[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16029-16038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05671]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0690; FRL-10006-48-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Montana; Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby 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 three Limited Maintenance Plans (LMPs), submitted by the 
State of Montana to the EPA on July 23, 2019, for the Columbia Falls, 
Kalispell and

[[Page 16030]]

Libby Moderate nonattainment areas (NAAs) for particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 
(PM10) and concurrently redesignate the NAAs to attainment 
of the 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS). In order to approve the LMPs and redesignations, the EPA is 
proposing to determine that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs have attained 
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\. This 
determination is based upon monitored air quality data for the 
PM10 NAAQS during the years 2016-2018. The EPA is also 
proposing to approve the Kalispell, Columbia Falls, and Libby LMPs as 
meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0690 at http://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 http://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 either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if 
at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You 
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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, (303) 
312-6175, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

A. Description of the Columbia Falls NAA

    The Columbia Falls NAA is one of three NAAs in Flathead County, is 
rectangularly shaped, and generally encompasses the downtown portion of 
Columbia Falls and the nearby surrounding areas. Columbia Falls and was 
originally designated as a Group I area on August 7, 1987, meaning it 
was likely to violate the PM10 NAAQS, and was subsequently 
classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 
on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694. States containing initial 
Moderate PM10 NAAs were required to submit, by November 15, 
1991, a Moderate NAA State Implementation Plan (SIP) that, among other 
requirements, implemented Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 
by December 10, 1993, and demonstrated whether it was practicable to 
attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. See generally 57 
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to 
the EPA on May 6, 1992, and subsequent submissions on August 26, 1994 
and July 18, 1995. The State of Montana's SIP for the Columbia Falls 
Moderate NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions 
inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM10 
NAAQS would be achieved in Columbia Falls by December 31, 1994; 
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 Columbia Falls NAA 
PM10 attainment plan on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11153).

B. Description of the Libby NAA

    The Libby PM10 NAA is an irregularly shaped portion of 
Lincoln County, comprising of the city of Libby, and the surrounding 
communities. The area was was originally designated as a Group I area 
on August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate the PM10 
NAAQS, and was subsequently classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987 
24-hour PM10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694.
    The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to 
the EPA on November 25, 1991, with revisions and corrections on May 24, 
1993 and June 3, 1994. The State of Montana's SIP for the Libby 
Moderate PM10 NAA included, among other things: A 
comprehensive emissions inventory; RACM; a demonstration that 
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS would be achieved in Libby by 
December 31, 1994; RFP requirements; and control measures that satisfy 
the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 
The EPA approved the Libby NAA PM10 attainment plan, with 
the exception of the contingency plan, on August 30, 1994 (59 FR 
44627). Revisions to the contingency plan were submitted by Montana on 
March 15, 1995 and subsequently approved on September 30, 1996 (61 FR 
51074).

C. Description of the Kalispell NAA

    The Kalispell NAA is one of three NAAs in Flathead County. It is 
irregularly shaped and generally encompasses the City of Kalispell and 
the nearby surrounding areas, including the unincorporated community of 
Evergreen. Kalispell was originally designated as a Group I area on 
August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate the PM10 
NAAQS, and was subsequently classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987 
24-hour PM10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694.
    The State of Montana submitted an initial PM10 SIP to 
the EPA on November 25, 1991, and submitted three additional submittals 
between 1991and 1994. The State of Montana's SIP for the Kalispell 
Moderate NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions 
inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM10 
NAAQS would be achieved in Kalispell by December 31, 1994; RFP 
requirements; and control measures that satisfy the contingency 
measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. The EPA fully 
approved the Kalispell NAA PM10 attainment plan on March 19, 
1996 (61 FR 11153).

[[Page 16031]]

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.'' \1\ The criteria for 
redesignation are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo) outlines the criteria for 
redesignation. The Calcagni memo can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/calcagni_memo_-_procedures_for_processing_requests_to_redesignate_areas_to_attainment_090492.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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)).\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' outlines the criteria for 
development of a PM10 limited maintenance plan and can be 
found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/2001lmp-pm10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
value should be at or below the Critical Design Value (CDV). The CDV is 
a calculated design value 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 
[micro]g/m\3\ is most often employed, but an area may elect to use a 
site-specific CDV should the average design value be above 98 [micro]g/
m\3\, 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.

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option

    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the 
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to NAAs and 
maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either 
conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a federal 
action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected 
emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions 
budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to 
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity 
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions 
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of 
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the 
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a 
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation 
conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these 
areas need not be capped for the maintenance period; and therefore, a 
regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, federal 
actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to 
satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for 
the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered not 
limited.

III. Review of Montana's Submittal Addressing the Requirements for 
Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans

A. Have the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs 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. On January 31, 2011, the EPA determined that the 
Columbia Falls NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS (76 FR 5280). 
Today, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Libby and Kalispell 
NAAs have attained the PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data 
from calendar years 2016-2018. The 24-hour standard is attained when 
the expected number of days with levels above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ 
(averaged over a 3-year period) is less than or equal to one. 40 CFR 
50.6(a). Three consecutive years of air quality data are generally 
necessary to show attainment of the 24-hour and annual standards for 
PM10. 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 Kalispell and Libby NAAs each have one State and Local Air 
Monitoring Station (SLAMS) monitor operated by the Montana Department 
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Tables 1 and 2 summarize the 
PM10 data collected from 2014-2018 for the Kalispell and 
Libby NAAs, respectively. The EPA deems the data collected from these 
monitors valid, and the data have been submitted by the MDEQ to be 
included in AQS.

[[Page 16032]]



                              Table 1--Summary of Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\) for Kalispell 2014-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex) Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0049)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Maximum       2nd maximum      Number of
                    Year                       concentration   concentration    exceedances                         Monitoring site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014........................................             108              89               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2015 \1\....................................             146             139               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2016........................................              87              84               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2017\1\.....................................             154             131               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2018........................................             131              99               0  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA-concurred exceptional events were are excluded from this year.


                                Table 2--Summary of Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\) for Libby 2014-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex) Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0049)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Maximum       2nd maximum      Number of
                    Year                       concentration   concentration    exceedances                         Monitoring site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014........................................              47              45               0  Courthouse Annex.
2015 \1\....................................             143             113               0  Courthouse Annex.
2016........................................              58              57               0  Courthouse Annex
2017 \1\....................................             134             104               0  Courthouse Annex.
2018........................................             112             106               0  Courthouse Annex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA-concurred exceptional events were are excluded from this year.

    The PM10 concentrations reported at the Kalispell and Libby 
monitoring sites showed no measured exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS from 2014-2018, and as such, the EPA proposes to determine that 
the Kalispell and Libby Moderate NAAs have attained the standard for 
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.

B. Do the Columbia Falls, Kalispell, and Libby 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 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 Reasonably Available 
Control Technology--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 approved the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby Moderate 
area plans on March 19, 1996, March 19, 1996, and August 30, 1994, 
respectively; and approved the revised contingency plan for Libby on 
September 30, 1996. Each plan included RACM, an attainment 
demonstration, emissions inventory, quantitative milestones, and 
control and contingency measure requirements. As such, the areas have 
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 
state implementation plans. These requirements include, but are not 
limited to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the 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. 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,

[[Page 16033]]

``Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' 
The following paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to 
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs.
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 the EPA is 
proposing to determine that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs are 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 Columbia 
Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10 NAAs. Montana included an 
emissions inventory for the calendar year 2014 with July 23, 2019 
submittal of the LMP for the NAAs. 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 
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs include an emission inventory 
from 2014, representative of the 2013-2017 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.
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 NAA. 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, most 
recently approved on August 30, 1995 (60 FR 45051). Montana also has a 
fully approved PSD program, most recently approved on August 30, 1995 
(60 FR 45051). 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 Flathead Valley, 
Kalispell and Libby monitoring sites meet EPA SLAMS network design and 
siting requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. In 
section 3.4 of each of the LMPs that we are 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 Columbia Falls, Kalispell and 
Libby NAAs have 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 area 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 Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs on March 19, 1996, March 
19, 1996, and August 30, 1994, respectively.

D. Has the state demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due 
to permanent and enforceable reductions?

    The state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in 
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making 
this showing, the 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 Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby 
NAA SIPs include RACM. Emission sources in the three NAAs 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 Columbia Falls, 
Kalispell and Libby NAAs are 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 Columbia Falls, 
Kalispell and Libby areas meet these criteria is provided in the 
following section.
1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions in the Columbia Falls 
NAA
    Emissions in the Columbia Falls NAA have been reduced 87.8% since 
1990. The primary controls incorporated into the SIP were rules 
specifying the allowed material to be placed on roads and parking lots 
for sanding and chip

[[Page 16034]]

sealing; rules specifying street sweeping and flushing requirements 
during the winter and summer months to reduce fugitive road dust; rules 
requiring the paving of new roads within the Columbia Falls Control 
District; and permit requirements on the Plum Creek sawmill, plywood 
and MDF facilities in Columbia Falls. Fugitive road dust comprised 
nearly 51% of the uncontrolled emissions when the area was designated 
nonattainment, and emissions from the Plum Creek facility accounted for 
44% of the area's uncontrolled emissions. Based on the 2014 NEI, 
current fugitive road dust emissions are less than 8% of their 1990 
levels and current emissions from the Plum Creek facility are 14% of 
their uncontrolled emissions.
2. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions in the Kalispell NAA
    Emissions in the Kalispell NAA have been reduced 74.0% since 1998. 
The primary controls incorporated into the SIP were rules specifying 
the allowed material to be placed on roads and parking lots for sanding 
and chip sealing; rules specifying street sweeping and flushing 
requirements during the winter and summer months to reduce fugitive 
road dust; rules requiring the paving of new roads within the Kalispell 
Control District; and permit requirements on 11 stationary sources in 
the NAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions in the Libby NAA
    Emissions in the Libby NAA have been reduced 90.2% since 1989. The 
primary controls incorporated into the SIP were air pollution control 
rules in Chapter 1, Subchapters 1 through 4, addressing solid fuel 
burning devices, reentrained road dust control, and outdoor burning 
regulations. Additionally, the control plan accounted for industrial 
emission reductions through permit revisions. These revisions required 
that RACT be applied to the Champion International boilers which 
resulted in derating Boiler #7, reducing allowable emissions from 
Boiler #8, and adding new controls on Boiler #9. Changing economic 
conditions, ultimately saw the closure of the wood products facility 
after a previous sale of the facility to Stimson Lumber Company. The 
source specific limits on the Champion International boilers remain in 
the SIP.

E. Do the areas have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
Section 175A of the CAA?

    In this action, we are proposing to approve the LMPs for the 
Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs in accordance with the 
principles outlined in the LMP Option.

F. Has the state demonstrated that the Columbia Falls, Kalispell, and 
Libby NAAs qualify 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 Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs are attaining the 
PM10 NAAQS.
    Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past 5 years of 
monitoring data (2014-2018) must be at or below the CDV. 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 ADV with the CDV 
of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A second 
method that applies to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is the 
calculation of a site-specific CDV and a comparison of the site-
specific CDV with the ADV for the past 5 years of monitoring data. 
Tables 3, 4 and 5 outline the design values for the years 2014-2018, 
and present the ADV.
    Tables 6, 7 and 8 summarize the wildfire related events that were 
excluded from the calculated design values in Tables 3, 4 and 5, 
respectively. Tables 6, 7 and 8 include all regionally concurred 
exceptional events, as well as values between 98 [micro]g/m\3\ and 155 
[micro]g/m\3\, which were treated in a manner analogous to exceedance 
data under the Exceptional Events Rule (EER) for the purpose of 
determining the LMP option eligibility.\3\ The values between 98 
[micro]g/m\3\ and 155 [micro]g/m\3\ will remain in the Air Quality 
System (AQS) database for use in calculating DV's for every purpose 
besides determining LMP eligibility.\3\ The EER 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 particular air quality monitoring location and otherwise satisfies 
the requirements of section 50.14. Tables 6, 7 and 8 below include some 
exceptional events not formally concurred on by EPA. These exceptional 
events were excluded by EPA in accordance with the LMP guidance (see 
footnote 3). We have concurred that these values can be excluded for 
the sole purpose of determining PM10 Limited Maintenance 
Plan (LMP) eligibility and supporting documentation of EPA's 
concurrence with the wildfire related events can be found in the 
docket.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
    \4\ February 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.

[[Page 16035]]



            Table 3--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m3) for Columbia Falls 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Based on data from Flathead Valley (Soccer Complex.) Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0049)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Design
          Design value years              concentration                       Monitoring site
                                          ([micro]g/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016.............................                 60  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2015-2017.............................                 66  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
2016-2018.............................                 74  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design      67
 Concentrations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Table 4--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m3) for Kalispell 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Based on data from Flathead Electric. Site, AQS Identification Number (30-029-0047)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Design
          Design value years              concentration                       Monitoring site
                                          ([micro]g/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016.............................                 89  Flathead Electric.
2015-2017.............................                 88  Flathead Electric.
2016-2018.............................                 90  Flathead Electric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design      89
 Concentrations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table 5--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m3) for Libby 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Based on data from Libby Courthouse Annex. Site, AQS Identification Number (30-053-0018)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Design
          Design value years              concentration                       Monitoring site
                                          ([micro]g/m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016\1\..........................                 90  Courthouse Annex.
2015-2017\1\..........................                 92  Courthouse Annex.
2016-2018.............................                 95  Courthouse Annex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design      92
 Concentrations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table 6--24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded from 2014-2018 Columbia Falls Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          24-Hour Value
                 Date                     ([micro]g/m3)                       Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015.............................                140  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/21/2015.............................                112  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/23/2015.............................                112  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/24/2015.............................                139  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/25/2015.............................                109  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/26/2015.............................                112  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/27/2015.............................                136  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/28/2017.............................                135  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
8/29/2015.............................                138  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/6/2017..............................              * 182  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/7/2017..............................              * 228  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/8/2017..............................              * 225  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/9/2017..............................                126  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
9/13/2017.............................                102  Flathead Valley Soccer Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other exceptional events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by
  EPA in accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].


                  Table 7--24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded from 2014-2018 Kalispell Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          24-hour value
                 Date                     ([micro]g/m3)                       Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015.............................                125  Flathead Electric.
8/21/2015.............................                103  Flathead Electric.
8/24/2015.............................                139  Flathead Electric.
8/26/2015.............................                125  Flathead Electric.
8/27/2015.............................                123  Flathead Electric.

[[Page 16036]]

 
8/28/2017.............................                133  Flathead Electric.
8/29/2015.............................                146  Flathead Electric.
9/5/2017..............................                131  Flathead Electric.
9/6/2017..............................              * 171  Flathead Electric.
9/7/2017..............................              * 194  Flathead Electric.
9/8/2017..............................              * 228  Flathead Electric.
9/9/2017..............................                154  Flathead Electric.
9/13/2017.............................              * 158  Flathead Electric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by EPA in
  accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].


                    Table 8--24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded from 2014-2018 Libby Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          24-hour value
                 Date                     ([micro]g/m3)                       Monitoring site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015.............................                113  Courthouse Annex.
8/24/2015.............................              * 180  Courthouse Annex.
8/25/2015.............................                102  Courthouse Annex.
8/27/2015.............................                109  Courthouse Annex.
8/29/2015.............................                143  Courthouse Annex.
9/5/2017..............................                104  Courthouse Annex.
9/6/2017..............................                101  Courthouse Annex.
9/7/2017..............................                134  Courthouse Annex.
9/8/2017..............................              * 158  Courthouse Annex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA-Concurred Exceptional Event [other events not formally concurred on by EPA, were excluded by EPA in
  accordance with the LMP guidance, see footnote 3].

    The ADV for the 24-Hour PM10 NAAQS for Columbia Falls, 
Kalispell and Libby, based on data from the SLAMS monitors for the 
years 2014-2018, are 67 [micro]g/m3, 89 [micro]g/
m3, and 92 [micro]g/m3, respectively. These 
values fall below the presumptive 24-Hour CDV of 98 [micro]g/
m3, and would all meet the first threshold for LMP 
eligibility. However, in the case of both Kalispell and Libby, these 
areas required the calculation of an area specific CDV in order to pass 
the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test, described below and 
in further detail in the LMP guidance document.\5\ Table 9 lists the 
respective CDV for each of the NAAs based on data from 2014-2018, 
utilized for satisfying all the LMP requirements. Calculation of the 
2014-2018 CDV for Kalispell and Libby can be found in the supporting 
documents in the docket.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Limited Maintenace Plan Option for Moderate 
PM10 Nonattainment Areas--Attachment B.''
    \6\ Memo to file ``Critical Design Value Calculations for the 
Kalispell and Libby PM10 NAAs.''

  Table 9--Critical Design Values Used for Determining LMP Eligibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       24-Hour CDV       2013-2018 ADV
             PM10 NAA                 ([micro]g/m 3)     ([micro]g/m 3)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Falls....................               * 98                 97
Kalispell.........................                124                 89
Libby.............................              139.9                 92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Use of presumptive CDV as described in the LMP guidance document.

    In addition to having an ADV that is lower than either the 
presumptive or area specific CDV, 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, based on monitoring data for the period 2016-2018, the EPA 
has determined that the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs all 
pass the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test, with a 
projected DV of 74.3 [micro]g/m\3\, 109.7 [micro]g/m\3\ and 100.3 
[micro]g/m\3\ after 10 years, respectively, attributable to motor 
vehicle emission growth. For the calculations used to determine how the 
Columbia Falls, Kalsipell and Libby NAAs passed the motor vehicle 
regional analysis test, see the supporting documents in the docket.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See memo to file dated October 24, 2018 titled ``Columbia 
Falls, Kalispell and Libby Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions 
Analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The monitoring data for the period 2016-2018 shows that Columbia 
Falls, Kalispell and Libby have attained the 24-hour NAAQS for 
PM10, and the 24-hour ADV for each of the areas is less than 
the 24-hour PM10 presumptive and area-specific CDV. Finally, 
the areas have met the regional vehicle emissions analysis test. Thus, 
the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs qualify 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 the state

[[Page 16037]]

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 the state could take is to implement 
contingency measures. Please see section 3.6 of each of the three LMPs 
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?

    The 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. The 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 2014 for all three NAAs. The EPA has 
reviewed the 2014 emissions inventories and determined that they are 
current, accurate and complete. In addition, the emissions inventory 
submitted with the LMP for the calendar year 2014 is representative of 
the level of emissions during the time period used to calculate the ADV 
since 2014 is included in the 5-year period used to calculate the 
design values (2013-2017).

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?

    PM10 monitoring networks for the Columbia Falls, 
Kalispell and Libby NAAs have 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 3.4 of the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs, Montana 
states that it will continue to operate its monitoring network to meet 
EPA requirements.

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 Columbia 
Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs describe 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 Columbia 
Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs meet the requirements for contingency 
provisions as outlined in the LMP Option memo.

J. Has the state met transportation and general conformity 
requirements?

1. 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 section 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 
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not 
they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule typically 
requires a demonstration that emissions from the applicable Regional 
Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program 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). The EPA notes that a MVEB is usually 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 areas. 
MVEBs are, however, treated differently with respect to LMP areas.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations 
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November 
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our LMP Option memorandum does not require that MVEBs be identified 
in the maintenance plan. While the EPA's LMP Option memorandum does not 
exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the 
area may demonstrate transportation conformity without identifying and 
submitting a MVEB. The basis for this provision is that it is 
unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth 
during the maintenance period that a violation of the PM10 
NAAQS would result. Therefore, for transportation conformity purposes, 
the EPA has concluded that mobile source emissions in LMP areas need 
not be capped, with respect to a MVEB, for the maintenance period and a 
regional emissions analysis (40 CFR 93.118), for transportation 
conformity purposes, is also not required.
    However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain 
aspects will continue to be required for transportation projects 
located within the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10 
maintenance areas. Specifically, for conformity determinations, 
projects will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained 
(40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 
and 40 CFR 93.112) and timely implementation (as applicable) of 
Transportation Control Measures (40 CFR 93.113). In addition, projects 
located within the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby PM10 
LMP areas will be required to be evaluated for potential 
PM10 hot-spot issues in order to satisfy the ``project 
level'' conformity determination requirements. As appropriate, a 
project may then need to address the applicable criteria for a 
PM10 hot-spot analysis as provided in 40 CFR 93.116 and 40 
CFR 93.123.
    Finally, our proposed approval of the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and 
Libby PM10 LMPs affect future PM10 project-level 
transportation conformity determinations as prepared by the Montana 
Department of Transportation in conjunction with the Federal Highway 
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. See 40 CFR 
93.100. As such, the EPA is proposing to approve the Columbia Falls, 
Kalispell and Libby LMPs as meeting the appropriate transportation

[[Page 16038]]

conformity requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
2. General Conformity
    Federal actions, other than transportation conformity, that meet 
specific criteria need to be evaluated with respect to the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B. The EPA's general conformity rule 
requirements are designed to ensure that emissions from a federal 
action will not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, 
exacerbate current violations, or delay timely attainment. However, as 
noted in our LMP Option memorandum and similar to the above discussed 
transportation conformity provisions, federal actions subject to our 
general conformity requirements would be considered to satisfy the 
``budget test,'' as specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A). As 
discussed above, the basis for this provision in the LMP Option 
memorandum is that it is unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will 
experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a 
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. Therefore, for 
purposes of general conformity, a general conformity PM10 
emissions budget does not need to be identified in the maintenance 
plan, nor submitted, and the emissions from federal agency actions are 
essentially considered to not be limited.

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons explained in Section III, we are proposing to 
approve the LMP for the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs and 
the State's request to redesignate the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and 
Libby NAAs from nonattainment to attainment for the 1987 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine 
that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs have attained the NAAQS for 
PM10. This determination is based upon monitored air quality 
data for the PM10 NAAQS during the years 2016-2018. The EPA 
is proposing to approve the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs as 
meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements found in 
40 CFR part 93, subpart A.

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; 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 is not approved to 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 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: March 12, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-05671 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P