12912 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

human health or environmental effects 

on communities with environmental 

justice concerns. 

VI. Proposed Action 

For the reasons explained in section 

III., we are proposing to approve the 

LMP for the Thompson Falls NAA and 

the State’s request to redesignate the 

Thompson Falls NAA from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

Additionally, the EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Thompson Falls 

NAA has attained the NAAQS for PM10. 

This determination is based upon 

monitored air quality data for the PM10

NAAQS during the years 2014–2020. 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

Thompson Falls LMP as meeting the 

appropriate transportation conformity 

requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A. 

VII. 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 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 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed 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). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, and 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: February 28, 2022. 

KC Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04759 Filed 3–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2021–0808; FRL–9595–01– 

R8] 

Air Plan Approval; Montana; Whitefish 

PM10 Nonattainment Area Limited 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to fully 

approve the Limited Maintenance Plan 

(LMP) submitted by the State of 

Montana to EPA on August 6, 2021, for 

the Whitefish Moderate nonattainment 

area (NAA) for particulate matter with 

an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 

(PM10) and concurrently redesignate the 

NAA to attainment for the 24-hour PM10

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). In order to approve the LMP 

and redesignation, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Whitefish NAA has 

attained the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

of 150 mg/m3. This determination is 

based upon monitored air quality data 

for the PM10 NAAQS during the years 

2015–2020. EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 7, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2021–0808 to the Federal 

Rulemaking Portal: 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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the 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 

electronically in www.regulations.gov. 

To reduce the risk of COVID–19 

transmission, for this action we do not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12913 

1See p. 64 of document titled FR–1993–10– 

19.pdf in docket for 58 FR 53886. 

2See also 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992) and 66 

FR 55102 (November 1, 2001). 

3The ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ (Calcagni memo) 

outlines the criteria for redesignation (see docket for 

memo). 

4The ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ outlines the 

criteria for development of a PM10 limited 

maintenance plan (see docket for memo). 

plan to offer hard copy review of the 

docket. Please email or call the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section if you need to make 

alternative arrangements for access to 

the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Gregory, Air and Radiation Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–ARD– 

QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, telephone 

number: (303) 312–6175, email address: 

gregory.kate@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

Description of the Whitefish NAA 

The Whitefish NAA is in Flathead 

County and is in the northwest corner 

of the Flathead Valley, with the 

Whitefish range of mountains on the 

north and east sides of the small, rural, 

city of Whitefish and the Salish 

mountains to the west. The EPA 

promulgated the PM10 National NAAQS 

on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634). The 

Whitefish NAA was originally 

designated as a Group III area on July 1, 

1987 (52 FR 24634), meaning, at that 

time, there was a strong likelihood the 

Whitefish NAA would attain the PM10

NAAQS and, therefore, needed only 

adjustments to their preconstruction 

permit review program and monitoring 

network. However, on July 16, 1992, the 

Administrator of EPA, Region 8 notified 

the Governor of Montana that EPA 

believed that the area around Whitefish 

should be redesignated as 

nonattainment for PM10 and 

subsequently the Whitefish NAA was 

classified as Moderate for the 1987 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS on November 18, 

1993 (58 FR 53886).1 Within 18 months 

of this Moderate designation, by May 

18, 1995, Montana was required to 

submit to EPA a Moderate NAA State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

Whitefish NAA containing, among other 

requirements, provisions to assure that 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), including reasonably available 

control technologies (RACT), are 

implemented and a demonstration as to 

whether it was practicable to attain the 

PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 2000 (57 

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).2

The State of Montana submitted an 

initial PM10 SIP to EPA on June 26, 

1997, and a subsequent submission on 

June 13, 2000. EPA approved both the 

June 26, 1997 and the June 13, 2000 

PM10 SIP submissions for the Whitefish 

initial control plan on April 24, 2008 

(73 FR 22057). The State of Montana’s 

SIP for the Whitefish Moderate NAA 

included but was not limited to a 

comprehensive emissions inventory, 

RACM (implemented by November 18, 

1997), a demonstration that attainment 

of the PM10 NAAQS would be achieved 

in Whitefish by December 31, 2000; 

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

requirements and control measures that 

satisfy the contingency measures 

requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the 

CAA. The EPA fully approved the 

Whitefish NAA PM10 attainment plan 

on April 24, 2008 (73 FR 22057). 

II. Requirements for Redesignation 

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation 

of NAAs 

NAAs can be redesignated to 

attainment after the area has measured 

air quality data showing it has attained 

the NAAQS and when certain planning 

requirements are met. Section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the General 

Preamble to Title I provide the criteria 

for redesignation. See 57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992). These criteria are 

further clarified in a policy and 

guidance memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards dated 

September 4, 1992, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment.’’ 3 The criteria for 

redesignation are: 

(1) The Administrator has determined 

that the area has attained the applicable 

NAAQS; 

(2) The Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable SIP for the area 

under section 110(k) of the CAA; 

(3) The state containing the area has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA; 

(4) The Administrator has determined 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions; and 

(5) The Administrator has fully 

approved a maintenance plan for the 

area as meeting the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA. 

B. The LMP Option for PM10 NAAs 

On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued 

guidance on streamlined maintenance 

plan provisions for certain moderate 

PM10 NAAs seeking redesignation to 

attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman, 

Director, Air Quality Standards and 

Strategies Division, entitled ‘‘Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas,’’ (hereafter 

the LMP Option memo)).4 The LMP 

Option memo contains a statistical 

demonstration to show that areas 

meeting certain air quality criteria will, 

with a high degree of probability, 

maintain the standard 10 years into the 

future. Thus, the EPA has already 

provided the maintenance 

demonstration for areas meeting the 

criteria outlined in the LMP Option 

memo. It follows that future year 

emission inventories for these areas, and 

some of the standard analyses to 

determine transportation conformity 

with the SIP are no longer necessary. 

To qualify for the LMP Option, the 

area should have attained the 1987 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS, based upon the 

most recent 5 years of air quality data 

at all monitors in the area, and the 24- 

hour design concentration should be at 

or below the ‘‘Critical Design Value’’ 

(CDV). The CDV is a calculated design 

concentration that indicates that the 

area has a low probability (1 in 10) of 

exceeding the NAAQS in the future. For 

the purposes of qualifying for the LMP 

option, a presumptive CDV of 98 mg/m3

is most often employed, but an area may 

elect to use a site-specific CDV should 

the average design concentration (ADC) 

be above 98 mg/m3, while demonstrating 

that the area has a low probability of 

exceeding the NAAQS in the future. The 

annual PM10 standard was effectively 

revoked on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 

61143), and as such will not be 

discussed as a requirement for 

qualifying for the LMP option. In 

addition, the area should expect only 

limited growth in on-road motor vehicle 

PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust) 

and should have passed a motor vehicle 

regional emissions analysis test. The 

LMP Option memo also identifies core 

provisions that must be included in the 

LMP. These provisions include an 

attainment year emissions inventory, 

assurance of continued operation of an 

EPA-approved air quality monitoring 

network, and contingency provisions. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
12914 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5While the submission from the State for this 

action includes 2015–2019 monitoring data, EPA 

provided 2020 monitoring data in this action in 

order to provide an analysis of PM10 concentrations 

in the Whitefish, NAA area using the most current 

monitoring data available. 6The design concentrations are calculated using 

three years of data and the ‘‘Table Look-up’’ method 

described in the ‘‘PM10 SIP Development 

Guideline’’, EPA–450/2–86–001, June 1987. 7Exceedances in 2017 and 2020 have been 

flagged and concurred on as exceptional events. 

Additional information on 2017 data can be found 

in Appendix A, p. a–1, of the submission by the 

state in the docket of this action and additional 

information on 2020 data can be found in the 

docket for this action, document titled: Montana 

2020 PM10 Letter. 

8Please see section III(F) of this action for further 

discussion and description of exceptional events in 

the Whitefish NAA during the 2015–2020 time 

period. 

III. Review of Montana’s Submittal 

Addressing the Requirements for 

Redesignation and Limited 

Maintenance Plan 

A. Has the Whitefish NAA attained the 

applicable NAAQS? 

States must demonstrate that an area 

has attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

through analysis of ambient air quality 

data from an ambient air monitoring 

network representing peak PM10

concentrations. The data should be 

stored in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS) database. The request for 

redesignation of the Whitefish PM10

NAA submitted by the State of Montana 

presented data and analyses to 

demonstrate that the area attained the 

PM10 standard using 2015–2019 data. 

The redesignation request excluded two 

values in 2018 that it believed would be 

removed from the dataset prior to this 

action, but those values have not been 

concurred on as exceptional events and 

were included in the EPA’s data and 

analyses presented in this action. In 

addition to reviewing the 2015–2019 

data the EPA included 2020 PM10 data 

in this action (as it is currently the most 

recent year of certified data present in 

AQS) to confirm that the area is still 

attaining the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

Additionally, preliminary 2021 data 

indicates the area continues to attain. 

Today, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Whitefish NAA has attained the 

PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data 

from calendar years 2015–2020. The 24- 

hour standard is attained when the 

expected number of 24-hour average 

concentrations above 150 mg/m3

(averaged over a 3-year period) is less 

than or equal to one. See 40 CFR 50.6(a). 

A minimum of three complete and 

consecutive years of air quality data are 

generally necessary to show attainment 

of the standard. See 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. A complete year of air 

quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, is comprised of all 

four calendar quarters with each quarter 

containing data from at least 75% of the 

scheduled sampling days. 

The Whitefish NAA has one State and 

Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) 

PM10 monitor, Whitefish Dead End 

(AQS ID 30–029–0009), operated by the 

Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ). Table 1 summarizes 

the PM10 data collected from 2015–2020 

for the Whitefish NAA.5 The EPA deems 

the data collected from these monitors 

valid, and the data have been submitted 

and certified by the MDEQ to be 

included in AQS. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR PM10 CONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3), DESIGN CONCENTRATIONS (μg/m3), AND

NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCES FOR WHITEFISH 2015–2020 

Year Maximum 

concentration 

Design 

concentration 6

Number of 

exceedances 

excluding 

regionally 

concurred 

exceptional 

events 7

2015 ................................................................................................................................... 135 122 0 

2016 ................................................................................................................................... 105 122 0 

2017 ................................................................................................................................... 153 131 0 

2018 ................................................................................................................................... 188 135 1 

2019 ................................................................................................................................... 86 135 0 

2020 ................................................................................................................................... 145 136 0 

The CAA allows for the exclusion of 

air quality monitoring data from design 

value calculations when there are 

exceedances caused by exceptional 

events, including for expected number 

exceedances for PM10 averaged over a 3- 

year period, that meet the criteria for an 

exceptional event identified in the 

EPA’s implementing regulations, the 

Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.1, 

50.14, and 51.930. For the purposes of 

this proposed action, on November 23, 

2021, the State of Montana submitted 

exceptional event demonstrations to 

request exclusion of data impacted by 

wildfires. The EPA evaluated the State 

of Montana’s exceptional event 

demonstrations for the flagged values of 

the 24-hour PM10 listed in Table 3 

below in the Whitefish Moderate NAA, 

with respect to the requirements of 

EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 

50.1, 50.14, and 50.930). 

On January 25, 2022, EPA concurred 

with the State of Montana’s requests to 

exclude event-influenced data listed in 

Table 3 finding that the State of 

Montana’s demonstration met the 

Exceptional Event Rule criteria. As 

such, the event-influenced data have 

been removed from the data set used for 

regulatory purposes. For this proposed 

action, EPA relies on the PM10

concentrations reported at the Whitefish 

monitoring site which showed only one 

exceedance from 2015–2020 when 

exceptional events are excluded. 

Therefore, the expected number of days 

with 24-hour average concentrations 

above 150 mg/m3 averaged over a 3-year 

period is less than one, and as such, the 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

Whitefish NAA has attained the 

standard for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.8

Additionally, the EPA concurred on 

the State of Montana’s request to 

exclude PM10 data listed in Table 3 in 

regulatory decisions. For further 

information, refer to the State of 

Montana’s Exceptional Event 

demonstration packages and the EPA’s 

concurrence and analyses located in the 

docket for this proposed action. 

B. Does the Whitefish NAA have a fully 

approved SIP under CAA section 

110(k)? 

In order to qualify for redesignation, 

the SIP for the area must be fully 

approved under CAA section 110(k) and 

must satisfy all requirements that apply 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12915 

9The emissions inventory included in the 

Whitefish MT submission is the 2017 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is a composite 

of data from many different sources, with PM data 

coming primarily from EPA models as well as from 

state, tribal, and local air quality management 

agencies. Different data sources use different data 

collection methods, and many of the emissions data 

are based on estimates rather than actual 

measurements. The EPA considers the 2017 NEI 

representative of the period from 2015–2019 

because MT provided comparable vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) data in their submission. See 

Whitefish, MT Submission, Appendix C, Montana 

Department of Transportation Future VMT 

Projections, p.C–1 in docket. 

to the area. Section 189 of the CAA 

contains requirements and milestones 

for all initial Moderate NAA SIPs 

including: (1) Provisions to assure that 

RACM (including such reductions in 

emissions from existing sources in the 

area as may be obtained through the 

adoption, at a minimum, of RACT shall 

be implemented no later than December 

10, 1993; (2) A demonstration 

(including air quality modeling) that the 

plan will provide for attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable by no later 

than December 31, 1994, or, where the 

state is seeking an extension of the 

attainment date under section 188(e), a 

demonstration that attainment by 

December 31, 1994, is impracticable and 

that the plan provides for attainment by 

the most expeditious alternative date 

practicable (CAA sections 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(3) Quantitative milestones which are to 

be achieved every 3 years and which 

demonstrate RFP toward attainment by 

December 31, 1994, (CAA sections 

172(c)(2) and 189(c)); and (4) 

Contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to make 

RFP or attain by its attainment deadline. 

These contingency measures are to take 

effect without further action by the state 

or the EPA (CAA section 172(c)(9)). 

The EPA fully approved the Whitefish 

NAA PM10 attainment plan on April 24, 

2008 (73 FR 22057). The Whitefish plan 

included RACM, an attainment 

demonstration, emissions inventory, 

quantitative milestones, and control and 

contingency measure requirements. As 

such, the area has a fully approved NAA 

SIPs under section 110(k) of the CAA. 

C. Has the state met all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and 

part D of the CAA? 

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

requires that a state containing a NAA 

must meet all applicable requirements 

under section 110 and Part D of the 

CAA for an area to be redesignated to 

attainment. The EPA interprets this to 

mean that the state must meet all 

requirements that applied to the area 

prior to, and at the time of, the 

submission of a complete redesignation 

request. The following is a summary of 

how Montana meets these requirements. 

1. CAA Section 110 Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains 

general requirements for SIPs. These 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, submittal of a SIP that has 

been adopted by a state after reasonable 

notice and public hearing, provisions 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate apparatus, methods, 

systems and procedures necessary to 

monitor ambient air quality, 

implementation of a permit program, 

provisions for Part C—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Part 

D—New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs, criteria for stationary source 

emission control measures, monitoring 

and reporting, provisions for modeling 

and provisions for public and local 

agency participation. See the General 

Preamble for further explanation of 

these requirements. See 57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992). 

For purposes of redesignation, the 

EPA’s review of the Montana SIP shows 

that the State has satisfied all 

requirements under section 110(a)(2) of 

the CAA. Further, in 40 CFR 52.1372, 

the EPA has approved Montana’s plan 

for the attainment and maintenance of 

the national standards under section 

110. 

2. Part D Requirements 

Part D contains general requirements 

applicable to all areas designated 

nonattainment. The general 

requirements are followed by a series of 

subparts specific to each pollutant. All 

PM10 NAAs must meet the general 

provisions of Subpart 1 and the specific 

PM10 provisions in Subpart 4, 

‘‘Additional Provisions for Particulate 

Matter Nonattainment Areas.’’ The 

following paragraphs discuss these 

requirements as they apply to the 

Whitefish NAA. 

3. Subpart 1, Section 172(c) 

Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains 

general requirements for NAA plans. A 

thorough discussion of these 

requirements may be found in the 

General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 

(April 16, 1992). CAA section 172(c)(2) 

requires nonattainment plans to provide 

for RFP. Section 171(1) of the CAA 

defines RFP as ‘‘such annual 

incremental reductions in emissions of 

the relevant air pollutant as are required 

by this part (part D of title I) or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

national ambient air quality standard by 

the applicable date.’’ Since EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Whitefish NAA is in attainment of the 

PM10 NAAQS, we believe that no 

further showing of RFP or quantitative 

milestones is necessary. 

4. Section 172(c)(3)—Emissions 

Inventory Section 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

a comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources in the Whitefish PM10 NAA. 

Montana included an emissions 

inventory for the calendar year 2017 

with the August 6, 2021 submittal of the 

LMP for the NAA. The LMP Option 

memo states that an attainment 

inventory should represent emissions 

during the same 5-year period 

associated with the air quality data used 

to determine that the area meets the 

applicability requirements of the LMP 

option. The Whitefish LMP includes an 

emission inventory from 2017, 

representative of the 2015–2019 5-year 

period which served as the 5-year 

period relied upon in the LMPs as 

meeting the air quality data 

requirements of the LMP option memo.9

5. Section 172(c)(5)—NSR 

The 1990 CAA Amendments 

contained revisions to the NSR program 

requirements for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources located in NAAs. The 

CAA requires states to amend their SIPs 

to reflect these revisions but does not 

require submittal of this element along 

with the other SIP elements. The CAA 

established June 30, 1992, as the 

submittal date for the revised NSR 

programs (section 189 of the CAA). 

Montana has a fully approved 

nonattainment NSR program, approved 

on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 36715). 

Montana also has a fully approved PSD 

program, approved on September 18, 

1995 (60 FR 36715). Upon the effective 

date of redesignation of an area from 

nonattainment to attainment, the 

requirements of the Part D NSR program 

will be replaced by the PSD program 

and the maintenance area NSR program. 

6. Section 172(c)(7)—Compliance With 

CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air Quality 

Monitoring Requirements 

Once an area is redesignated, the state 

must continue to operate an appropriate 

air monitoring network in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58 to verify attainment 

status of the area. The State of Montana 

operates one PM10 SLAMS in each of 

the NAAs. The Whitefish monitoring 

site meets EPA SLAMS network design 

and siting requirements set forth at 40 

CFR part 58, appendices D and E. In 

section 3.5 of the LMP that we are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
12916 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

10See Whitefish, MT submission in docket, Table 

2.4—Whitefish, MT—PM10 Emission Summary, p. 

2–5. 

11Update on Application of the Exceptional 

Events Rule to the PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option, US EPA, William T. Harnett, Director, Air 

Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, May 7, 2009. 

proposing to approve, the State commits 

to continued operation of the 

monitoring network. 

7. Section 172(c)(9)—Contingency 

Measures 

The CAA requires that contingency 

measures take effect if the area fails to 

meet RFP requirements or fails to attain 

the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. Since the Whitefish 

NAA has attained the 1987 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS, contingency measures 

are no longer required under section 

172(c)(9) of the CAA. However, 

contingency provisions are required for 

maintenance plans under section 

175(a)(d). We describe the contingency 

provisions Montana provided in the 

LMP section below. 

8. Part D, Subpart 4 

Part D subpart 4, section 189(a), (c) 

and (e) requirements apply to any 

Moderate NAA before the area can be 

redesignated to attainment. The 

requirements which were applicable 

prior to the submission of the request to 

redesignate the area must be fully 

approved into the SIP before 

redesignating the area to attainment. 

These requirements include: (a) 

Provisions to assure that RACM was 

implemented by December 10, 1993; (b) 

Either a demonstration that the plan 

provided for attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable but not 

later than December 31, 1994, or a 

demonstration that attainment by that 

date was impracticable; (c) Quantitative 

milestones which were achieved every 3 

years and which demonstrate RFP 

toward attainment by December 31, 

1994; and (d) Provisions to assure that 

the control requirements applicable to 

major stationary sources of PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors except where the 

Administrator determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels which exceed the 

NAAQS in the area. These provisions 

were fully approved into the SIP upon 

the EPA’s approval of the PM10

Moderate area plan for the Whitefish 

NAA on March 22, 1995 (60 FR 15056). 

D. Has the state demonstrated that the 

air quality improvement is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions? 

A state must be able to reasonably 

attribute the improvement in air quality 

to permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. In making this showing, a 

state must demonstrate that air quality 

improvements are the result of actual 

enforceable emission reductions. This 

showing should consider emission rates, 

production capacities, and other related 

information. The analysis should 

assume that sources are operating at 

permitted levels (or historic peak levels) 

unless evidence is presented that such 

an assumption is unrealistic. Permanent 

and enforceable control measures in the 

Whitefish NAA SIP includes RACM. 

Emission sources in the NAA have been 

implementing RACM for at least 10 

years. 

Areas that qualify for the LMP will 

meet the NAAQS, even under worst 

case meteorological conditions. Under 

the LMP option, the maintenance 

demonstration is presumed to be 

satisfied if an area meets the qualifying 

criteria. Thus, by qualifying for the 

LMP, Montana has demonstrated that 

the air quality improvements in the 

Whitefish NAA is the result of 

permanent emission reductions and not 

a result of either economic trends or 

meteorology. A description of the LMP 

qualifying criteria and how the 

Whitefish area meets these criteria is 

provided in the following section. 

Permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions in the Whitefish NAA have 

reduced emissions since the 1993 

baseline year. The primary controls 

incorporated into the SIP included 

reducing fugitive dust emissions from 

roads, parking lots, construction and 

demolition projects, and barren ground 

as well as stipulations on industrial 

emissions. Additionally, the approved 

control plan satisfied the requirements 

for RACM of area sources. Based on the 

2017 national emissions inventory, 

PM10 emissions in all source areas are 

below the levels approved in the 

original control plan.10

E. Does the area have a fully approved 

maintenance plan pursuant to section 

175A of the CAA? 

In this action, we are proposing to 

approve the LMP for the Whitefish NAA 

in accordance with the principles 

outlined in the LMP Option. 

F. Has the state demonstrated that the 

Whitefish NAA qualifies for the LMP 

Option? 

The LMP Option memo outlines the 

requirements for an area to qualify for 

the LMP Option. First, the area should 

be attaining the NAAQS. As stated 

above in section III.A., the EPA has 

determined that the Whitefish NAA is 

attaining the PM10 NAAQS. 

Second, the ADC for the past 5 years 

of monitoring data (2015–2019) must be 

at or below the CDV and the area must 

meet the motor vehicle regional 

emissions analysis test in attachment B 

of the LMP Option memo. As noted in 

section II.B., the CDV is a margin of 

safety value and is the value at which 

an area has been determined to have a 

1 in 10 probability of exceeding the 

NAAQS. The LMP Option memo 

provides two methods for review of 

monitoring data for the purpose of 

qualifying for the LMP option. The first 

method is a comparison of a site’s ADC 

with the CDV of 98 mg/m3 for the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS. A second method 

that applies to the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS is the calculation of a sitespecific CDV and a comparison of the 

site-specific CDV with the ADC for the 

past 5 years of monitoring data. Table 2 

below outlines the design 

concentrations for the years 2015–2020 

and presents the ADC. 

Table 3 summarizes the wildfire 

related events that were excluded from 

the calculated design concentrations in 

Table 2. Table 3 includes all regionally 

concurred exceptional events, as well as 

values between 98 mg/m3 and 155 mg/ 

m3, which were treated in a manner 

analogous to exceedance data under the 

Exceptional Events Rule for the purpose 

of determining the LMP option 

eligibility. The values between 98 mg/m3

and 155 mg/m3 remain in the AQS 

database for use in calculating design 

concentration for every purpose besides 

determining LMP eligibility.11 The 

Exceptional Events Rule can be found in 

40 CFR 50.14 and 40 CFR 51.930, and 

outlines the requirements for the 

treatment of monitored air quality data 

that has been heavily influenced by an 

exceptional event. 40 CFR 50.1(j) 

defines an exceptional event as an event 

which affects air quality, is not 

reasonably controllable or preventable, 

is an event caused by human activity 

that is unlikely to recur at a particular 

location or a natural event and is 

determined by the Administrator in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.14 to be an 

exceptional event. Exceptional events 

do not include stagnation of air masses 

or meteorological inversions, 

meteorological events involving high 

temperatures or lack of precipitation, or 

air pollution relating to source 

noncompliance. 40 CFR 50.14(b) states 

that the EPA shall exclude data from use 

in determinations of exceedances and 

NAAQS violations where a state 

demonstrates to the EPA’s satisfaction 

that an exceptional event caused a 

specific air pollution concentration in 

excess of one or more NAAQS at a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12917 

12See Update on Application of the Exceptional 

Events Rule to the PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option, US EPA, William T. Harnett, Director, Air 

Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, May 7, 2009 and 

Additional Methods, Determinations, and Analyses 

to Modify Air Quality Data Beyond Exceptional 

Events, US EPA, Richard Wayland, Director, Air 

Quality Assessment Division and Anna Marie 

Wood, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, April 

4, 2019 memos in docket. 

13February 8, 2019 letter to MDEQ, Re: 

Exceptional Events Requests Regarding 

Exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and the 

LMP Eligibility Threshold at Montana Monitoring 

Sites with PM10 Nonattainment Areas; and 

November 1, 2018 letter to MDEQ, Re: Request for 

EPA concurrence on exceptional event claims for 

fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM10) particulate matter 

data impacted by wildfires in 2015 and 2016. See 

Whitefish, MT submission in docket. 

14See memo to file in docket dated January 10, 

2022 titled ‘‘Memo to File—Whitefish, MT Motor 

Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis.’’ 

particular air quality monitoring 

location and otherwise satisfies the 

requirements of section 50.14. Table 3 

below includes some values between 98 

mg/m3 and 155 mg/m3 that were 

excluded for the sole purpose of 

determining PM10 LMP eligibility in 

accordance with the LMP guidance.12

Supporting documentation of EPA’s 

concurrence with the wildfire related 

events can be found in the docket.13

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 24-HOUR

PM10 DESIGN CONCENTRATIONS

(μg/m3) FOR WHITEFISH

Based on data from Whitefish Dead End, AQS 

Identification Number (30–029–0009) 

Design concentration years 

Design 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

2015–2017 .................................... 118 

2016–2018 .................................... 98 

2017–2019 .................................... 91 

2018–2020 .................................... 103 

Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 

Design Concentrations) 97 μg/m3. 

TABLE 3—WHITEFISH 24-HOUR PM10

EVENTS EXCLUDED FROM THE

2015–2020 DATA FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING LMP ELIGIBILITY

Based on data from Whitefish Dead End Site, AQS 

Identification Number (30–029–0009) 

Date 

24-Hour 

value 

(μg/m3) 

8/20/2015 ...................................... 128 

8/21/2015 ...................................... 131 

8/24/2015 ...................................... 122 

8/25/2015 ...................................... 106 

8/27/2015 ...................................... 118 

8/28/2015 ...................................... 110 

8/29/2015 ...................................... 104 

9/4/2017 ........................................ 153 

9/5/2017 ........................................ 122 

9/6/2017 ........................................ 143 

9/7/2017 ........................................ 212 

9/8/2017 ........................................ 215 

9/9/2017 ........................................ 130 

9/13/2020 ...................................... 145 

9/14/2020 ...................................... 172 

9/15/2020 ...................................... 139 

TABLE 3—WHITEFISH 24-HOUR PM10

EVENTS EXCLUDED FROM THE

2015–2020 DATA FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING LMP ELIGIBILITY—Continued 

Based on data from Whitefish Dead End Site, AQS 

Identification Number (30–029–0009) 

Date 

24-Hour 

value 

(μg/m3) 

9/18/2020 ...................................... 100 

Values between 98 μg/m3 and 155 μg/m3 were excluded by EPA solely for the purpose of determining 

limited maintenance plan (LMP) eligibility in accordance with LMP guidance. The values remain in AQS 

and are still used for all other purposes (including 

calculating the estimated exceedances and official 

design concentrations). 

The ADC for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS for Whitefish, based on data 

from the SLAMS monitor for the years 

2016–2020 is 97 mg/m3. This value falls 

just below the presumptive 24-hour 

CDV of 98 mg/m3 but leaves very little 

room for any growth under the motor 

vehicle regional emissions analysis test. 

Therefore, an area-specific CDV is 

necessary. Using design concentrations 

from 2009 through 2020 and the 

methodology outlined in the LMP 

memo, the EPA calculates the areaspecific CDV at 130 mg/m3. This areaspecific CDV was used for the remaining 

calculations in this action. 

In addition to having an ADC that is 

at the presumptive or area-specific CDV, 

and in order to qualify for the LMP, the 

area must meet the motor vehicle 

regional emissions analysis test in 

attachment B of the LMP Option memo. 

Using the methodology outlined in the 

memo, the data presented in the State’s 

submission in section 3.2 and based on 

monitoring data for the period 2016– 

2020, the EPA has determined that the 

Whitefish NAA has a projected design 

concentration of 119 mg/m3 after 10 

years, attributable to motor vehicle 

emission growth. This value is below 

the area-specific 24-hour CDV of 130 mg/ 

m3 and therefore passes the motor 

vehicle regional emissions analysis test. 

For the detailed calculations used to 

determine how the Whitefish NAA 

passed the motor vehicle regional 

analysis test, see the supporting 

documents in the docket.14

Using the most recent 5 years of data 

(2016–2020), the analyses in this section 

of the action demonstrates that the 

Whitefish NAA has attained the 24-hour 

NAAQS for PM10, that the 24-hour ADC 

for the area is less that the area-specific 

24-hour PM10 CDV of 130 mg/m3, and 

the area has met the regional vehicle 

emissions analysis test. Thus, the 

Whitefish NAA qualifies for the LMP 

Option described in the LMP Option 

memo. The LMP Option memo also 

indicates that once a state selects the 

LMP Option and it is in effect, the state 

will be expected to determine, on an 

annual basis, that the LMP criteria are 

still being met. If a state determines that 

the LMP criteria are not being met, it 

should take action to reduce PM10

concentrations enough to requalify for 

the LMP. One possible approach a state 

could take is to implement contingency 

measures. Please see section 3.6 of the 

Whitefish LMP for a description of 

contingency provisions submitted as 

part of the State’s submittal. 

G. Does the state have an approved 

attainment emissions inventory which 

can be used to demonstrate attainment 

of the NAAQS? 

A state’s approved attainment plan 

should include an emissions inventory 

(attainment inventory) which can be 

used to demonstrate attainment of the 

NAAQS. The inventory should 

represent emissions during the same 

5-year period associated with air quality 

data used to determine whether the area 

meets the applicability requirements of 

the LMP Option. A state should review 

its inventory every 3 years to ensure 

emissions growth is incorporated in the 

attainment inventory if necessary. In 

this instance, Montana completed an 

attainment year inventory for the 

attainment year 2017 for the Whitefish 

NAA. The EPA has reviewed the 2017 

emissions inventories and determined 

that they are current, accurate and 

complete. In addition, the emissions 

inventory submitted with the LMP for 

the calendar year 2017 is representative 

of the level of emissions during the time 

period used to calculate the ADC since 

2017 is included in the 5-year period 

used to calculate the design 

concentrations (2015–2019). 

H. Does the LMP include an assurance 

of continued operation of an 

appropriate EPA-approved air quality 

monitoring network, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58? 

The PM10 monitoring network for the 

Whitefish NAA has been developed and 

maintained in accordance with federal 

siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 

58, appendices D and E and in 

consultation with the EPA Region 8. In 

section 3.5 of the Whitefish LMP, 

Montana states that it will continue to 

operate its monitoring network to meet 

EPA requirements. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
12918 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

15Region 8, EPA considers an area a ‘‘potential 

EJ area’’ or ‘‘potential area of EJ concern’’, and a 

candidate for further review, if any of the following 

criteria are met: The area is in the 80th percentile 

or above for any EJ index when compared to the 

nation, region, or state, the percentage of Lowincome population in the area exceeds the state 

average for the state in which the area exist and the 

percentage of People of Color population in the area 

exceeds the state average for the state in which the 

area exists. 

I. Does the plan meet the CAA 

requirements for contingency provisions 

for maintenance plans? 

Section 175A of the CAA states that 

a maintenance plan must include 

contingency provisions, as necessary, to 

promptly correct any violation of the 

NAAQS which may occur after 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

As explained in the LMP Option memo, 

these contingency measures do not have 

to be fully adopted at the time of 

redesignation. As noted above, CAA 

section 175A requirements are distinct 

from CAA section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures. Section 3.6 of the Whitefish 

LMP describes a process and timeline to 

identify and evaluate appropriate 

contingency measures in the event of a 

quality assured violation of the PM10

NAAQS. Upon notification of a PM10

exceedance in any of the three areas, the 

MDEQ and the appropriate local 

government will develop contingency 

measures designed to prevent or correct 

a violation of the PM10 standard. This 

process will be completed within twelve 

months of the exceedance notification. 

Upon violating the PM10 standard, the 

MDEQ and local government will 

determine if the local contingency 

measures will be adequate to prevent 

further exceedances or violations. If the 

agencies determine that local measures 

will be inadequate, the MDEQ and local 

government will adopt State-enforceable 

measures. 

The current and proposed 

contingency provisions in the Whitefish 

LMP meet the requirements for 

contingency provisions as outlined in 

the LMP Option memo. 

IV. Conformity and the LMP Option 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires the 

conformity of federal actions to the air 

quality goals of an NAA or maintenance 

area. Such federal actions include 

actions on transportation plans, 

programs and projects developed, 

funded, or approved by federal agencies 

or by recipients of federal funds, as well 

as more general actions receiving federal 

assistance or approval. Conformity of 

these two types of actions is known, 

respectively, as ‘‘transportation 

conformity’’ and ‘‘general conformity.’’ 

The purpose of conformity is to ensure 

that such federal actions will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. The 

EPA’s transportation and general 

conformity rules are found in 40 CFR 

part 93, subparts A and B, respectively. 

The transportation conformity rule 

generally requires a demonstration that 

emissions from the relevant projects of 

a transportation plan and transportation 

improvement program covering a 

designated area are consistent with the 

motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB 

or ‘budget’) contained in the SIP or 

maintenance plan for that area. The 

MVEB is the level of mobile source 

emissions of a pollutant relied upon in 

the attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in the NAA or maintenance 

area. 

Under the transportation conformity 

rule, designated areas meeting the 

criteria for the LMP Option will not be 

required to satisfy the rule’s regional 

emissions analysis requirements (40 

CFR 93.109(e)). When the EPA approves 

an LMP, we are concluding that it is 

unreasonable to expect that the 

qualifying area will experience 

sufficient growth during the 

maintenance period that a violation of 

the PM10 NAAQS would result. 

Therefore, the EPA is concluding with 

an LMP approval that the area’s budget 

is essentially not constraining for the 

duration of the maintenance period and 

a regional emissions analysis will not be 

necessary to demonstrate conformity. 

However, because LMP areas are still 

maintenance areas, approval of a 

Whitefish LMP does not remove certain 

transportation conformity rule 

requirements for transportation plans, 

programs, and projects. As an isolated 

rural maintenance area, the Whitefish 

area will generally be subject to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 93.109(g), as 

modified by the requirements for LMP 

areas in 40 CFR 93.109(e). Specifically, 

state transportation plans, 

transportation improvement programs 

and transportation projects still must 

demonstrate that they are fiscally 

constrained (30 CFR 93.108), are still 

subject to consultation requirements (40 

CFR 93.112), and projects must not 

interfere with the implementation of 

any transportation control measures 

from the applicable implementation 

plan (40 CFR 93.113). 

Approval of the LMP option would 

have similar implications with respect 

to general conformity. Federal actions 

subject to general conformity in an LMP 

area will not be required to satisfy the 

budget test requirement of the general 

conformity rule. Such federal actions 

are presumed to conform under the LMP 

option as emissions budgets in such 

areas are essentially not constraining for 

the duration of the maintenance period. 

V. Environmental Justice Concerns 

To identify potential environmental 

burdens and susceptible populations in 

the Whitefish NAA, EPA performed a 

screening-level analysis using the EPA’s 

EJSCREEN tool to evaluate 

environmental and demographic 

indicators within the area. The tool 

outputs are contained in the docket for 

this action. The results indicate that the 

Whitefish NAA is not a potential area of 

EJ concern and is not a candidate for 

further EJ review.15

When the EPA establishes a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the 

EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as 

either nonattainment, attainment, or 

unclassifiable. If an area is designated 

nonattainment of the NAAQS, the CAA 

provides for the EPA to redesignate the 

area to attainment upon a demonstration 

by the state authority that the criteria for 

a redesignation are met, including a 

showing that air quality is attaining the 

NAAQS and will continue to maintain 

the NAAQS in order to ensure that all 

those residing, working, attending 

school, or otherwise present in those 

areas are protected. This action 

addresses a plan for continued 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS for the 

Whitefish NAA. Approval of this plan 

does not impose any additional 

regulatory requirements on sources 

beyond those imposed by state law. As 

discussed in this document, Montana 

has demonstrated that the air quality in 

the Whitefish NAA is attaining the PM10

NAAQS and will ensure continued 

attainment of the NAAQS. For these 

reasons, this action does not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on communities with environmental 

justice concerns. 

VI. Proposed Action 

For the reasons explained in section 

III., we are proposing to approve the 

LMP for the Whitefish NAA and the 

State’s request to redesignate the 

Whitefish NAA from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Whitefish NAA has attained the NAAQS 

for PM10. This determination is based 

upon monitored air quality data for the 

PM10 NAAQS during the years 2014– 

2020. The EPA is proposing to approve 

the Whitefish LMP as meeting the 

appropriate transportation conformity 

requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12919 

VII. 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 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 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed 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). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, and 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: February 28, 2022. 

K.C. Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04758 Filed 3–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 68 

[Docket No. NIH–2020–0001] 

RIN 0925–AA68 

National Institutes of Health Loan 

Repayment Programs 

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS or Department), 

through the National Institutes of Health 

(NIH), proposes to update the existing 

regulation for NIH Loan Repayment 

Programs (LRPs) to reflect the 

consolidation of NIH LRPs into two 

programs, the Intramural Loan 

Repayment Program (for NIH 

researchers) and the Extramural Loan 

Repayment Program (for non-NIH 

researchers); the direct authority of the 

NIH Director to administer the NIH 

LRPs (formerly the duty of the 

Secretary, HHS); and the increase in the 

annual loan repayment amount from a 

maximum of $35,000 to a maximum of 

$50,000. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 9, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket Number NIH– 

2020–0001and/or RIN 0925–AA43, by 

any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

You may send comments 

electronically in the following way: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow 

the instructions for sending comments. 

Written Submissions 

You may send written comments in 

the following ways: 

Please allow enough time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

• Mail (for paper or CD–ROM 

submissions): Daniel Hernandez, NIH 

Regulations Officer, National Institutes 

of Health, Office of Management 

Assessment, Rockledge 1, 6705 

Rockledge Drive, Suite 601, Room 601– 

T, MSC 7901, Bethesda, Maryland 

20892–7901. 

• Hand delivery/courier (for paper or 

CD–ROM submissions): Daniel 

Hernandez, Rockledge 1, 6705 

Rockledge Drive, Suite 601, Room 601– 

T, MSC 7901, Bethesda, Maryland 

20892–7901. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. All comments will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to the 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov/ and insert the 

docket number provided in brackets in 

the heading on page one of this 

document into the: ‘‘Search’’ box and 

follow the prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Hernandez, NIH Regulations 

Officer, Office of Management 

Assessment, NIH, Rockledge 1, 6705 

Rockledge Drive, Suite 601, Room 601– 

T, MSC 7901, Bethesda, Maryland 

20892–7901, by email dhernandez@

od.nih.gov, or by telephone 301–435– 

3343 (not a toll-free number) for 

information about the rulemaking 

process. For program information 

contact: Matthew Lockhart, NIH 

Division of Loan Repayment, by email 

matthew.lockhart@nih.gov, or telephone 

866–849–4047. Information regarding 

the requirements, application deadline 

dates, and an on-line application for the 

NIH Loan Repayment Programs may be 

obtained from the NIH Loan Repayment 

Program website https://

www.lrp.nih.gov/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1