Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 26707 

1Although the filing notice refers to the subject 

as ‘‘myco-protein,’’ we are using a nonhyphenated 

name (i.e., ‘‘mycoprotein’’) in this withdrawal 

notification. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 10, 2021, and 

effective September 15, 2021, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6011 United States Area 

Navigation Routes. 

* * * * * 

T–277 Bettles, AK (BTT) to JODGU, AK 

Bettles, AK (BTT) VOR/DME (Lat. 66°54′18.03′′ N, long. 151°32′09.18′′ W) 

JODGU, AK WP (Lat. 69°44′11.47′′ N, long. 163°00′04.08′′ W) 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 

2022. 

Scott M. Rosenbloom, 

Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09066 Filed 5–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 172 

[Docket No. FDA–1986–F–0425 (formerly 

Docket No. 1986F–0208)] 

Ranks, Hovis, McDougall Research, 

Ltd.; Withdrawal of Food Additive 

Petition 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notification; withdrawal of 

petition. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA or we) is 

announcing the withdrawal, without 

prejudice to a future filing, of a food 

additive petition (FAP 6A3930) 

proposing that the food additive 

regulations be amended to provide for 

the safe use of mycoprotein, derived 

from Fusarium graminearum 

(taxonomically reclassified as Fusarium 

venenatum), as a source of protein in 

certain foods. 

DATES: The food additive petition was 

withdrawn on February 28, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and insert the 

docket number found in brackets in the 

heading of this document into the 

‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts, 

and/or go to the Dockets Management 

Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, 

Rockville, MD 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paulette M. Gaynor, Center for Food 

Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and 

Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., 

College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–1192. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

May 30, 1986 (51 FR 19610),1 we 

announced that we had filed a food 

additive petition (FAP 6A3930), 

submitted by Ranks, Hovis, McDougall 

Research, Ltd., c/o 2550 M St. NW, 

Washington, DC 20037. Responsibility 

for the petition subsequently transferred 

to Marlow Foods Ltd. (currently Marlow 

Foods Ltd. dba Quorn Foods (Marlow) 

c/o 1401 Eye St. NW, Suite 800, 

Washington, DC 20005). The petition 

proposed to amend the food additive 

regulations in 21 CFR part 172 to 

provide for the safe use of mycoprotein, 

derived from Fusarium graminearum 

(taxonomically reclassified as Fusarium 

venenatum), as a direct source of 

protein in certain foods. Marlow has 

now withdrawn the petition without 

prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 

171.7). 

Dated: April 29, 2022. 

Lauren K. Roth, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09609 Filed 5–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0672; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0706; EPA–R05–OAR–2016– 

0708; FRL–9649–01–R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana, Michigan 

and Minnesota; Revised Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

three State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision requests, submitted by Indiana, 

Michigan, and Minnesota. All three 

states submitted the SIP revision 

requests in 2016 in response to a finding 

of substantial inadequacy and a SIP call 

published on June 12, 2015, for specific 

provisions in each state’s SIP related to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 

events. Each of these SIP submissions 

was submitted independently and EPA 

is analyzing them individually. 

However, EPA is packaging the 

proposed approvals together in a single 

action both for administrative efficiency 

and because EPA’s action approving the 

revisions consistently applies EPA’s 

national policy regarding SSM 

provisions in SIPs. EPA is proposing 

approval of these SIP submissions and 

proposing to determine that each 

submission corrects the state’s 

respective SIP deficiencies as identified 

in the June 12, 2015, SIP call. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 6, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0672 (Indiana); EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0706 (Michigan); or EPA– 

R05–OAR–2016–0708 (Minnesota) at 

https://www.regulations.gov, or via 

email to blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26708 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 

(Feb. 22, 2013). 

2NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir.2014). 

3October 9, 2020, memorandum ‘‘Inclusion of 

Provisions Governing Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State 

Implementation Plans,’’ from Andrew R. Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

4September 30, 2021, memorandum ‘‘Withdrawal 

of the October 9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State 

Implementation Plans and Implementation of the 

Prior Policy,’’ from Janet McCabe, Deputy 

Administrator. 

5 80 FR 33985, June 12, 2015. 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, 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. 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, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Portanova, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954; 

portanova.mary@epa.gov. The EPA 

Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays and facility 

closures due to COVID–19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

On February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12460), 

EPA published a Federal Register notice 

of proposed rulemaking outlining the 

agency’s policy at the time with respect 

to SIP provisions related to periods of 

SSM. This policy stated that director’s 

discretion and automatic exemption 

provisions for periods of SSM were 

impermissible under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), but that appropriately drawn 

affirmative defense provisions may be 

permissible under certain 

circumstances. EPA analyzed specific 

SSM SIP provisions and explained how 

each one either did or did not comply 

with the CAA with regard to excess 

emission events.1 For each SIP 

provision that EPA determined to be 

inconsistent with the CAA, EPA 

proposed to find that the existing SIP 

provision was substantially inadequate 

to meet CAA requirements and thus 

proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA 

section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 

2014, EPA issued a supplementary 

notice of proposed rulemaking that 

revised what the Agency had previously 

proposed on February 22, 2013, in light 

of a decision by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit that determined the CAA 

precludes authority of the EPA to create 

affirmative defense provisions 

applicable to private civil suits.2 EPA 

outlined in its updated policy that 

affirmative defense SIP provisions are 

not consistent with CAA requirements. 

EPA proposed in the supplemental 

proposal document to apply its revised 

interpretation of the CAA to specific 

affirmative defense SIP provisions and 

to propose SIP calls for those provisions 

where appropriate (79 FR 55920, 

September 17, 2014). 

On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement 

and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy 

Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls 

To Amend Provisions Applying to 

Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ 

(80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘2015 SSM SIP 

Action.’’ The 2015 SSM SIP Action 

clarified, restated, and updated EPA’s 

interpretation that SSM exemptions and 

affirmative defense SIP provisions are 

inconsistent with CAA requirements. 

The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that 

certain SIP provisions in 36 states, 

including Indiana, Michigan, and 

Minnesota, were substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements 

and issued a SIP call to those states to 

submit SIP revisions to address the 

inadequacies. EPA established an 18- 

month deadline by which the affected 

states had to submit such SIP revisions. 

The detailed rationale for issuing the 

SIP calls to Indiana, Michigan, and 

Minnesota can be found in the 2015 

SSM SIP Action and preceding 

proposed actions. States were required 

to submit corrective revisions to their 

SIPs in response to the SIP calls by 

November 22, 2016. Indiana submitted 

a SIP revision request in response to the 

SIP call on November 14, 2016, and 

supplemented it on January 31, 2017. 

Michigan submitted a SIP revision 

request in response to the SIP call on 

November 15, 2016, and supplemented 

it on February 7, 2017. Minnesota 

submitted a SIP revision request in 

response to the SIP call on November 

22, 2016, and supplemented it on 

February 10, 2017. This proposal 

addresses all three of these SIP 

submittals in a consolidated action. 

In October 2020, EPA issued a 

Memorandum (2020 Memorandum), 

which stated that certain provisions 

governing SSM periods in SIPs could be 

viewed as consistent with CAA 

requirements.3 Importantly, the 2020 

Memorandum stated that it ‘‘did not 

alter in any way the determinations 

made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that 

identified specific state SIP provisions 

that were substantially inadequate to 

meet the requirements of the Act.’’ 

Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum 

had no direct impact on the SIP call 

issued to Indiana, Michigan, and 

Minnesota in 2015. The 2020 

Memorandum did, however, indicate 

EPA’s intent at the time to review SIP 

calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM 

SIP Action to determine whether EPA 

should maintain, modify, or withdraw 

particular SIP calls through future 

agency actions. 

On September 30, 2021, EPA’s Deputy 

Administrator withdrew the 2020 

Memorandum and announced EPA’s 

return to the policy articulated in the 

2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 

Memorandum).4 As articulated in the 

2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that 

contain exemptions or affirmative 

defense provisions are not consistent 

with CAA requirements and, therefore, 

generally are not approvable if 

contained in a SIP submission. This 

policy approach is intended to ensure 

that all communities and populations, 

including minority, low-income and 

indigenous populations overburdened 

by air pollution, receive the full health 

and environmental protections provided 

by the CAA.5 The 2021 Memorandum 

also retracted the prior statement from 

the 2020 Memorandum of EPA’s plans 

to review and potentially modify or 

withdraw particular SIP calls. That 

statement no longer reflects EPA’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 26709 

6Although the 2015 SSM SIP Action describes 

Indiana’s rule 1–6–4(a) ‘‘generally applicable,’’ the 

actual rule applies only to non-major sources. It 

does not apply to larger facilities that have major 

source operating permits pursuant to title V of the 

CAA and 40 CFR part 70. 

7Michigan’s 2017 submittal also requested SIP 

approval of eight other revised SIP rules, unrelated 

to the 2015 SSM SIP Action. EPA has addressed 

these rules in separate actions. 

intent. EPA intends to implement the 

principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action as the agency takes action on SIP 

submissions, including the three state 

SIP submittals provided in response to 

the 2015 SSM SIP Action which are 

addressed in this consolidated proposal. 

II. EPA’s Analysis of the States’ 

Submissions 

Indiana 

In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA 

determined that a provision in the 

Indiana SIP was substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements. 

Indiana’s SIP rules are codified in the 

Indiana Administrative Code (IAC). 

Indiana’s rule 326 IAC 1–6–4(a) 

provided a director’s discretion 

exemption from the otherwise 

applicable SIP emission limitations 

during malfunctions. EPA determined 

that the Indiana rule was inconsistent 

with the requirements of the CAA for 

the reasons explained in Section IX.F.2 

of the 2015 SSM SIP Action.6

Indiana submitted its SIP revision 

request pursuant to the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action on November 14, 2016 and 

supplemented it on January 31, 2017. 

Indiana removed the provisions in 326 

IAC 1–6–4(a) that provided for 

discretionary exemptions. The state 

removed language that read in part, 

‘‘Emissions temporarily exceeding the 

standards which are due to 

malfunctions of facilities or emission 

control equipment shall not be 

considered a violation of the rules 

provided that the source 

demonstrates. . .’’ [meeting a list of 

criteria]. Indiana also removed language 

from 326 IAC 1–6–4(a)(1)–(4) which 

gave criteria that would have allowed 

for the exemptions. The rule at 326 IAC 

1–6–4 now reads: ‘‘Source owners or 

operators shall operate and maintain all 

emission control equipment and 

combustion process equipment or 

processes in compliance with all 

applicable rules.’’ Indiana’s submittal 

also included administrative revisions 

to other sections of rule 326 IAC 1–6, 

(1–6–1, 1–6–2, 1–6–5, and 1–6–6), such 

as replacing the word ‘‘shall’’ with 

‘‘must’’ or changing ‘‘facility’’ to 

‘‘emission unit’’ or ‘‘source’’. In 

addition, Indiana revised and submitted 

a separate general rule, 326 IAC 2–9–1, 

removing a reference to rule 326 IAC 1– 

6 applying during malfunctions. EPA is 

proposing to find that the revised 

language in 326 IAC 1–6 and 326 IAC 

2–9–1 addresses the deficiency outlined 

in the 2015 SSM SIP Action for Indiana. 

Michigan 

In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA 

determined that a provision in the 

Michigan SIP, Michigan Administrative 

Code R 336.1916, (R 336.1916), 

provided an affirmative defense to 

monetary penalties for violations of 

otherwise applicable SIP limitations 

during startup and shutdown periods 

and therefore was substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA SIP 

requirements. EPA’s rationale for this 

determination is explained in Section 

IX.F.3 of the 2015 SSM SIP Action. 

Michigan submitted its SIP revision 

request on November 15, 2016, and 

supplemented it on February 7, 2017.7

Michigan revised and curtailed the 

applicability of R 336.1916, and 

requested that EPA remove it entirely 

from the Michigan SIP. Rule R 336.1916, 

as revised, specifically cites a list of 

Michigan’s air toxics rules and its 

nuisance rule as the only rules to which 

the affirmative defense in R 336.1916 

applies. The air toxics and nuisance 

rules are not part of Michigan’s criteria 

pollutant SIP. The revised rule R 

336.1916 will remain on Michigan’s 

books, but as a state-only rule. EPA is 

proposing to remove R 336.1916 from 

Michigan’s federally enforceable criteria 

pollutant SIP, per Michigan’s request, 

because the rule no longer applies to 

criteria pollutant emission limits. EPA 

is also proposing to find that the 

removal of R 336.1916 would remove 

the SSM deficiency from Michigan’s 

SIP, and would fully address the 2015 

SSM SIP Action. 

Minnesota 

In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA 

determined that a provision in the 

Minnesota SIP was substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements. 

The Minnesota rule, Minnesota Rule 

7011.1415 (Minn. R. 7011.1415), 

provided automatic exemptions for 

excess emissions resulting from flared 

gas at petroleum refineries when the 

flaring is necessitated by SSM events. 

EPA determined that the Minnesota rule 

was inconsistent with the requirements 

of the CAA for the reasons more fully 

explained in Section IX.F.4 of the 2015 

SSM SIP Action. 

Minnesota submitted its SIP revision 

request on November 22, 2016, and 

supplemented it on February 10, 2017. 

Minnesota repealed Minn R. 7011.1415, 

effective December 27, 2016, and 

requested that EPA remove Minn. R. 

7011.1415 from the SIP. EPA is 

proposing to approve Minnesota’s SIP 

revision request because removing the 

deficient rule from the Minnesota SIP 

responds fully to the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action. 

In summary, in the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action, EPA found that the SIPs for 

Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota 

contained provisions that were 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements, and accordingly issued a 

SIP call to the state to revise those SIP 

provisions. In response, Indiana, 

Michigan, and Minnesota have 

submitted SIP revision requests. In this 

action, EPA proposes to find that the 

SIP revisions submitted by each of the 

three states remedy the issues identified 

in EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action, and 

therefore proposes to approve the SIP 

submittals from all three states and, if 

the proposed action is finalized, 

determine that the SIP call obligation 

issued in 2015 has been fulfilled. In the 

case of Indiana, EPA is proposing to 

approve the revised language in 326 IAC 

1–6 and 326 IAC 2–9–1. In the cases of 

Michigan and Minnesota, EPA is 

proposing to remove Michigan’s R 

336.1916 and Minn. R. 7011.1415 from 

the Michigan and Minnesota SIPs, 

respectively. EPA is proposing to find 

that all three of these state SIP revision 

requests meet the requirements of the 

CAA and address the deficiencies in 

each SIP as outlined in EPA’s 2015 SSM 

SIP Action. 

III. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve three SIP 

revision requests submitted in 2016 and 

supplemented in 2017 by Indiana, 

Michigan, and Minnesota in order to 

address EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action. 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

three states’ rulemaking actions and 

revised rules are consistent with the 

SSM requirements for SIP provisions 

under the CAA; that their respective SIP 

submissions correct the SSM 

deficiencies identified for the state 

within EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action; and 

fulfill the obligation to respond to it. 

EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM 

SIP Action and is only taking comment 

on whether each state’s SIP revision 

addresses the finding of substantial 

inadequacy for the respective SIP 

provisions identified in the 2015 SSM 

SIP Action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26710 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Indiana rules 326 IAC 1–6–1, 326 IAC 

1–6–2, 326 IAC 1–6–4, 326 IAC 1–6–5, 

326 IAC 1–6–6; and 326 IAC 2–9–1, 

effective January 29, 2017, as discussed 

in Section II of this preamble. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available through 

www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA 

Region 5 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Also in this document, as described in 

section II of this preamble, EPA is 

proposing to remove provisions of the 

EPA-Approved Michigan and Minnesota 

Regulations and Statutes from the 

Michigan and Minnesota SIPs, which 

are incorporated by reference in 

accordance with the requirements of 1 

CFR part 51. 

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 

CAA 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 approves 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 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 21, 2022. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09130 Filed 5–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0124; FRL–9488–01– 

R10] 

Air Plan Approval; OR; Oakridge PM2.5

Redesignation to Attainment and 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to redesignate 

the Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment 

area (Oakridge NAA or Oakridge area) to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). EPA also proposes to approve 

a maintenance plan for the area 

demonstrating continued compliance 

with the PM2.5 NAAQS through 2035, 

which the Lane Regional Air Protection 

Agency (LRAPA) developed in 

coordination with the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ), for inclusion into the Oregon 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

Oakridge PM2.5 maintenance plan was 

submitted to EPA by ODEQ along with 

the redesignation request on January 13, 

2022. Additionally, EPA proposes to 

approve the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets included in the Oakridge PM2.5

maintenance plan and inform the public 

that we are starting the adequacy 

process for the proposed motor vehicle 

emissions budgets, including a public 

comment period. EPA also proposes to 

approve additional control measures 

because incorporation of these measures 

will strengthen the Oregon SIP and 

ensure PM2.5 emissions reductions in 

the Oakridge area. Finally, EPA 

proposes to take final agency action on 

an exceptional events request submitted 

by ODEQ on July 22, 2021 and 

concurred on by EPA on April 1, 2022. 

EPA proposes these actions pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 6, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2022–0124, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not 

electronically submit any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which 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. 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://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christi Duboiski (15–H13), EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), 

Seattle WA 98101, at (360) 753–9081, or 

duboiski.christi@epa.gov. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1