[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43180-43184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19460]



40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0339; FRL-9967-66-Region 8]

Montana Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.


SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct 
final action approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of Montana. On September 19, 2016, the Governor 
of Montana submitted to the EPA a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) 
second 10-year maintenance plan for the Missoula, Montana area for the 
carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 
This limited maintenance plan (LMP) addresses maintenance of the CO 
NAAQS for a second 10-year period beyond the original redesignation. 
This action is being taken under sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 13, 2017 without further 
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by October 16, 2017. If 
adverse comment is received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal 
of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0339 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. (303) 312-7104, 
[email protected].


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 the EPA through https://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 the EPA, 
mark the outside

[[Page 43181]]

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 volume, 
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 
     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

    Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Missoula area was designated 
as nonattainment and classified as a ``moderate'' CO area, with a 
design value of less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million (ppm) (56 
FR 56694, November 6, 1991). On May 27, 2005, the Governor of Montana 
submitted to the EPA a request to redesignate the Missoula CO 
nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS. Along with 
this request, the Governor submitted a CAA section 175A(a) maintenance 
plan which established an attainment year of 2000, and demonstrated 
that the area would maintain the 8-hour CO NAAQS through 2020. The EPA 
approved the State's redesignation request, CAA section 175A(a) 
maintenance plan and base year emissions inventory on August 17, 2007 
(72 FR 46158).
    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA 
Section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance 
plan to the EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ This second 10-
year maintenance plan must demonstrate continued maintenance of the 
applicable NAAQS during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this 
requirement of the Act, the Governor of Montana submitted the second 
10-year Missoula CO maintenance plan (hereafter, ``revised Missoula 
Maintenance Plan'') to the EPA on September 19, 2016. With this action, 
we are approving the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan.

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period described in 
CAA section 175A(a) was required to extend for at least 10 years 
after the redesignation to attainment, which was effective on 
September 17, 2007. See 72 FR 46158. The first maintenance plan 
showed maintenance through 2020. CAA section 175A(b) requires that 
the second 10-year maintenance plan maintain the NAAQS for ``10 
years after the expiration of the 10-year period referred to in 
[section 175A(a)].'' Thus, for the Missoula area, the second 10-year 
period ends in 2027.

    The 8-hour CO NAAQS--9.0 ppm--is attained when such value is not 
exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Missoula area 
has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1992 to the present.\2\ In 
October 1995, the 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 8-hour CO NAAQS.\3\ According to this guidance, 
areas that can demonstrate design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85% of 
exceedance levels of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for eight consecutive 
quarters qualify to use a LMP. For the revised Missoula Maintenance 
Plan, on which we are finalizing action, the State used the LMP option 
to demonstrate continued maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS in the 
Missoula area through 2027. We have determined that the Missoula area 
qualifies for the LMP option for this plan revision, since the area's 
maximum design value for the most recent eight consecutive quarters 
with certified data (years 2009 and 2010) was 2.4 ppm.\4\

    \2\ http://www.epa.gov/airdata/.
    \3\ Memorandum ``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 (hereafter referred to as ``LMP 
    \4\ See Table 1 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 1, below, demonstrates that the 
area meets this requirement.

III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Missoula Maintenance Plan

    The following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Emission 
Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification 
of Continued Attainment, Contingency Plan, and Conformity 
Determinations. Below, the EPA describes our evaluation of each of 
these elements as it pertains to the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan contains an emissions 
inventory for the base year 2010. The emission inventory is a list, by 
source category, of the air contaminants directly emitted into the 
Missoula CO maintenance area on a typical winter day in 2010.\5\ The 
data in the emission inventory were developed using EPA-approved 
emissions modeling methods. A more detailed description of the 2010 
inventory is documented in the Missoula CO maintenance plan. See 
Revised Missoula Maintenance Plan, p. 4-6. Included in this inventory 
are residential wood burning, natural gas combustion, commercial 
equipment, construction equipment, industrial equipment, residential 
lawn and garden equipment, commercial lawn and garden equipment, 
railway maintenance equipment, railway locomotives, motor vehicle 
exhaust, and point sources. Notably, motor vehicle exhaust from onroad 
mobile sources accounted for 71% of total CO emissions in the Missoula 
Maintenance Area during the inventory period. The revised maintenance 
plan contains detailed emission inventory information that was prepared 
in accordance with EPA guidance, and is acceptable to the EPA.\6\

    \5\ Violations of the 8-hour CO NAAQS are most likely to occur 
on winter weekdays, as weekdays see more consistent workweek traffic 
and the Missoula area is prone to temperature inversions in the 
winter which lead to stagnant air conditions. The typical winter day 
from 2010 was used because monitoring in Missoula ceased in 2011.
    \6\ See ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, EPA, September 4, 1992.

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The EPA considers the maintenance demonstration requirement to be 
satisfied for areas that qualify for and are using 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). The EPA 
maintains that if an

[[Page 43182]]

area begins the maintenance period with a design value no greater than 
7.65 ppm, the air quality along with the continued 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 
and the EPA would not require such areas to project emissions over the 
maintenance period. Because the last recorded CO design values in the 
Missoula area were consistently well below the LMP threshold (See Table 
1 below) and no changes are proposed to the area's permanent and 
enforceable control measures, the State has adequately demonstrated 
that the Missoula area will maintain the 8-hour CO NAAQS into the 

    \7\ Design values were derived from the EPA AirData Web site 
(https://www.epa.gov/airdata/ airdata/).
    \8\ The monitor only operated for 47 days in 2011, and ceased 
operation on March 31, 2011. The 2.1 ppm value in Table 1 indicates 
the highest value recorded at the CO monitor in 2011.

         Table 1--8-Hour CO Design Values for Missoula, Montana
                 Design value  (ppm) \7\                       Year
3.6.....................................................            2003
2.9.....................................................            2004
3.6.....................................................            2005
2.4.....................................................            2006
2.4.....................................................            2007
2.7.....................................................            2008
2.5.....................................................            2009
2.2.....................................................            2010
2.1 \8\.................................................            2011

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    In the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan, the State adopted an 
alternative monitoring strategy for Missoula that was previously 
approved by the EPA to satisfy this requirement for both the Billings 
CO Maintenance Area (80 FR 16571, March 30, 2015) and Great Falls CO 
Maintenance Area (80 FR 17331, April 1, 2015). The State adopted the 
alternative monitoring strategy to conserve resources by discontinuing 
the gaseous CO ambient monitor in the Missoula CO maintenance area. In 
place of the gaseous ambient monitor, the State's alternative method 
relies on rolling 3-year Average Daily Traffic (ADT) vehicle counts 
collected from permanent automatic traffic recorders (devices installed 
into a street's pavement to continuously collect data) in each 
maintenance area.
    Since 2006, no Missoula monitor has registered a design value 
greater than 2.7 ppm, roughly 30% of the NAAQS.\9\ Citing these 
consistently low monitor values, and expressing a desire to conserve 
monitoring resources, the State requested to discontinue CO monitoring 
in Missoula and instead use an alternative strategy for monitoring 
maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS.

    \9\ See Table 1 above. Design values were derived from the EPA 
AirData (https://www.epa.gov/airdata/) Web site.

    The alternative monitoring strategy utilizes ADT vehicle counts 
collected from permanent automatic traffic recorders in the Missoula CO 
maintenance area to determine average monthly traffic during the 
traditional high CO concentration season of November through February 
(the winter season). The State will compare the latest rolling 3-year 
ADT volumes during the winter season to the 2008-2011 baseline ADT 
volumes (see Table 2) that correlate to the low CO monitored values 
during that period (see Table 1).\10\ 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.\11\ The 
EPA agrees with the State's reasoning.

    \10\ In the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan, the State refers 
to this period 2008-2010 baseline.
    \11\ See ``Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Carbon Monoxide,'' 76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011.

                                 Table 2--Traffic Volumes for Missoula, Montana
                                                          Average daily traffic for site A-037
             Winter season                  Winter                                                 % Difference
                                            monthly           Rolling three- year average         from 2008-2011
                                            average                                                  baseline
November 2008-January 2009 *..........          19,134  .......................................  ...............
November 2009-February 2010...........          20,320  .......................................  ...............
November 2010-February 2011...........          20,221  (Baseline) 19,892......................  ...............
November 2011-February 2012...........          20,120  20,220.................................             1.65
November 2012-February 2013...........          20,004  20,115.................................             1.12
November 2013-February 2014...........          19,943  20,022.................................             0.66
November 2014-February 2015...........          21,037  20,328.................................             2.19
November 2015-February 2016...........          21,763  20,914.................................             5.14
* There is no ADT information available for February 2009.

    If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25% higher than the monthly 
average value from the November 2008-February 2011 baseline period of 
19,892, the State, in cooperation with the Missoula City-County Health 
Department (MCCHD), will reestablish CO ambient monitoring in Missoula 
the following high season (November-February). If the CO design value 
in the following high season has not increased from the baseline mean 
by an equal or greater rate at which the ADT has increased, and the 
monitor values remain at or below 50% of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (2nd max 
concentration <=4.5 ppm), the monitor may 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-
2011 period, and the same analysis will be conducted to determine if 
the monitors can be removed.
    40 CFR 58.14(c) allows approval of requests to discontinue ambient 
monitors ``on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not 

[[Page 43183]]

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.'' The EPA finds that the alternative monitoring strategy in the 
revised Missoula Maintenance Plan meets the criteria of 40 CFR 58.14(c) 
for the Missoula CO maintenance area. Given the long history of low CO 
concentrations in the Missoula area and the adequacy of the alternative 
monitoring strategy at ensuring continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in 
the area, the EPA finds it appropriate to approve the State's request 
to not operate a gaseous CO monitor in Missoula and use the alternative 
monitoring strategy in its place.

D. Contingency Plan

    The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan stated that a trend of 
increasing CO concentrations or a single 8-hour average of 9.5 ppm or 
greater would trigger a voluntary, local process by the Missoula Air 
Pollution Control Board to identify and evaluate potential contingency 
measures. The plan also indicated that a violation of the 8-hour CO 
NAAQS (two or more values of 9.5 ppm or greater during a calendar year) 
would trigger mandatory implementation of contingency measures.
    As noted in the previous section, the alternative monitoring 
strategy in the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan requires 
reestablishment of a CO monitor in Missoula if traffic levels 
(responsible for 71% of CO emissions in Missoula) increase from the 
2008-2011 baseline by a factor of 25% and provides that any 
reestablished monitors showing values above 50% of the NAAQS cannot be 
removed. Therefore, the EPA finds that CO emissions in Missoula are 
very unlikely to increase to the point of an 8-hour NAAQS exceedance 
(the trigger for voluntary contingency measures) without that 
exceedance being observed by a gaseous monitor, as such an increase 
would most likely coincide with a significant increase in traffic 
    The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan retains two contingency 
measures adopted as part of the area's fully approved SIP. The first 
expands the oxygenated fuel program to other months besides November, 
December, January and February, as described in Rule 10.110 of the 
Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Program. The second further 
restricts woodstove burning as described in Rule 9.601 of the Missoula 
City-County Air Pollution Control Program.
    The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan indicates that contingency 
measures will be implemented within 60 days of notification by MDEQ and 
the EPA that the Missoula area has violated the 8-hour CO NAAQS. Upon 
notification of a CO NAAQS violation, MCCHD will review relevant 
information and implement one or both of the contingency measures to 
correct the violation. In the event that violations continue to occur 
after contingency measures have been implemented, additional 
contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are 
corrected. See Revised Missoula Maintenance Plan, p. 11.
    We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised 
Missoula Maintenance Plan 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)). The 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 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\

    \12\ Further information concerning the 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).

    Under the LMP guidance, MVEBs generally are treated as not 
constraining for the length of the maintenance period. While the 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. According to the LMP guidance, it is 
unreasonable to expect that a LMP area will experience so much growth 
in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\13\ We 
note that the CO maintenance plan for Missoula that we approved in 2007 
(72 FR 46158, August 17, 2007) contains a MVEB for 2020 of 42.67 tons 
per day of CO. However, the State did not revise or remove this 2020 
MVEB from the SIP with the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan. 
Therefore, under our conformity regulation, consistency with the 2020 
MVEB must continue to be demonstrated by the Missoula Metropolitan 
Planning Organization (MPO) as long as that year is within the 
timeframe of the RTP (i.e., through 2020). See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i) 
and (d)(2).

    \13\ LMP Guidance at 4.

    When the year 2020 is no longer within the timeframe of the 
transportation plan (i.e., 2021 and beyond), there will no longer be a 
need to demonstrate conformity with any MVEB for the Missoula CO 
maintenance area, for the reasons described in the EPA's LMP guidance. 
From that point forward, all actions that require conformity 
determinations for the Missoula CO maintenance area under our 
conformity rule provisions will be considered to have already satisfied 
the regional emissions analysis and ``budget test'' requirements in 40 
CFR 93.118, because of our approval of the revised Missoula Maintenance 
    However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain 
aspects of transportation conformity determinations will be required 
for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such 
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects will have to demonstrate that 
they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for 
consultation and timely implementation of Transportation Control 
Measures (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, 
projects in LMP areas will be required to meet the applicable criteria 
for localized 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).
    Our approval of the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan affects 
future CO RTP and TIP transportation conformity determinations as 
prepared by the Missoula MPO, the Montana Department of Transportation, 
the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit 
Administration. See 40 CFR 93.100.

[[Page 43184]]

IV. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan submitted on 
September 19, 2016. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA 
requirements, and we have determined it is sufficient to provide for 
maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-
year maintenance period out to 2027.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments 
are filed. This rule will be effective November 13, 2017 without 
further notice unless we receive adverse comments by October 16, 2017. 
If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in 
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take 
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so 
at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an 
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 
be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal 
requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land 
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 13, 2017. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final 
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel 
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed 
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an 
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so 
that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the 
comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged 
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 

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: August 31, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:


1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart BB--Montana

2. Section 52.1373 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 

Sec.  52.1373  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (d) Revisions to the Montana State Implementation Plan, revised 
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Missoula, as submitted by the 
Governor on September 19, 2016.

[FR Doc. 2017-19460 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]