

Maintenance Plan, the State submitted a 

CO maintenance plan for the Billings, 

Montana maintenance area, and an 

alternative strategy for monitoring 

continued attainment of the CO NAAQS 

in all of the State’s CO maintenance 

areas on July 13, 2011.4 The State 

submitted the alternative monitoring 

strategy to conserve resources by 

discontinuing the gaseous CO ambient 

monitors in both the Billings and Great 

Falls CO maintenance areas. In place of 

the gaseous ambient monitors, the 

State’s alternative method relies on 

rolling 3-year Average Daily Traffic 

(ADT) vehicle counts collected from 

permanent automatic traffic recorders in 

each maintenance area. We commented 

on the State’s ‘‘Alternative Monitoring 

Strategy,’’ and the State submitted to us 

a revised version of the strategy which 

incorporated our comments on June 22, 

2012. The State’s June 22, 2012 

Alternative Monitoring Strategy 

replaced the version submitted on July 

13, 2011. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Montana’s 

Alternative Monitoring Strategy in 

Great Falls 

Since 2002, no Great Falls CO monitor 

has registered a design value greater 

than 2.8 ppm, which is below one-third 

of the NAAQS.5 Citing these 

consistently low monitor values, and 

expressing a desire to conserve 

monitoring resources, the State has 

requested to discontinue CO monitoring 

in Great Falls and instead use an 

alternative strategy for monitoring 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS. 

The State’s Alternative Monitoring 

Strategy utilizes ADT vehicle counts 

collected from permanent automatic 

traffic recorders in the Great Falls CO 

maintenance area to determine average 

monthly traffic during the traditional 

high CO concentration season of 

November through February. The State 

will compare the latest rolling 3-years of 

monthly ADT volumes to the 2008–2010 

baseline ADT volumes (see Table 1) that 

correlate to the low CO monitored 

values during that period (see Table 2). 

Because mobile sources are the biggest 

driver of CO pollution, the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) reasoned that any significant 

increase in CO emissions would have to 

be accompanied by a significant 

increase in ADT.6 EPA agrees with the 

State’s reasoning. 

TABLE 1—TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR

GREAT FALLS, MONTANA

[Rolling 2008–2010 ADT: November to 

February] 

Month-Year Great Falls 

(#A–033) 

January 2008 ........................ 34,123 

February 2008 ...................... 36,855 

November 2008 .................... 35,675 

December 2008 .................... 33,584 

January 2009 ........................ 33,820 

February 2009 ...................... 36,102 

November 2009 .................... 37,110 

December 2009 .................... 34,742 

January 2010 ........................ 34,371 

February 2010 ...................... 36,576 

November 2010 .................... 34,164 

December 2010 .................... 34,691 

Average ................................ 35,151 

TABLE 2—8-HOUR CO DESIGN

VALUES FOR GREAT FALLS, MONTANA

Design value (ppm) 7 Year 

2.8 ......................................... 2002 

2.7 ......................................... 2003 

2.4 ......................................... 2004 

2 ............................................ 2005 

1.7 ......................................... 2006 

1.5 ......................................... 2007 

1.5 ......................................... 2008 

1.6 ......................................... 2009 

1.9 ......................................... 2010 

0.9 ......................................... 2011 

If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25% 

higher than the average value of 35,151 

from the 2008–2010 baseline period, the 

State will reestablish CO ambient 

monitoring in Great Falls the following 

high season (November–February). If the 

CO design value in that season has not 

increased from the baseline mean by an 

equal or greater rate at which ADT has 

increased, and the monitor values 

remain at or below 50% of the CO 

NAAQS (2nd max concentration ≤4.5 

ppm), the monitor may again be 

removed and the ADT counts will 

continue to be relied upon to determine 

compliance with the NAAQS. This 

process will be repeated each time the 

rolling 3-year ADT increases by a factor 

of 25% (e.g. 50%, 75%) above the 

baseline 2008–2010 period, and the 

same analysis will be conducted to 

determine if the monitors can again be 

removed. 

40 CFR 58.14(c) allows approval of 

requests to discontinue ambient 

monitors ‘‘on a case-by-case basis if 

discontinuance does not compromise 

data collection needed for 

implementation of a NAAQS and if the 

requirements of appendix D to 40 CFR 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71060 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8 Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to 

occur on winter weekdays. 9The supplemental technical information was 

sent to EPA on July 23, 2014, and is available in 

the docket for this action. 10Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 

model; version 2010b. 

11 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ from John 

Calcagni, September 4, 1992. 

part 58, if any, continue to be met.’’ EPA 

finds that the Alternative Monitoring 

Strategy meets the criteria of 40 CFR 

58.14(c) for the Great Falls CO 

maintenance area. Given the long 

history of low CO concentrations in the 

Great Falls area, and the adequacy of the 

Alternative Monitoring Strategy at 

ensuring continued attainment of the 

CO NAAQS, EPA finds it appropriate to 

approve the State’s request to 

discontinue the Great Falls monitor and 

use the Alternative Monitoring Strategy 

in its place. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Great Falls 

Second 10-Year CO Maintenance Plan 

The following are the key elements of 

an LMP for CO: Emission Inventory, 

Maintenance Demonstration, 

Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment, Contingency 

Plan, and Conformity Determinations. 

Below, we describe our evaluation of 

each of these elements as it pertains to 

the revised Great Falls Maintenance 

Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Great Falls Maintenance 

Plan contains an emissions inventory 

for the base year 2009. The emission 

inventory is a list, by source, of the air 

contaminants directly emitted into the 

Great Falls CO maintenance area on a 

typical winter day in 2009.8 The mobile 

sources data in the emission inventory 

in the July 13, 2011 submittal were 

developed using emissions modeling 

methods that EPA did not consider upto-date. After consultation with EPA, 

the State then provided EPA with 

technical information to clarify and 

supplement the emissions inventory 

from the July 13, 2011 submittal.9 This 

supplemental technical information 

utilized EPA-recommended mobile 

sources emissions modeling methods 

(MOVES2010b).10 The Great Falls LMP 

and supplementary technical 

information contain detailed emission 

inventory information that was prepared 

in accordance with EPA guidance and is 

acceptable to EPA.11

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

We consider the maintenance 

demonstration requirement to be 

satisfied for areas that qualify for and 

use the LMP option. As mentioned 

above, a maintenance area is qualified to 

use the LMP option if that area’s 

maximum 8-hour CO design value for 

eight consecutive quarters does not 

exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO 

NAAQS). EPA maintains that if an area 

begins the maintenance period with a 

design value no greater than 7.65 ppm, 

the applicability of prevention of 

significant deterioration requirements, 

the control measures already in the SIP, 

and federal measures should provide 

adequate assurance of maintenance over 

the 10-year maintenance period. 

Therefore, EPA does not require areas 

using the LMP option to project 

emissions over the maintenance period. 

Because CO design values in the Great 

Falls area are consistently well below 

the LMP threshold (See Table 2), the 

State has adequately demonstrated that 

the Great Falls area will maintain the 

CO NAAQS into the future. 

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

In the revised Great Falls 

Maintenance Plan, the State commits to 

‘‘continue to monitor CO using an 

instrumental method or a functionally 

equivalent monitoring methodology as 

approved by EPA.’’ As noted, EPA is 

proposing to approve the State’s 

Alternative Monitoring Strategy for the 

Great Falls CO maintenance area as part 

of this action. Based on final approval 

of the Alternative Monitoring Strategy, 

we will have concluded that the strategy 

is adequate to verify continued 

attainment of the CO NAAQS in Great 

Falls. 

D. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of an area. To 

meet this requirement, the State has 

identified appropriate contingency 

measures along with a schedule for the 

development and implementation of 

such measures. 

The Great Falls Maintenance Plan 

stated in section 7.10.6.4 that the State 

will use an exceedance of the CO 

NAAQS as the trigger for adopting 

specific contingency measures for the 

Great Falls area. As noted, the 

Alternative Monitoring Strategy requires 

reinstitution of a CO monitor in Great 

Falls if traffic levels increase from the 

2008–2010 baseline by a factor of 25%. 

Therefore, EPA finds that CO emissions 

in Great Falls are very unlikely to 

increase to the point of an exceedance 

without that exceedance being observed 

by a gaseous monitor. 

The State indicates that notification of 

an exceedance to EPA and to the local 

governments in the Great Falls area will 

occur within 60 days. Upon notification 

of a CO NAAQS exceedance, MDEQ and 

Cascade City/County Health Department 

(CCCHD) will recommend an 

appropriate contingency measure or 

measures that would be necessary to 

avoid a violation of the CO NAAQS 

standard. The necessary contingency 

measure(s) will then be proposed for 

local adoption. Finalization of the 

necessary contingency measures for 

local adoption will be completed within 

three months of the exceedance 

notification. Full implementation of the 

locally adopted contingency measure(s) 

will be achieved within one year after 

the recording of a CO NAAQS violation. 

The potential contingency measures, 

identified in section 7.10.6.4.C of the 

Great Falls Maintenance Plan, include 

implementation of a mandatory 

oxygenated fuels program with local 

regulations in the Great Falls or Cascade 

County area for the winter months of 

November, December, and January, and 

establishing an episodic woodburning 

curtailment program. A more complete 

description of the triggering mechanism 

and these contingency measures can be 

found in section 7.10.6.4 of the Great 

Falls Maintenance Plan. 

We find that the contingency 

measures provided in the State’s 

maintenance plan for Great Falls are 

sufficient and meet the requirements of 

section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

E. 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 

176(c)(B)). EPA’s conformity rule 

provisions in 40 CFR part 93, Subpart A 

require that transportation plans, 

programs and projects conform to SIPs 

and establish the criteria and 

procedures for determining whether or 

not they demonstrate conformity. EPA’s 

conformity rule provisions include 

requirements for a demonstration that 

emissions from the Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP) are consistent with the motor 

vehicle emission budget (MVEB) 

contained in the SIP revision (40 CFR 

93.118 and 93.124). The MVEB is 

defined as the level of mobile source 

emissions relied upon in the attainment 

or maintenance demonstration to 

maintain compliance with the NAAQS 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71061 

12EPA’s transportation conformity requirements 

and policy on MVEBs are found in the preamble to 

the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity 

rule (see 58 FR 62193–62196) and in the sections 

of 40 CFR part 93 referenced above. 

13Limited Maintenance Plan Guidance at 4. 

October 6, 1995. 

in the nonattainment or maintenance 

area.12

Under the LMP policy, emissions 

budgets are treated as essentially not 

constraining for the length of the 

maintenance period. While EPA’s LMP 

policy does not exempt an area from the 

need to affirm conformity, it explains 

that the area may demonstrate 

conformity without submitting a MVEB. 

This is because it is unreasonable to 

expect that an LMP area will experience 

so much growth in that period that a 

violation of the CO NAAQS would 

result.13 Therefore, for the Great Falls 

CO maintenance area, all actions that 

require conformity determinations for 

CO under our conformity rule 

provisions are considered to have 

already satisfied the regional emissions 

analysis and ‘‘budget test’’ requirements 

in 40 CFR 93.118. 

Since LMP areas are still maintenance 

areas, certain aspects of transportation 

conformity determinations are still 

required for transportation plans, 

programs and projects. Specifically, for 

such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and 

projects must still demonstrate that they 

are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) 

and must meet the criteria for 

consultation and Transportation Control 

Measure implementation in the 

conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 

93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, 

respectively). In addition, projects in 

LMP areas will still be required to meet 

the applicable criteria for CO hot spot 

analyses to satisfy ‘‘project level’’ 

conformity determinations (40 CFR 

93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must 

also incorporate the latest planning 

assumptions and models available (40 

CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111 

respectively). 

In view of the CO LMP policy, the 

effect of this proposed approval will be 

to affirm our adequacy finding such that 

no regional emissions analyses for 

future transportation CO conformity 

determinations are required for the CO 

LMP period and beyond (as per EPA’s 

CO LMP policy and 40 CFR 93.109(e)). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan 

submitted on July 13, 2011. This 

maintenance plan meets the applicable 

CAA requirements and EPA has 

determined it is sufficient to provide for 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the 

course of the second 10-year 

maintenance period out to 2022. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

State’s Alternative Monitoring Strategy 

for the Great Falls CO maintenance area. 

We do not propose to approve 

application of the Alternative 

Monitoring Strategy in other areas of 

Montana with this action, as the 

Alternative Monitoring Strategy must be 

considered on a case-by-case basis 

specific to the circumstances of each 

particular CO maintenance area rather 

than broadly. 

VI. 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, 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: November 10, 2014. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28293 Filed 11–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0786; A–1–FRL– 

9918–26–Region–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Transit System 

Improvements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Massachusetts on November 6, 2013. 

This proposal, if finalized, would 

remove the design of the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector as a requirement in the 

Massachusetts SIP, without substitution 

or replacement, and would implement 

administrative changes that lengthen the 

existing public process by fifteen days 

and replace references to the Executive 

Office of Transportation (EOT) with 

references to the Massachusetts 

Department of Transportation 

(MassDOT). This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 31, 

2014. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS