20480 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

19. The authority citation for part 97 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 

7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. 

20. Section 97.102 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’, by removing the words ‘‘in 

accordance with subpart CC of this 

part’’; and 

c. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 97.102 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Commencing construction means, 

with regard to a boiler or equipment 

under paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

21. Section 97.202 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’, by removing the words ‘‘in 

accordance with subpart CCC of this 

part’’; and 

c. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 97.202 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

22. Section 97.302 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

unit’’, by adding a new paragraph (3); 

b. In the definition of ‘‘Permitting 

authority’’, by removing the words ‘‘in 

accordance with subpart CCCC of this 

part’’; and 

c. By adding in alphabetical order a 

new definition of ‘‘Construction 

commenced’’ to read as follows: 

§ 97.302 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Cogeneration unit means * * * 

(3) Provided that the total energy 

input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and 

(2)(ii) of this definition shall equal the 

unit’s total energy input only from fossil 

fuel if the unit is a boiler—

(i) For which construction 

commenced on or before April 25, 2007; 

and 

(ii) Having equipment used to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy through sequential use of energy, 

for which construction commenced on 

or before April 25, 2007. 

* * * * * 

Construction commenced means, with 

regard to a boiler or equipment under 

paragraph (3) of the definition of 

Cogeneration unit in this section, that 

the owner or operator has undertaken, 

or entered into a contractual obligation 

to undertake and complete within a 

reasonable time, a continuous program 

of fabrication, erection, or installation of 

the boiler or equipment. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–7536 Filed 4–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2006–0163; FRL–8305–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Montana; Missoula Carbon Monoxide 

Redesignation to Attainment, 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes, and Approval of 

Related Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Montana. On May 27, 2005, the 

Governor of Montana submitted a 

request to redesignate the Missoula 

‘‘moderate’’ carbon monoxide (CO) 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

CO National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). The Governor also 

submitted a CO maintenance plan 

which includes transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emission 

budgets (MVEB) for 2000, 2010, and 

2020. In addition, EPA is proposing to 

approve CO periodic emission 

inventories for 1993 and 1996 for the 

Missoula nonattainment area that the 

State had previously submitted. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 25, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–

OAR–2006–0163, by one of the 

following methods: 

—http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

—E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and 

fiedler.kerri@epa.gov. 

—Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

—Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air 

and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20481 

—Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, 

Director, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 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–2006–

0163. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

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 information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

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 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kerri Fiedler, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

phone (303) 312–6493, and e-mail at: 

fiedler.kerri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

III. What is the State’s process to submit 

these materials to EPA? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Missoula 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the Transportation 

Conformity Requirements 

VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act 

VII. Proposed Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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 words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials NAAQS mean 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(v) The word State means the State of 

Montana, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

I. General Information 

(a). What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in 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. 

(b). Tips for Preparing Your 

Comments. When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

A. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

B. Follow directions—The agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number. 

C. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

D. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

E. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

F. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

G. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

Make sure to submit your comments 

by the comment period deadline 

identified. 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

In this action, we are proposing 

approval of a change in the legal 

designation of the Missoula area from 

nonattainment for CO to attainment. 

We’re proposing approval of the year 

2000 attainment emission inventory and 

the maintenance plan that is designed to 

keep the area in attainment for CO for 

the next 13 years. We’re also proposing 

approval of the transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emission 

budgets (MVEB) for 2000, 2010, and 

2020, and we’re proposing approval of 

the 1993 and 1996 CO periodic emission 

inventories. 

We originally designated Missoula as 

nonattainment for CO under the 

provisions of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments (see 43 FR 8962, March 3, 

1978). On November 15, 1990, the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 were 

enacted (Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q). 

Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), we designated the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20482 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1Refer to EPA’s September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

policy memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment.’’

Missoula area as nonattainment for CO 

because the area had been designated as 

nonattainment before November 15, 

1990. Under section 186 of the CAA, 

Missoula was classified as a ‘‘moderate’’

CO nonattainment area with a design 

value less than or equal to 12.7 parts per 

million (ppm), and was required to 

attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 

1995. See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 

1991. Further information regarding this 

classification and the accompanying 

requirements are described in the 

‘‘General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990.’’ See 57 

FR 13498, April 16, 1992. 

Under the CAA, we can change 

designations if acceptable data are 

available and if certain other 

requirements are met. See CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA provides that the Administrator 

may not promulgate a redesignation of 

a nonattainment area to attainment 

unless: 

(i) The Administrator determines that 

the area has attained the national 

ambient air quality standard; 

(ii) The Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

CAA section 110(k); 

(iii) The Administrator determines 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable 

implementation plan and applicable 

Federal air pollutant control regulations 

and other permanent and enforceable 

reductions; 

(iv) The Administrator has fully 

approved a maintenance plan for the 

area as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 175A; and, 

(v) The State containing such area has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

Before we can approve the 

redesignation request, we must decide 

that all applicable SIP elements have 

been fully approved. Approval of the 

applicable SIP elements may occur 

simultaneously with our final approval 

of the redesignation request. That’s why 

we are also proposing approval of the 

1993 and 1996 CO periodic emission 

inventories and the year 2000 emission 

inventory. 

III. What is the State’s process to 

submit these materials to EPA? 

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses 

our actions on submissions of revisions 

to a SIP. The CAA requires States to 

observe certain procedural requirements 

in developing SIP revisions for 

submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA requires that each SIP revision be 

adopted after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. This must occur prior to 

the revision being submitted by a State 

to us. 

The Missoula City-County Air 

Pollution Control Board (MCCAPCB) 

held a public hearing for the Missoula 

CO redesignation request and the 

maintenance plan on November 18, 

2004. The MCCAPCB adopted the 

Missoula CO redesignation request and 

maintenance plan on March 7, 2005. 

The Missoula CO redesignation request 

and maintenance plan were then 

forwarded to the Montana Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for 

the State to conduct its public hearing. 

The MDEQ held a public hearing for the 

Missoula CO redesignation request and 

the maintenance plan on April 22, 2005 

after which the SIP materials were 

forwarded to the Governor for his 

submittal to EPA. These SIP revision 

materials were submitted by the 

Governor to us on May 27, 2005. 

We have evaluated the Governor’s 

submittal and have concluded that the 

State met the requirements for 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By 

operation of law, under section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the Governor’s 

May 27, 2005, submittal became 

complete on November 27, 2005. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Missoula 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan 

Under the CAA, we can change 

designations of areas if acceptable data 

are available and if certain other 

requirements are met. See CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D). We have reviewed the 

Missoula area’s redesignation request 

and maintenance plan (section 2.0) and 

believe that approval of the request is 

warranted, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) as presented in our section 

II above. 

As we noted above, before we can 

approve the redesignation request, we 

must decide that all applicable SIP 

elements have been fully approved. 

Approval of the applicable SIP elements 

may occur simultaneously with final 

approval of the redesignation request. 

That’s why we are also proposing to 

approve the 1993 and 1996 periodic 

emission inventories and the year 2000 

attainment inventory (to also suffice as 

the 1999 periodic emission inventory.) 

The following are descriptions of how 

the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements 

are being addressed. 

(a) Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Have Attained the Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) NAAQS 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA 

states that for an area to be redesignated 

to attainment, the Administrator must 

determine that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS. As described in 40 

CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient 

air quality standards for carbon 

monoxide are 9 parts per million (10 

milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8- 

hour average concentration not to be 

exceeded more than once per year, and 

35 parts per million (40 milligrams per 

cubic meter) for a 1-hour average 

concentration not to be exceeded more 

than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 

continues by stating that the levels of 

CO in the ambient air shall be measured 

by a reference method based on 40 CFR 

part 50, Appendix C, and designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an 

equivalent method designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 53. 

Attainment of the CO standards is not 

a momentary phenomenon based on 

short-term data. Instead, we consider an 

area to be in attainment if each of the 

CO ambient air quality monitors in the 

area doesn’t have more than one 

exceedance of the relevant CO standard 

over a one-year period. See 40 CFR 50.8 

and 40 CFR 50, Appendix C. If any 

monitor in the area’s CO monitoring 

network records more than one 

exceedance of the relevant CO standard 

during a one-year calendar period, then 

the area is in violation of the CO 

NAAQS. In addition, our interpretation 

of the CAA and EPA national policy 1

has been that an area seeking 

redesignation to attainment must show 

attainment of the CO NAAQS for at least 

a continuous two-year calendar period. 

In addition, the area must also continue 

to show attainment through the date 

that we promulgate the redesignation in 

the Federal Register. 

Montana’s CO redesignation request 

for the Missoula area is based on an 

analysis of quality assured ambient air 

quality monitoring data that are relevant 

to the redesignation request. As 

presented in section 2.1.1 of the 

maintenance plan, ambient air quality 

monitoring data for consecutive 

calendar years 2000 through 2003 show 

a measured exceedance rate of the CO 

NAAQS of 1.0 or less per year, per 

monitor, in the Missoula nonattainment 

area. Further, we have reviewed 

ambient air quality data from 2004 

through December 2006 and the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20483 

Missoula area continues to show 

attainment of the CO NAAQS. All of 

these data were collected and analyzed 

as required by EPA (see 40 CFR 50.8 and 

40 CFR 50, Appendix C) and have been 

archived by the State in our Air Quality 

System (AQS) national database. 

Therefore, we believe the Missoula area 

has met the first component for 

redesignation: demonstration of 

attainment of the CO NAAQS. We note 

that the State has also committed, in the 

maintenance plan, to continue the 

necessary operation of the CO monitor 

in compliance with all applicable 

Federal regulations and guidelines. 

(b) Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Have Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA and Title II of the 

CAA 

To be redesignated to attainment, 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that an 

area must meet all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D of the CAA. We interpret section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that for a 

redesignation to be approved by us, the 

State must meet all requirements that 

applied to the subject area prior to or at 

the time of the submission of a complete 

redesignation request. In our evaluation 

of a redesignation request, we don’t 

need to consider other requirements of 

the CAA that became due after the date 

of the submission of a complete 

redesignation request. 

1. CAA Section 110 Requirements 

On January 10, 1980, we approved 

revisions to Montana’s SIP as meeting 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of 

the CAA (see 45 FR 2034). Although 

section 110 of the CAA was amended in 

1990, most of the changes were not 

substantial. Thus, we have determined 

that the SIP revisions approved in 1980 

continue to satisfy the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2). In addition, we have 

analyzed the SIP elements we are 

approving as part of this action, and we 

have determined they comply with the 

relevant requirements of section 

110(a)(2). 

2. Part D Requirements 

Before the Missoula ‘‘moderate’’ CO 

nonattainment area may be redesignated 

to attainment, the State must have 

fulfilled the applicable requirements of 

part D. Under part D, an area’s 

classification indicates the requirements 

to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of 

part D sets forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas, whether classified 

or nonclassifiable. Subpart 3 of part D 

contains specific provisions for 

‘‘moderate’’ CO nonattainment areas. 

The relevant subpart 1 requirements 

are contained in sections 172(c) and 

176. Our General Preamble (see 57 FR 

13529, 13533, April 16, 1992) provides 

EPA’s interpretations of the CAA 

requirements for ‘‘moderate’’ CO areas. 

The General Preamble (see 57 FR 13530, 

et seq.) provides that the applicable 

requirements of CAA section 172 are 

172(c)(3) (emissions inventory), 

172(c)(5) (new source review permitting 

program), 172(c)(7) (the section 

110(a)(2) air quality monitoring 

requirements), and 172(c)(9) 

(contingency measures). It is also worth 

noting that we interpreted the 

requirements of sections 172(c)(2) 

(reasonable further progress—RFP) and 

172(c)(6) (other measures) as being 

irrelevant to a redesignation request 

because they only have meaning for an 

area that is not attaining the standard. 

See EPA’s September 4, 1992, 

memorandum entitled, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’, and the General 

Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, dated April 

16, 1992. Finally, the State has not 

sought to exercise the options that 

would trigger sections 172(c)(4) 

(identification of certain emissions 

increases) and 172(c)(8) (equivalent 

techniques). Thus, these provisions are 

also not relevant to this redesignation 

request. 

The relevant subpart 3 provisions 

were created when the CAA was 

amended on November 15, 1990 and 

appear in section 187 of the CAA. The 

new CAA requirements for a CO 

nonattainment area, classified as 

‘‘moderate’’ with a design value of 12.7 

ppm or less, that are applicable to 

Missoula are a 1990 base year inventory 

(CAA section 187(a)(1)), contingency 

provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)), and 

periodic emission inventories (CAA 

section 187(a)(5)). 

A. Relevant CAA subpart 1 

requirements. 

1. Emissions Inventory. For the CAA 

section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement, the State submitted a 1990 

base year CO emissions inventory for 

the Missoula area on July 18, 1995 

which met the requirements of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. We approved this 

inventory on December 15, 1997 (62 FR 

65613). 

2. New Source Review (NSR) and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD). For the CAA section 172(c)(5) 

New Source Review (NSR) 

requirements, the CAA requires all 

nonattainment areas to meet several 

requirements regarding NSR, including 

provisions to ensure that increased 

emissions will not result from any new 

or modified stationary major sources 

and a general offset rule. The State of 

Montana has a fully-approved NSR 

program (60 FR 36715, July 18, 1995.) 

The State also has a fully approved PSD 

program (60 FR 36715, July 18, 1995) 

that will apply, instead of 

nonattainment NSR, if we approve the 

redesignation to attainment. 

3. Air Quality Monitoring 

Requirements. For the CAA section 

172(c)(7) provisions (compliance with 

the CAA section 110(a)(2) Air Quality 

Monitoring Requirements), our 

interpretations are presented in the 

General Preamble (57 FR 13535). CO 

nonattainment areas are to meet the 

‘‘applicable’’ air quality monitoring 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA. We have determined that the 

Missoula area has met the applicable air 

quality monitoring requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. See our 

descriptions in section IV.A above. 

4. Contingency Measures. Section 

172(c)(9) of the CAA requires the 

submittal of contingency measures to be 

implemented in the event that an area 

fails to make reasonable further progress 

or to attain the NAAQS by the date 

applicable (which for a CO 

nonattainment area, with a design value 

of less than 12.7 ppm, was December 31, 

1995.) To meet this requirement the 

State submitted a contingency measure, 

involving residential woodburning 

devices, on March 2, 1994. We approved 

this CO contingency measure on 

December 13, 1994 (59 FR 64133). 

5. Conformity. Section 176 of the CAA 

contains requirements related to 

conformity. Although EPA’s regulations 

(see 40 CFR 51.390) require that states 

adopt transportation conformity 

provisions in their SIPs for areas 

designated nonattainment or subject to 

an EPA-approved maintenance plan, we 

have decided that a transportation 

conformity SIP is not an applicable 

requirement for purposes of evaluating 

a redesignation request under section 

107(d) of the CAA. This decision is 

reflected in EPA’s 1996 approval of the 

Boston carbon monoxide redesignation. 

(See 61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.) 

B. Relevant CAA subpart 3 

requirements. 

1. Emissions Inventory. For the CAA 

section 187(a)(1) emissions inventory 

requirement, the State submitted a 1990 

base year CO emissions inventory for 

the Missoula area on July 18, 1995 

which met the requirements of section 

187(a)(1) of the CAA. We approved this 

inventory on December 15, 1997 (62 FR 

65613). 

2. Periodic emission inventories. For 

the CAA section 187(a)(5) periodic 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20484 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

emissions inventory requirement, the 

State submitted CO periodic emission 

inventories (PEI) for 1993 and 1996 on 

January 27, 2000. In addition, the State 

submitted a year 2000 CO emission 

inventory, on July 19, 2004, that 

qualifies for the 1999 PEI and is also the 

basis for the attainment year 2000 CO 

emission inventory that is part of the 

State’s Missoula CO maintenance plan. 

We have reviewed these CO periodic 

emission inventories and have 

determined they contain comprehensive 

information with respect to point, area, 

non-road, and on-road mobile sources 

and were prepared in accordance with 

EPA guidance. We are proposing 

approval of the 1993 PEI, the 1996 PEI, 

and the year 2000 attainment inventory 

(for the 1999 PEI requirement) in 

conjunction with this action’s proposed 

approval of the Missoula CO 

redesignation to attainment and 

maintenance plan. 

3. CAA Title II requirements. The 

relevant CAA Title II requirement is 

contained in section 211(m)(1) which 

requires the implementation of an 

oxygenated fuels program for CO areas 

with a design value of 9.5 ppm or 

greater. 

A. Title II, Part A of the CAA: 

Oxygenated fuels program (CAA section 

211(m)(1)). 

Section 211(m)(1) of the CAA requires 

the submittal of a SIP revision to 

implement an oxygenated fuels program 

for CO nonattainment areas with a 

design value of 9.5 ppm or greater. To 

address this requirement, the State 

submitted a SIP revision on November 

6, 1992 for the implementation of an 

oxygenated fuels program in Missoula 

County. EPA approved this SIP revision 

on November 8, 1994 (see 59 FR 55585). 

(c) Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA 

states that for an area to be redesignated 

to attainment, it must be determined 

that the Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k). 

As noted above, EPA previously 

approved SIP revisions based on the 

pre-1990 CAA as well as SIP revisions 

required under the 1990 amendments to 

the CAA. In this action, EPA is 

proposing approval of the Missoula 

area’s 1993 periodic CO emissions 

inventory, the 1996 periodic CO 

emissions inventory, and the 2000 CO 

emission inventory (as meeting the 1999 

periodic emissions inventory 

requirement). Thus, with our final 

approval of these SIP revisions, we will 

have fully approved the Missoula area’s 

CO element of the SIP under section 

110(k) of the CAA. 

(d) Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Show That the Improvement in Air 

Quality Is Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Emissions Reductions 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA 

provides that for an area to be 

redesignated to attainment, the 

Administrator must determine that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable 

implementation plan, implementation 

of applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations, and other 

permanent and enforceable reductions. 

The CO emissions reductions for the 

Missoula area, that are further described 

in section 2.3 of the maintenance plan, 

were achieved primarily through an 

oxygenated fuels program, Federal 

Motor Vehicle Control Program, 

residential woodburning regulations, 

changes in the transportation 

infrastructure involving the 

reconstruction of the Brooks/South/ 

Russell (B/S/R) intersection, and 

outdoor open burning regulations. 

These five control strategies are fully 

discussed in section 2.3 of the 

maintenance plan and are summarized 

below. 

1. Oxygenated Fuels. As described in 

section 2.3.2.1 of the maintenance plan, 

since November of 1992, all gasoline 

sold within the Missoula CO 

nonattainment area must have a 

minimum oxygen content of 2.7% by 

weight from November 1st through the 

last day of February each year. The use 

of oxygenates in gasoline helps provide 

additional oxygen in the fuel for better 

combustion of the fuel in the engine and 

a decrease in tailpipe CO emissions. 

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Program (FMVCP). Section 2.3.2.2 of the 

maintenance plan discusses the FMVCP 

which involves Federal provisions that 

require vehicle manufacturers to meet 

more stringent vehicle emission 

limitations for new vehicles in future 

years. These emission limitations are 

phased in (as a percentage of new 

vehicles manufactured) over a period of 

years. As new, lower emitting vehicles 

replace older, higher emitting vehicles 

(‘‘fleet turnover’’), emission reductions 

are realized for a particular area such as 

Missoula. 

3. Residential Woodburning. As 

described in section 2.3.2.3 of the 

maintenance plan, in order to reduce 

the amount of CO emissions from 

residential woodburning, Missoula 

adopted progressively more stringent 

solid fuel burning device regulations. 

Currently, the only new solid fuel 

burning devices permitted in Missoula 

are pellet stoves and the regulations also 

require that most woodstoves be 

removed at the time of sale of a 

property. 

4. Transportation Infrastructure. 

Section 2.3.2.4 of the maintenance plan 

describes the changes in transportation 

infrastructure that specifically address 

the B/S/R intersection. Violations of the 

CO NAAQS were occurring at the B/S/ 

R intersection in the 1980s and an 

initial intersection reconstruction was 

completed in 1985. This effort involved 

restricting left turn lanes and adding 

right turn and departure lanes. The CO 

designation of nonattainment for 

Missoula in 1991 was again tied to 

monitoring data near the B/S/R 

intersection. The final reconstruction 

project involved the realignment of 

South Avenue such that South Avenue 

no longer enters the intersection. This 

construction effort was scheduled to be 

completed by the end of 2005. The 

South Avenue realignment simplified 

the intersection, reducing the projected 

peak-hour delay from 120 seconds to 20 

seconds, and also allowed for the 

synchronization of all traffic lights along 

Brooks Street from Reserve to Mount. 

This reduces congestion along the 

whole corridor. 

5. Outdoor Burning. Section 2.3.2.5 of 

the maintenance plan describes the 

provisions of Missoula’s outdoor 

burning regulations. These regulations 

reduce the impact of outdoor burning, 

especially during December, January, 

and February, by requiring a permit for 

each burn, allowing only the burning of 

untreated lumber and natural 

vegetation, requiring burners to call the 

Outdoor Burning Hotline to confirm if 

any burning or air quality restrictions 

are in effect, establishing burning 

seasons to reduce the generation of 

smoke, and prohibiting outdoor burning 

during December, January, and February 

except for ceremonial bonfires, 

emergency burning, and essential 

wintertime burning. 

We have evaluated the various Local, 

State, and Federal control measures, the 

original 1990 base year CO emission 

inventory (62 FR 65613, December 15, 

1997), the 1993 periodic CO emission 

inventory, the 1996 periodic CO 

emission inventory, and the 2000 

attainment year CO inventory that was 

provided with the State’s May 27, 2005 

submittal and have concluded that the 

improvement in air quality in the 

Missoula nonattainment area has 

resulted from emission reductions that 

are permanent and enforceable. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20485 

2 ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance 

Demonstrations for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) Nonattainment Areas’’, signed by D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, November 30, 1993. 

(e) Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A 

of the CAA 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA 

provides that for an area to be 

redesignated to attainment, the 

Administrator must have fully approved 

a maintenance plan for the area meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The 

maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS for at least ten years after the 

Administrator approves a redesignation 

to attainment. Eight years after the 

promulgation of the redesignation, the 

State must submit a revised 

maintenance plan that demonstrates 

continued attainment for a subsequent 

ten-year period following the initial tenyear maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for adoption and implementation, that 

are adequate to assure prompt 

correction of a violation. In addition, we 

issued further maintenance plan 

interpretations in the ‘‘General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57 

FR 13498, April 16, 1992), ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990; Supplemental’’ (57 FR 18070, 

April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, Office of Air 

Quality and Planning Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, dated 

September 4, 1992. 

In this Federal Register action, EPA is 

proposing approval of the maintenance 

plan for the Missoula nonattainment 

area because we have determined, as 

detailed below, that the State’s 

maintenance plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A and is 

consistent with the documents 

referenced above. Our analysis of the 

pertinent maintenance plan 

requirements, with reference to the 

Governor’s May 27, 2005, submittal, is 

provided as follows: 

1. Emissions Inventories—Attainment 

Year and Projections 

EPA’s interpretations of the CAA 

section 175A maintenance plan 

requirements are generally provided in 

the General Preamble (see 57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992) and the September 4, 

1992, Calcagni Memorandum referenced 

above. Under our interpretations, areas 

seeking to redesignate to attainment for 

CO may demonstrate future 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS either 

by showing that future CO emissions 

will be equal to or less than the 

attainment year emissions or by 

providing a modeling demonstration. 

The maintenance plan that the 

Governor submitted on May 27, 2005, 

includes comprehensive inventories of 

CO emissions for the Missoula area. 

These inventories include emissions 

from stationary point sources, area 

sources, non-road mobile sources, and 

on-road mobile sources. The 

maintenance plan uses a year 2000 

attainment inventory and includes 

interim-year projections with a final 

maintenance year of 2020. More 

detailed descriptions of the 2000 

attainment year inventory and the 

projected inventories are documented in 

section 2.5.1, section 2.5.2.2, and 

Appendix D of the maintenance plan. 

The State’s submittal contains detailed 

emission inventory information that was 

prepared in accordance with EPA 

guidance. Summary emission figures 

from the 2000 attainment year, the 

interim projected years, and the final 

maintenance year of 2020 are provided 

in Table IV–1 below. 

TABLE IV–1.—CO EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR THE MISSOULA AREA

[All figures in tons per day of CO] 

Year 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Point Sources ............................................................................................................... 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.46 

Area Sources ............................................................................................................... 6.62 6.37 6.10 5.88 5.69 

Non-Road Mobile Sources ........................................................................................... 5.06 5.73 6.14 6.52 7.01 

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................ 44.86 32.73 27.10 24.97 22.98 

Total ...................................................................................................................... 56.83 45.16 39.71 37.78 36.14 

2. Demonstration of Maintenance—

Projected Inventories and CAL3QHC 

Intersection Modeling 

As we presented above, total CO 

emissions were projected forward by the 

State for the years 2005, 2010, 2015, and 

2020. We note the State’s approach for 

developing the projected inventories 

follows EPA guidance on projected 

emissions and we believe they are 

acceptable.2 Further information 

regarding these CO emission inventories 

is also provided in section 2.5.2.2 and 

in Appendix D of the maintenance plan. 

The projected inventories show that CO 

emissions are not estimated to exceed 

the 2000 attainment level during the 

time period of 2000 through 2020 and, 

therefore, the Missoula area has 

satisfactorily demonstrated 

maintenance. 

In addition to the emission inventory 

projections, the State also performed 

‘‘hot-spot’’ modeling to evaluate 

predicted CO concentrations at the B/S/ 

R intersection. This effort involved the 

CAL3QHC–R intersection model and 

considered meteorological data, relevant 

CO emission contributions from point, 

area, non-road, and on-road sources, 

and information specific to the B/S/R 

intersection such as traffic patterns and 

intersection geometry. Consistent with 

EPA guidance, the State modeled CO 

concentrations at 60 receptor sites 

around the intersection and at the 

location of the CO ambient air quality 

monitoring site at the B/S/R 

intersection. The years modeled were 

2000, 2005, 2010, and 2020. We note 

this modeling effort was consistent with 

our modeling guidance. 

The results of the State’s modeling for 

2000, 2005, 2010, and 2020 are 

presented in section 2.5.2.1 and 

Appendix C of the maintenance plan 

and in Table IV–2 below. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20486 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV–2.—CAL3QHC–R MODELED CO CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE B/S/R INTERSECTION

[All values are in parts per million] 

2000 2005 2010 2020 

First Maximum 8-hour CO Value ..................................................................................................... 11.8 8.9 5.4 4.5 

Second Maximum 8-hour CO Value ............................................................................................... 10.7 8.0 4.4 3.6 

First Maximum 8-hour CO Value at the Monitor Location .............................................................. 7.0 5.4 3.2 2.5 

Second Maximum 8-hour CO Value at the Monitor Location ......................................................... 6.7 5.1 2.9 2.4 

As shown, the CAL3QHC–R model 

predicted an exceedance of the CO 

NAAQS in 2000 at a modeling receptor 

location near the intersection. We 

consider this to be a conservative 

estimate by the model. For comparison, 

for 2000 the model predicted first 

maximum 8-hour and second maximum 

8-hour CO concentrations of 7.0 and 6.7 

ppm, respectively, at the ambient air 

quality monitoring site. However, actual 

ambient air quality data from the 

monitor for 2000 were a first maximum 

8-hour value of 3.9 ppm and second 

maximum 8-hour value of 3.3 ppm (ref. 

section 2.1.1 and Figure 2–3 of the 

maintenance plan.) 

Based on the information provided in 

sections 2.5.2.1 and 2.5.2.2, the 

maintenance plan concludes that 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS is 

demonstrated. Specifically, the actual 

monitored values for 2000 indicate no 

exceedances of the CO NAAQS for the 

Missoula area, the modeled CO values 

for 2005, 2010, and 2020 are less than 

the 8-hour CO NAAQS (9.0 ppm), and, 

as stated earlier in this action, predicted 

CO emissions for 2005, 2010, and 2020 

are all less than the attainment year 

levels of 2000. 

We have reviewed the State’s 

CAL3QHC–R modeling data and results 

and the attainment year and projected 

years CO emission inventory 

information, and have concluded that 

the State has satisfactorily demonstrated 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 

2020. 

3. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS in the Missoula area depends, 

in part, on the State’s efforts to track 

indicators throughout the maintenance 

period. This requirement is met in 

section 2.5.3 of the Missoula CO 

maintenance plan. In section 2.5.3 the 

State commits to review mobile source 

emission inventory data and compare 

that information to the emission 

inventory data in the Missoula CO 

maintenance plan. In section 2.5.3 the 

State also commits to continue the 

operation of the CO monitor in the 

Missoula area, specifically at the B/S/R 

intersection, and to annually review this 

monitoring network and make changes 

as appropriate. 

Based on the above, we are approving 

these commitments as satisfying the 

relevant requirements and note that this 

approval will render the State’s 

commitments federally enforceable. 

4. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions. To meet this 

requirement, the State has identified 

appropriate contingency measures along 

with a schedule for the development 

and implementation of such measures. 

As stated in section 2.5.5 and 2.5.5.4 

of the Missoula CO maintenance plan, 

the contingency measures for the 

Missoula area will be triggered by a 

violation of the CO NAAQS. 

Section 2.5.5.4 states that contingency 

measures contained in the Missoula 

City-County Air Pollution Control Plan 

will be implemented within 60 days of 

notification by the MDEQ and EPA that 

the area has violated the CO NAAQS. If 

those measures are not adequate, the 

Missoula City-County Air Pollution 

Control Board (MCCAPCB), in 

conjunction with the Air Quality 

Advisory Council (AQAC), will initiate 

a process to begin evaluating potential 

contingency measures. The Missoula 

City-County Health Department 

(MCCHD) and the AQAC will present 

recommendations to the MCCAPCB 

within 180 days of notification. The 

MCCAPCB will then hold a public 

hearing to consider the contingency 

measures recommended, along with any 

other contingency measures that the 

MCCAPCB believes may be appropriate 

to effectively address the violation of 

the CO NAAQS. The necessary 

contingency measures will be adopted 

and implemented within one year of the 

MCCHD being notified of the CO 

NAAQS violation. 

The potential contingency measures 

that are identified in section 2.5.5.1 of 

the Missoula CO maintenance plan 

include (a) expanding the 2.7% 

oxygenated fuels program in Missoula 

County to months outside of the current 

program time frame of November 1st 

through the end of February, (b) further 

restricting woodstove burning, (c) 

increasing the oxygenated fuels content 

to 3.1% by weight, and (d) constructing 

transportation projects and 

implementing transportation control 

measures. A more complete description 

of the triggering mechanism and these 

contingency measures can be found in 

section 2.5.5 of the Missoula CO 

maintenance plan. 

Based on the above, we find that the 

contingency plan provided in the 

Missoula CO maintenance plan meets 

the requirements of section 175A(d) of 

the CAA. 

5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan 

Revisions 

In accordance with section 175A(b) of 

the CAA, the MCCHD and MDEQ have 

committed to submit a revised 

maintenance plan eight years after our 

approval of the redesignation. This 

provision for revising the maintenance 

plan is contained in section 2.5.7 of the 

Missoula CO maintenance plan. 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Transportation Conformity 

Requirements 

One key provision of our conformity 

regulation requires a demonstration that 

emissions from the transportation plan 

and Transportation Improvement 

Program are consistent with the 

emissions budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR 

sections 93.118 and 93.124). The 

emissions budget is defined as the level 

of mobile source emissions relied upon 

in the attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to maintain compliance 

with the NAAQS in the nonattainment 

or maintenance area. The rule’s 

requirements and EPA’s policy on 

emissions budgets are found in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62193–96) and in the sections of the 

rule referenced above. 

Section 2.5.6 of the Missoula CO 

maintenance plan defines the CO motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in the 

Missoula CO maintenance area as 44.86 

tons per day for 2005 through 2009, 

43.22 tons per day for 2010 through 

2019, and 42.67 tons per day for 2020 

and beyond. As we explain more fully 

below, we view these as the budgets for 

2000, 2010, and 2020 respectively. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20487 

3 In its adequacy determination, EPA listed and 

found adequate budgets for 2005, 2010, and 2021. 

The listed years should have been 2000, 2010, and 

2020, consistent with our discussion above. 

Assuming we do not change this proposal in 

response to public comment, the final approved 

budgets will be for years 2000, 2010, and 2020. 

Under our conformity rules, a motor 

vehicle emissions budget is established 

for a given year, not for a range of years. 

This is because the motor vehicle 

emissions budget reflects the inventory 

value for motor vehicle emissions in a 

given year, plus, potentially, any safety 

margin in that year. (We explain the 

concept of safety margin more fully 

below.) It is not possible to specify the 

same motor vehicle emissions budget 

for a range of years absent specific 

analysis supporting the derivation of 

that budget for each year in the range. 

As a practical matter, this is not usually 

important because our conformity rules 

also say that a motor vehicle emissions 

budget for a particular year applies for 

conformity analyses of emissions in that 

year and all subsequent years before the 

next budget year. See 40 CFR 

93.118(b)(1)(ii) (‘‘Emissions in years for 

which no motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) are specifically established 

must be less than or equal to the motor 

vehicle emissions budget(s) established 

for the most recent prior year.’’). 

The maintenance plan’s ‘‘2005 

through 2009’’ motor vehicle emissions 

budget in fact is derived directly from 

the year 2000 inventory value for onroad vehicle emissions. It is apparent 

from the maintenance plan that MCCHD 

and MDEQ were not relying on 2005 

inventory numbers to establish the 

‘‘2005 through 2009’’ budget, and thus, 

it is not truly a 2005 budget. We assume 

the maintenance plan designates this as 

a 2005 to 2009 budget because the 

maintenance plan was adopted in 2005, 

and the years 2000 through 2004 had 

already passed. However, because it was 

derived from 2000 values, the ‘‘2005 

through 2009’’ budget is actually a 2000 

budget, and we will refer to it as such 

in the remainder of this proposal. 

Consistent with our discussion above, 

the 2000 budget applies for conformity 

analyses of emissions in the year 2000 

and all subsequent years before the next 

budget year; i.e., since the next budget 

year is 2010, the 2000 budget applies for 

analyses of years 2000 through 2009. 

Similarly, the ‘‘2010 through 2019’’

and ‘‘2020 and beyond’’ budgets were 

derived from, respectively, 2010 and 

2020 inventory values for on-road 

vehicle emissions and available safety 

margin. Thus, we will refer to these as 

the 2010 and 2020 budgets in the 

remainder of this proposal. 

For the Missoula CO maintenance 

plan, the ‘‘safety margin’’ is the 

difference between the attainment year 

(2000) total emissions and the projected 

future year’s total emissions. Part or all 

of the safety margin may be added to 

projected mobile source CO emissions 

to arrive at a motor vehicle emissions 

budget to be used for transportation 

conformity purposes. The safety 

margins, less one ton per day, were 

added to projected mobile source CO 

emissions for 2010, and 2020. The 

derivation and determination of safety 

margins and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for the Missoula CO 

maintenance plan is further illustrated 

in Table V–1 below and in section 2.5.6, 

Table 2–7 of the maintenance plan: 

TABLE V–1.—MOBILE SOURCES EMISSIONS, SAFETY MARGINS, AND MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS IN TONS OF

CO PER DAY (TPD) 

Year 

Mobile 

sources 

emissions 

(TPD) 

Total 

emissions 

(TPD) 

Math 

Margin of 

safety 

(TPD) 

Motor vehicle 

emissions 

budget 

(TPD) 

2000 ..................................................................... 44.86 56.83 ........................................ N/A 44.86 

2010 ..................................................................... 27.10 39.71 56.83–39.71 = 17.12 .....

17.12¥1 = 16.12 

27.10+16.12 = 43.22 

16.12 43.22 

2020 ..................................................................... 22.98 36.14 56.83¥36.14 = 20.69 ....

20.69¥1 = 19.69 

22.98+19.69 = 42.67 

19.69 42.67 

Note: N/A = Not Applicable. 

Our analysis indicates that the above 

figures are consistent with maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS throughout the 

maintenance period. Therefore, we are 

approving the 44.86 tons per day budget 

for 2000, 43.22 tons per day budget for 

2010, and 42.67 tons per day budget for 

2020 for the Missoula area. 

Pursuant to section 93.118(e)(4) of 

EPA’s transportation conformity rule, as 

amended, EPA must determine the 

adequacy of submitted mobile source 

emissions budgets. EPA reviewed the 

Missoula CO maintenance plan budgets 

for adequacy using the criteria in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that 

the budgets were adequate for 

conformity purposes. EPA’s adequacy 

determination was made in a letter to 

the MDEQ on May 4, 2006, and was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

June 1, 2006 (71 FR 31181). As a result 

of this adequacy finding, the budgets 

took effect for conformity 

determinations in the Missoula area on 

June 16, 2006. However, we are not 

bound by that determination in acting 

on the maintenance plan.3

VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of 

the Clean Air Act 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The Missoula 

CO maintenance plan will not interfere 

with attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

VII. Proposed Action 

In this action, EPA is proposing 

approval of the request for redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

CO for the Missoula area, the Missoula 

area’s maintenance plan, the 1993 PEI, 

the 1996 PEI, the year 2000 attainment 

inventory (which fulfills the 1999 PEI 

obligation), and the transportation 

conformity CO motor vehicle emission 

budgets of 44.86 tons per day for 2000, 

43.22 tons per day for 2010, and 42.67 

tons per day for 2020. 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2006–

0163, by one of the methods identified 

above at the front of this proposed rule. 

In deciding on our final action, we will 

consider your comments if they are 

received before May 25, 2007. EPA will 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20488 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it 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). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it proposes to approve a state 

rule implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: April 17, 2007. 

Kerrigan G. Clough, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. E7–7900 Filed 4–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 70 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0254; FRL–8304–9] 

State Operating Permits Program; 

Maryland; Revision to the Acid Rain 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

operating permit program revision 

submitted by the State of Maryland for 

the purpose of amending the Code of 

Maryland Administrative Regulations’

(COMAR) incorporation by reference 

citations to ensure that future changes to 

the Federal Acid Rain program will 

continue to be incorporated into 

Maryland’s regulations. In the Final 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the State’s operating 

permit program revision submittal as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this action, no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by May 25, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA–

R03–OAR–2007–0254 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: campbell.dave@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0254, 

David Campbell, Chief, Permits and 

Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 

3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2007–

0254. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The 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 e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS