Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71369 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This proposed rule would 

have no such effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

provisions constituting a collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

21). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.102, Compensation for ServiceConnected Deaths for Veterans’ 

Dependents; 64.105, Pension to 

Veterans, Surviving Spouses, and 

Children; 64.109, Veterans 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Disability; and 64.110, Veterans 

Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Death. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose 

D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on November 21, 2014, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive 

materials, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Dated: November 26, 2014. 

William F. Russo, 

Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy 

& Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 

3 as follows: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, 

and Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart A continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 3.57 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1) introductory 

text, removing the phrase ‘‘paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (3)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraphs (a)(2) through (4)’’; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(4). 

■ c. Adding an authority citation 

immediately following paragraph (a)(4). 

■ d. Revising the Cross References at the 

end of the section. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 3.57 Child. 

(a) * * * 

(4) For purposes of any benefits 

provided under 38 U.S.C. 1115, 

Additional compensation for 

dependents, the term child does not 

include a child of a veteran who is 

adopted out of the family of the veteran. 

This limitation does not apply to any 

benefit administered by the Secretary 

that is payable directly to a child in the 

child’s own right, such as dependency 

and indemnity compensation under 38 

CFR 3.5. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(4), 501, 1115) 

* * * * * 

CROSS REFERENCES: Improved pension 

rates. See § 3.23. Improved pension 

rates; surviving children. See § 3.24. 

Child adopted out of family. See § 3.58. 

Child’s relationship. See § 3.210. 

Helplessness. See § 3.403(a)(1). 

Helplessness. See § 3.503(a)(3). 

Veteran’s benefits not apportionable. 

See § 3.458. School attendance. See 

§ 3.667. Helpless children—SpanishAmerican and prior wars. See § 3.950. 

■ 3. Revise § 3.58 to read as follows: 

§ 3.58 Child adopted out of family. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, a child of a veteran 

adopted out of the family of the veteran 

either prior or subsequent to the 

veteran’s death is nevertheless a child 

within the meaning of that term as 

defined by § 3.57 and is eligible for 

benefits payable under all laws 

administered by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

(b) A child of a veteran adopted out 

of the family of the veteran is not a child 

within the meaning of § 3.57 for 

purposes of any benefits provided under 

38 U.S.C. 1115, Additional 

compensation for dependents. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(4)(A), 1115) 

CROSS REFERENCES: Child. See § 3.57. 

Veteran’s benefits not apportionable. 

See § 3.458. 

■ 4. Amend § 3.458 by: 

■ (a) In paragraph (d) removing the 

phrase ‘‘, except the additional 

compensation payable for the child’’. 

■ (b) Adding Cross References at the end 

of the section. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 3.458 Veterans benefits not 

apportionable. 

* * * * * 

CROSS REFERENCES: Child. See § 3.57. 

Child adopted out of family. See § 3.58. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28374 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0352; FRL–9919–97– 

OAR] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Montana Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Billings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 Billings 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 

Billings CO maintenance area, which 

was submitted by the Governor’s 

designee on June 22, 2012. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0352, 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). 

• 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

71370 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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– 

0352. 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. Billings CO Maintenance Plan 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1990, the Billings 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 Billings 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 February 21, 

2002 (67 FR 7966). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71371 

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 Billings and Great Falls, the 

Missoula, MT CO maintenance area was included 

in the July 13, 2011Alternative 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. 

Eight years after an area is 

redesignated to attainment, CAA section 

175A(b) requires the state to submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan to EPA, 

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 Billings CO maintenance 

plan (hereafter; ‘‘revised Billings 

Maintenance Plan’’) to us on July 13, 

2011. With this action, we are proposing 

approval of the revised Billings 

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 Billings 

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 

Billings CO maintenance plan (67 FR 

7966, February 21, 2002). For the 

revised Billings Maintenance Plan the 

State again used the LMP option to 

demonstrate continued maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS in the Billings area. We 

have determined that the Billings 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 2 ppm.3

B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy 

Along with the revised Billings 

Maintenance Plan, the State submitted a 

CO maintenance plan for the Great 

Falls, 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 

Billings 

Since 2002, no Billings CO monitor 

has registered a design value greater 

than 4.4 ppm, which is roughly half of 

the NAAQS. Further, since 2006, no 

Billings monitor has registered a design 

value greater than 2.2 ppm, roughly 

25% 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 Billings 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 Billings 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

BILLINGS, MONTANA

Rolling 2008–2010 ADT: 

November to February 

Month-Year Billings 

(#A–050) 

January 2008 ........................ 32,778 

February 2008 ...................... 35,463 

November 2008 .................... 35,832 

December 2008 .................... 32,042 

January 2009 ........................ 33,256 

February 2009 ...................... 35,695 

November 2009 .................... 37,121 

December 2009 .................... 33,905 

January 2010 ........................ 32,340 

February 2010 ...................... 34,317 

November 2010 .................... 33,885 

December 2010 .................... 34,317 

Average ......................... 34,246 

TABLE 2—8-HOUR CO DESIGN

VALUES FOR BILLINGS, MONTANA

Design Value (ppm) 7 Year 

4.3 ......................................... 2002 

4.4 ......................................... 2003 

3.7 ......................................... 2004 

3.5 ......................................... 2005 

2 ............................................ 2006 

2.2 ......................................... 2007 

2 ............................................ 2008 

1.8 ......................................... 2009 

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

1.3 ......................................... 2011 

If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25% 

higher than the average value from the 

2008–2010 baseline period of 34,246, 

the State will reestablish CO ambient 

monitoring in Billings 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

71372 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 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. 

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 

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 Billings CO maintenance 

area. Given the long history of low CO 

concentrations in the Billings 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 Billings monitor and 

use the Alternative Monitoring Strategy 

in its place. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Billings 

Second 10-Year CO Maintenance Plan 

The following are the key elements of 

a 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 Billings Maintenance Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Billings 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 

Billings 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 Billings 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 

Billings area are consistently well below 

the LMP threshold (See Table 2), the 

State has adequately demonstrated that 

the Billings area will maintain the CO 

NAAQS into the future. 

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

In the revised Billings 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 Billings 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 Billings. 

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 Billings Maintenance Plan stated 

in section 56.12.7.4 that the State will 

use an exceedance of the CO NAAQS as 

the trigger for adopting specific 

contingency measures for the Billings 

area. As noted, the Alternative 

Monitoring Strategy requires 

reinstitution of a CO monitor in Billings 

if traffic levels increase from the 2008– 

2010 baseline by a factor of 25%. 

Therefore, EPA finds that CO emissions 

in Billings 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 other affected 

governments will occur within 60 days. 

Upon notification of a CO NAAQS 

exceedance, MDEQ and Riverstone 

Health will convene to recommend an 

appropriate contingency measure or 

measures that would be necessary to 

avoid a violation of the CO NAAQS. 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 56.12.7.4.C of the 

Billings Maintenance Plan, include 

implementation of a mandatory 

oxygenated fuels program with local 

regulations in the Billings or 

Yellowstone 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 56.12.7.4 of the Billings 

Maintenance Plan. 

We find that the contingency 

measures provided in the State’s 

maintenance plan for Billings 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)(1)(B)). EPA’s conformity rule at 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects conform to SIPs and establish 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they 

conform. To effectuate its purpose, the 

conformity rule requires a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 

the Transportation Improvement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71373 

12Further information concerning EPA’s 

interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in 

the preamble to EPA’s November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193— 

62196). 

13Limited Maintenance Plan Guidance at 4. 

October 6, 1995. 

Program (TIP) are consistent with the 

motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) 

contained in the control strategy SIP 

revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 

93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is 

defined as the level of mobile source 

emissions of a pollutant relied upon in 

the attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to attain or maintain 

compliance with the NAAQS in the 

nonattainment or maintenance 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 

guidance 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 Billings 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 still will be 

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 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 still will 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 Billings 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 Billings 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, 

Incorporation by reference, 

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. 2014–28390 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0011; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AZ44 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Western Distinct 

Population Segment of the YellowBilled Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: On August 15, 2014, we, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

announced a proposal to designate 

critical habitat for the western distinct 

population segment of the yellow-billed 

cuckoo (western yellow-billed cuckoo) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). On November 

12, 2014, the public comment period 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS