Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Second Limited Maintenance Plans for 1997 Ozone NAAQS, 66347-66352 [2019-26144]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the MDAQMD rules described in Table
1 of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
materials available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Dec 03, 2019
Jkt 250001
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, 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 rules do 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,
Ozone, PM, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, VOC.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 19, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019–26155 Filed 12–3–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2019–0467; FRL–10002–
82–Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Second
Limited Maintenance Plans for 1997
Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Michigan. On
July 24, 2019, the state submitted the
1997 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) Limited
Maintenance Plans (LMPs) for the
Benzie County, Flint (Genesee and
Lapeer Counties), Grand Rapids (Ottawa
and Kent Counties), Huron County,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun,
Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties),
Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton, Eaton,
and Ingham Counties), and Mason
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66347
County areas. EPA proposes to approve
these Michigan LMPs because they
provide for the maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS through the end of the
second 10-year portion of the
maintenance period. Approval will
make certain commitments related to
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in these areas are federally enforceable
as part of the Michigan SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2019–0467 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for 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: Matt
Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control
Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR–18J), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for these actions?
III. What is EPA’s evaluation of Michigan’s
submission?
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of
Continued Attainment
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
66348
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
4. Contingency Plan
IV. Does the plan show transportation
conformity?
V. What action is proposed?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. What action is EPA taking?
Under the CAA, EPA is proposing to
approve the 1997 ozone NAAQS LMPs
for the Benzie County, Flint, Grand
Rapids, Huron County, KalamazooBattle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, and
Mason County areas, submitted by
Michigan on July 24, 2019. The LMPs
for these areas are designed to maintain
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the end
of the second 10-year portion of the 20year maintenance period. EPA reviewed
Michigan’s submission and found the
LMPs meet all applicable requirements
under CAA sections 110 and 175A.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the LMPs.
II. What is the background for these
actions?
Ground-level ozone is formed when
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two
pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of
pollution sources, including on-road
and off-road motor vehicles and
engines, power plants and industrial
facilities, and smaller area sources such
as lawn and garden equipment and
paints. Scientific evidence indicates that
adverse public health effects occur
following exposure to ozone,
particularly in children and adults with
lung disease. Breathing air containing
ozone can reduce lung function and
inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate
asthma or other lung diseases.
Ozone exposure has been associated
with increased susceptibility to
respiratory infections, medication use,
doctor visits, and emergency
department visits and hospital
admissions for individuals with lung
disease. Ozone exposure also increases
the risk of premature death from heart
or lung disease. Children are at
increased risk from exposure to ozone
because their lungs are still developing
and they are more likely to be active
outdoors, which increases their
exposure.1
In 1979, under section 109 of the
CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12
parts per million (ppm), averaged over
a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February
8, 1979). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised
1 See ‘‘Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,’’ January
6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 2010).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Dec 03, 2019
Jkt 250001
the primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone to set the acceptable level of
ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. 62 FR
38856 (July 18, 1997).2 EPA established
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that
ozone causes adverse health effects at
lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood
when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set. EPA determined that
the 1997 ozone standard would be more
protective of human health, especially
for children and adults who are active
outdoors, and individuals with a preexisting respiratory disease, such as
asthma.
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the
CAA to designate areas throughout the
nation as attaining or not attaining the
NAAQS. On April 30, 2004, EPA
designated the Michigan areas as
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and the designations became
effective on June 15, 2004. Under the
CAA, states are also required to adopt
and submit SIPs to implement,
maintain, and enforce the NAAQS in
designated nonattainment areas and
throughout the state.
When a nonattainment area has three
years of complete, certified air quality
data that has been determined to attain
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the
area has met other required criteria
described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA, the state can submit to EPA a
request to be redesignated to attainment,
referred to as a ‘‘maintenance area’’.3
One of the criteria for redesignation is
to have an approved maintenance plan
under CAA section 175A. The
maintenance plan must demonstrate
that the area will continue to maintain
the standard for a period extending 10
years after redesignation and contain
such additional measures as necessary
to ensure maintenance and such
contingency provisions as necessary to
assure that violations of the standard
2 In March 2008, EPA completed another review
of the primary and secondary ozone standards and
tightened them further by lowering the level for
both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a
review of the primary and secondary ozone
standards and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26,
2015).
3 Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the
requirements for redesignation. They include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under
section 110(k) of the applicable SIP, determination
that improvement in air quality is a result of
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable
section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully
approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
will be promptly corrected. At the end
of the eighth year after the effective date
of the redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years. See
CAA section 175A.
EPA has published long-standing
guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.4 The Calcagni
memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by
either performing air quality modeling
to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS or by showing
that future emissions of a pollutant and
its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the
area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni
memo at 9. EPA clarified in three
subsequent guidance memos that certain
nonattainment areas could meet the
CAA section 175A requirement to
provide for maintenance by
demonstrating that the area’s design
value 5 was well below the NAAQS and
that the historical stability of the area’s
air quality levels showed that the area
was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in
the future.6 EPA refers to this
streamlined demonstration of
maintenance as a LMP. EPA has
interpreted CAA section 175A as
permitting this option because section
175A of the CAA defines few specific
content requirements for maintenance
plans, and in EPA’s experience
implementing the various NAAQS,
areas that qualify for a LMP and have
approved LMPs have rarely, if ever,
experienced subsequent violations of
the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP
guidance memoranda, states seeking a
LMP must still submit the other
maintenance plan elements outlined in
the Calcagni memo, including: An
attainment emissions inventory,
provisions for the continued operation
of the ambient air quality monitoring
4 Calcagni, John, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
5 The ozone design value for a monitoring site is
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations.
The design value for an ozone nonattainment area
is the highest design value of any monitoring site
in the area.
6 See ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
66349
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
network, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan in
the event of a future violation of the
NAAQS. Moreover, states seeking a
LMP must still submit their section
175A maintenance plan as a revision to
their state implementation plan, with all
attendant notice and comment
procedures.
While the LMP guidance memoranda
was originally written with respect to
certain NAAQS,7 EPA has extended the
LMP interpretation of section 175A to
other NAAQS and pollutants not
specifically covered by the previous
guidance memos.8 In this case, EPA is
proposing to approve the Michigan
LMPs, because the state has made a
showing, consistent with EPA’s prior
LMP guidance, that each of the
Michigan area’s ozone concentrations
are well below the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and have been historically stable.
Michigan has submitted LMPs for the
areas of Benzie County, Flint (Genesee
and Lapeer Counties), Grand Rapids
(Ottawa and Kent Counties), Huron
County, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek
(Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van Buren
Counties), Lansing-East Lansing
(Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties),
and Mason County to fulfill the second
1997 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan
requirement in the CAA. EPA’s
evaluation of these 1997 ozone NAAQS
LMPs is presented in section III.
Under CAA section 175A(b), states
must submit a revision to the first
maintenance plan eight years after
redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for 10
additional years following the end of the
first 10-year period. EPA’s final
implementation rule for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS revoked the 1997 ozone
NAAQS and stated that one
consequence of revocation was that
areas that had been redesignated to
attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for
the 1997 standard no longer needed to
submit second 10-year maintenance
plans under CAA section 175A(b).9 In
South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit vacated
EPA’s interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard,
second maintenance plans were not
required for ‘‘orphan maintenance
areas,’’ i.e., areas that had been
redesignated to attainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS maintenance areas and
were designated attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. South Coast, 882 F.3d
1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states with
these ‘‘orphan maintenance areas’’
under the 1997 ozone NAAQS must
submit maintenance plans for the
second maintenance period.
Accordingly, on July 24, 2019, Michigan
submitted a second maintenance plan in
the form of a LMP for the areas of
Benzie County, Flint (Genesee and
Lapeer Counties), Grand Rapids (Ottawa
and Kent Counties), Huron County,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun,
Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties),
Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton, Eaton,
and Ingham Counties), and Mason
County. These LMPs show that each
area is expected to remain in attainment
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the
end of the last year of the second 10year maintenance period, i.e., through
the end of the full 20-year maintenance
period.
III. What is EPA’s evaluation of
Michigan’s submission?
EPA has reviewed the 1997 ozone
LMPs, which are designed to maintain
the 1997 ozone NAAQS within the
Benzie County, Flint (Genesee and
Lapeer Counties), Grand Rapids (Ottawa
and Kent Counties), Huron County,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun,
Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties),
Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton, Eaton,
and Ingham Counties), and Mason
County through the end of the 20-year
maintenance period beyond
redesignation, as required by under
CAA section 175A(b). A summary of
EPA’s interpretation of the
requirements 10 and EPA’s evaluation of
how each requirement is met follows.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a state should
develop a comprehensive, accurate
inventory of actual emissions for an
attainment year to identify the level of
emissions which is sufficient to
maintain the NAAQS. A state should
develop this inventory consistent with
EPA’s most recent guidance on
emissions inventory development. For
ozone, the inventory should be based on
typical summer day emissions of VOCs
and NOX, as these pollutants are
precursors to ozone formation.
TABLE 1—TYPICAL 2014 SUMMER DAY VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS
[Tons/day]
VOC
emissions
Maintenance area
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Benzie County .........................................................................................................................................................
Flint ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Grand Rapids ...........................................................................................................................................................
Huron County ...........................................................................................................................................................
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek ..........................................................................................................................................
Lansing-East Lansing ..............................................................................................................................................
Mason County ..........................................................................................................................................................
Michigan used 2014 summer season
(May through September) emissions
from ‘‘the EPA 2014 version 7.0’’
modeling platform as the basis for the
attainment inventory. These data are
based on the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory version 2.
Based on our review of the methods,
models, and assumptions used by
Michigan to develop the VOC and NOX
estimates, EPA proposes to find that the
Michigan 1997 ozone NAAQS LMP
areas include a comprehensive,
reasonably accurate inventory of actual
ozone precursor emissions in attainment
7 The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable
areas under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
nonattainment areas for the PM10 (particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the
carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS.
8 See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval
of second ten-year LMP for Grant County 1971
sulfur dioxide maintenance area).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Dec 03, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX
emission
647
6,361
12,584
1,080
6,913
5,680
1,004
374
4,834
11,220
1,558
5,495
5,403
706
year 2014, and propose to conclude that
the plan’s inventory is acceptable for the
purposes of a subsequent maintenance
plan under CAA section 175A(b).
2. Maintenance Demonstration
The maintenance plan demonstration
requirement is considered to be satisfied
9 See
80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
Calcagni memo.
10 See
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
66350
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
in a LMP if the state can provide
sufficient weight of evidence indicating
that air quality in the area is well below
the level of the standard, that past air
quality trends have been shown to be
stable, and that the probability of the
area experiencing a violation over the
second 10-year maintenance period is
low.11 These criteria are evaluated
below with regard to the Michigan
areas.
a. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality
Levels
To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the three-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations (design
value) at each monitor within an area
must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40
CFR part 50, appendix I, the standard is
attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm
or below. Consistent with prior
guidance, EPA believes that if the most
recent air quality design value for the
area is at a level that is well below the
NAAQS (e.g., below 85% of the
standard, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), then EPA considers the state to
have met the section 175A requirement
for a demonstration that the area will
maintain the NAAQS for the requisite
period. Such a demonstration assumes
continued applicability of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration requirements,
any control measures already in the SIP,
and Federal measures will remain in
place through the end of the second 10year maintenance period, absent a
showing consistent with section 110(l)
that such measures are not necessary to
assure maintenance.
Table 2 presents the design values for
each monitor site in the subject areas
over the 2015–2017 period to address
whether the entire area is at or below 85
percent of the NAAQS. These
monitoring sites have been well below
the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS over
the entire first 10-year maintenance
period. As shown on the table, the most
current design value for all sites
continues to be below the level of 85%
of the NAAQS, consistent with prior
LMP guidance.
TABLE 2—1997 OZONE NAAQS DESIGN VALUES
[Part per million]
Maintenance area
Benzie County .................................................................................................
Flint ..................................................................................................................
Grand Rapids ...................................................................................................
Huron County ...................................................................................................
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek ..................................................................................
Lansing-East Lansing ......................................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Mason County ..................................................................................................
County
AQS Site ID
Benzie
Genesee
Lapeer
Kent
Kent
Ottawa
Huron
Kalamazoo
Ingham
Ingham
Mason
26–019–0003
26–049–2001
26–049–0021
26–081–0020
26–081–0022
26–139–0005
26–063–0007
26–077–0008
26–037–0001
26–065–0012
26–105–0007
Therefore, the Benzie County, Flint,
Grand Rapids, Huron County,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East
Lansing, and Mason County areas are
eligible for the LMP option, and EPA
proposes to find that the long record of
monitored ozone concentrations that
attain the NAAQS, together with the
continuation of existing VOC and NOX
emissions control programs, adequately
provide for the maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the Michigan areas
through the second 10-year maintenance
period and beyond.
Additional supporting information
that these areas are expected to continue
to maintain the standard can be found
in EPA modeling projections of future
year design values. This modeling was
completed to assist states with
development of interstate transport SIPs
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Those
projections, made for the year 2023,
show design values for the Michigan
3. Monitoring Network and Verification
of Continued Attainment
EPA periodically reviews the ozone
monitoring network that Michigan
operates and maintains, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58. This network is
11 ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Dec 03, 2019
Jkt 250001
areas that are well below the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. See Table 3.
TABLE 3—2023 PROJECTED OZONE
DESIGN VALUES
Maintenance area
Highest projected
design value
for the
maintenance areas
(ppm)
Benzie County ............
Flint .............................
Grand Rapids .............
Huron County .............
Kalamazoo-Battle
Creek .......................
Lansing-East Lansing
Mason County ............
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
0.061
0.060
0.062
0.059
0.060
0.057
0.061
Sfmt 4702
Design value
(DV)
2015–2017
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.068
0.067
0.068
0.067
0.069
0.062
0.067
0.068
DV <0.071
ppm
eligible LMP
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
consistent with the ambient air
monitoring network assessment and
plan developed by Michigan that is
submitted annually to EPA and that
follows a public notification and review
process. Michigan has committed to
continue to maintain a network in
accordance with EPA requirements.
4. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct or prevent
a violation of the NAAQS that might
occur after redesignation of an area to
attainment. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation of the contingency
PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
measures, and a time limit for action by
the state. The state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that the
state will implement all pollution
control measures that were contained in
the SIP before redesignation of the area
to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA.
Michigan adopted the list of
contingency measures from its first
maintenance plan with one revision.
The Cross-State Air Pollution Control
rule replaces the Clean Air Interstate
rule.
Contingency measures to be
considered will be selected from a
comprehensive list of measures deemed
appropriate and effective at the time the
selection is made. Listed below are
example measures that may be
considered. The selection of measures
will be based upon cost-effectiveness,
emission reduction potential, economic
and social considerations or other
factors that Michigan deems
appropriate. Michigan will solicit input
from all interested and affected persons
in the maintenance area prior to
selecting appropriate contingency
measures. The listed contingency
measures are potentially effective or
proven methods of obtaining significant
reductions of ozone precursor
emissions. Because it is not possible at
this time to determine what control
measure will be appropriate at an
unspecified time in the future, the list
of contingency measures outlined below
is not exhaustive. Michigan’s potential
contingency measures:
1. Lower Reid Vapor Pressure gasoline
program
2. Reduced VOC content in
Architectural, Industrial, and
Maintenance coatings rule
3. Auto body refinisher self-certification
audit program
4. Reduced VOC degreasing/solvent
cleaning rule
5. Transit improvements
6. Diesel retrofit program
7. Reduced VOC content in commercial
and consumer products
8. Cross-State Air Pollution Control rule
reductions
9. Tier II reductions including low
sulfur fuel and vehicle standards
10. Reduce idling program
11. Portable fuel container replacement
rule
12. Reduced VOC content for emulsified
asphalt rule
13. Stage II vapor recovery rule for
marinas
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Dec 03, 2019
Jkt 250001
EPA proposes to find that Michigan’s
contingency measures, as well as the
commitment to continue implementing
any SIP requirements, satisfy the
pertinent requirements of CAA section
175A.
IV. Does the plan show transportation
conformity?
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA
176(c)(1)(B)). EPA’s conformity rule at
40 CFR part 93 requires that
transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to SIPs and establish
the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they
conform. The conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions
from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) are
consistent with the motor vehicle
emissions budget (MVEB) contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or
maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined
as ‘‘that portion of the total allowable
emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy
implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for a certain date for
the purpose of meeting reasonable
further progress milestones or
demonstrating attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, for any
criteria pollutant or its precursors,
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas
may demonstrate conformity without a
regional emission analysis (40 CFR
93.109(e)). Michigan confirmed that its
LMP areas are considered to have
already satisfied the regional emissions
analysis and budget test requirements in
40 CFR part 93.
However, because LMP areas are still
maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity
determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs and
projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and
transportation projects still will have to
demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet the
criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105)
and Transportation Control Measure
implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR
93.113, respectively). Additionally,
conformity determinations for RTPs and
TIPs must be determined no less
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66351
frequently than every four years, and
conformity of plan and TIP amendments
and transportation projects is
demonstrated in accordance with the
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR
93.104. In addition, for projects to be
approved they must come from a
currently conforming RTP and TIP (40
CFR 93.114 and 93.115).
V. What action is proposed?
Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the
CAA, for the reasons set forth above,
EPA is proposing to approve the LMPs
for the Benzie County, Flint (Genesee
and Lapeer Counties), Grand Rapids
(Ottawa and Kent Counties), Huron
County, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek
(Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van Buren
Counties), Lansing-East Lansing
(Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties),
and Mason County areas in Michigan for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Michigan
submitted these LMPs on July 24, 2019.
EPA finds that the 1997 ozone NAAQS
LMPs are sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in these areas through the second 10year portion of the maintenance period.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under section 175A of 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);
• 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
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
66352
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: November 20, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019–26144 Filed 12–3–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0419; FRL–10002–
37–Region 8]
Promulgation of State Implementation
Plan Revisions; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards; Wyoming
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Dec 03, 2019
Jkt 250001
On October 1, 2015, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
revising the standard to 0.070 parts per
million. Whenever a new or revised
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) is promulgated, the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) requires each state to
submit a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of the
new standard. This submission is
commonly referred to as an
infrastructure SIP. In this action we are
proposing to act on multiple elements of
the Wyoming infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to
infrastructure requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, which was submitted to
the EPA on January 3, 2019.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before January 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2019–0419, 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
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Division,
Environmental Protection Agency
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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:
Clayton Bean, (303) 312–6143,
bean.clayton@epa.gov. Mail can be
directed to the Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail-code
8ARD–QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado, 80202–1129.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘reviewing
authority,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer
to the EPA.
I. Background
On March 12, 2008, the EPA
promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone,
revising the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from
0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm (73 FR 16436). More recently, on
October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated
and revised the NAAQS for ozone,
further strengthening the primary and
secondary 8-hour standards to 0.070
ppm (80 FR 65292) (referred to as the
‘‘2015 ozone NAAQS’’). This revision
triggered the CAA requirement for states
to submit SIPs addressing basic
infrastructure elements required to
implement, maintain and enforce the
2015 ozone NAAQS. See CAA section
110(a)(1) and (2); see also ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September
13, 2013 (2013 Memo).
What infrastructure elements are
required under Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2)?
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for
SIP submissions after a new or revised
NAAQS is promulgated. Section
110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP
must contain or satisfy. These
infrastructure elements include
requirements such as modeling,
monitoring and emissions inventories,
which are designed to ensure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
elements that are the subject of this
action are listed below.
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and
other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality
monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66347-66352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26144]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0467; FRL-10002-82-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Second Limited Maintenance Plans for
1997 Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation
plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Michigan. On July 24,
2019, the state submitted the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) Limited Maintenance Plans (LMPs) for the Benzie
County, Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Grand Rapids (Ottawa and
Kent Counties), Huron County, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun,
Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties), Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton,
Eaton, and Ingham Counties), and Mason County areas. EPA proposes to
approve these Michigan LMPs because they provide for the maintenance of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the end of the second 10-year portion of
the maintenance period. Approval will make certain commitments related
to maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in these areas are federally
enforceable as part of the Michigan SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2019-0467 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for 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: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for these actions?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of Michigan's submission?
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
[[Page 66348]]
4. Contingency Plan
IV. Does the plan show transportation conformity?
V. What action is proposed?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
Under the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 ozone NAAQS
LMPs for the Benzie County, Flint, Grand Rapids, Huron County,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, and Mason County areas,
submitted by Michigan on July 24, 2019. The LMPs for these areas are
designed to maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the end of the second
10-year portion of the 20-year maintenance period. EPA reviewed
Michigan's submission and found the LMPs meet all applicable
requirements under CAA sections 110 and 175A. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the LMPs.
II. What is the background for these actions?
Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including
on-road and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone
can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.
Ozone exposure has been associated with increased susceptibility to
respiratory infections, medication use, doctor visits, and emergency
department visits and hospital admissions for individuals with lung
disease. Ozone exposure also increases the risk of premature death from
heart or lung disease. Children are at increased risk from exposure to
ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely
to be active outdoors, which increases their exposure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938
(January 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997,
EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\2\ EPA established the
8-hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that
ozone causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over
longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour
ozone NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 1997 ozone standard would
be more protective of human health, especially for children and adults
who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the Michigan
areas as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the designations
became effective on June 15, 2004. Under the CAA, states are also
required to adopt and submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce
the NAAQS in designated nonattainment areas and throughout the state.
When a nonattainment area has three years of complete, certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the area has met other required criteria described in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the state can submit to EPA a request
to be redesignated to attainment, referred to as a ``maintenance
area''.\3\ One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for a
period extending 10 years after redesignation and contain such
additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance and such
contingency provisions as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected. At the end of the eighth year
after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years. See CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignation. They include attainment of the NAAQS, full
approval under section 110(k) of the applicable SIP, determination
that improvement in air quality is a result of permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions, demonstration that the state
has met all applicable section 110 and part D requirements, and a
fully approved maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.\4\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that future emissions
of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level of
emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at 9. EPA clarified in
three subsequent guidance memos that certain nonattainment areas could
meet the CAA section 175A requirement to provide for maintenance by
demonstrating that the area's design value \5\ was well below the NAAQS
and that the historical stability of the area's air quality levels
showed that the area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the
future.\6\ EPA refers to this streamlined demonstration of maintenance
as a LMP. EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting this
option because section 175A of the CAA defines few specific content
requirements for maintenance plans, and in EPA's experience
implementing the various NAAQS, areas that qualify for a LMP and have
approved LMPs have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations
of the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP guidance memoranda, states seeking a
LMP must still submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in
the Calcagni memo, including: An attainment emissions inventory,
provisions for the continued operation of the ambient air quality
monitoring
[[Page 66349]]
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan
in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, states
seeking a LMP must still submit their section 175A maintenance plan as
a revision to their state implementation plan, with all attendant
notice and comment procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Calcagni, John, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September
4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
\5\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
\6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the LMP guidance memoranda was originally written with
respect to certain NAAQS,\7\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of
section 175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by
the previous guidance memos.\8\ In this case, EPA is proposing to
approve the Michigan LMPs, because the state has made a showing,
consistent with EPA's prior LMP guidance, that each of the Michigan
area's ozone concentrations are well below the 1997 ozone NAAQS and
have been historically stable. Michigan has submitted LMPs for the
areas of Benzie County, Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Grand
Rapids (Ottawa and Kent Counties), Huron County, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek
(Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties), Lansing-East Lansing
(Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties), and Mason County to fulfill the
second 1997 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan requirement in the CAA. EPA's
evaluation of these 1997 ozone NAAQS LMPs is presented in section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable areas under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the carbon monoxide (CO)
NAAQS.
\8\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval of second
ten-year LMP for Grant County 1971 sulfur dioxide maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA section 175A(b), states must submit a revision to the
first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 additional years following the end of
the first 10-year period. EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008
ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS and stated that one
consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated to
attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 standard no longer
needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section
175A(b).\9\ In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the
D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were
not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' i.e., areas that had
been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS maintenance
areas and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. South
Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states with these ``orphan
maintenance areas'' under the 1997 ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance
plans for the second maintenance period. Accordingly, on July 24, 2019,
Michigan submitted a second maintenance plan in the form of a LMP for
the areas of Benzie County, Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Grand
Rapids (Ottawa and Kent Counties), Huron County, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek
(Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties), Lansing-East Lansing
(Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties), and Mason County. These LMPs
show that each area is expected to remain in attainment of the 1997
ozone NAAQS through the end of the last year of the second 10-year
maintenance period, i.e., through the end of the full 20-year
maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is EPA's evaluation of Michigan's submission?
EPA has reviewed the 1997 ozone LMPs, which are designed to
maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS within the Benzie County, Flint (Genesee
and Lapeer Counties), Grand Rapids (Ottawa and Kent Counties), Huron
County, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van Buren
Counties), Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties),
and Mason County through the end of the 20-year maintenance period
beyond redesignation, as required by under CAA section 175A(b). A
summary of EPA's interpretation of the requirements \10\ and EPA's
evaluation of how each requirement is met follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Calcagni memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical summer day emissions of VOCs and
NOX, as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.
Table 1--Typical 2014 Summer Day VOC and NOX Emissions
[Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX emission
Maintenance area VOC emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzie County........................... 647 374
Flint................................... 6,361 4,834
Grand Rapids............................ 12,584 11,220
Huron County............................ 1,080 1,558
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek.................. 6,913 5,495
Lansing-East Lansing.................... 5,680 5,403
Mason County............................ 1,004 706
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan used 2014 summer season (May through September) emissions
from ``the EPA 2014 version 7.0'' modeling platform as the basis for
the attainment inventory. These data are based on the 2014 National
Emissions Inventory version 2.
Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
Michigan to develop the VOC and NOX estimates, EPA proposes
to find that the Michigan 1997 ozone NAAQS LMP areas include a
comprehensive, reasonably accurate inventory of actual ozone precursor
emissions in attainment year 2014, and propose to conclude that the
plan's inventory is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).
2. Maintenance Demonstration
The maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied
[[Page 66350]]
in a LMP if the state can provide sufficient weight of evidence
indicating that air quality in the area is well below the level of the
standard, that past air quality trends have been shown to be stable,
and that the probability of the area experiencing a violation over the
second 10-year maintenance period is low.\11\ These criteria are
evaluated below with regard to the Michigan areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone
Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994; ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas''
from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment
Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.q
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality Levels
To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
(design value) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.
Consistent with prior guidance, EPA believes that if the most recent
air quality design value for the area is at a level that is well below
the NAAQS (e.g., below 85% of the standard, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), then EPA considers the state to have met the section 175A
requirement for a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
for the requisite period. Such a demonstration assumes continued
applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements,
any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures will
remain in place through the end of the second 10-year maintenance
period, absent a showing consistent with section 110(l) that such
measures are not necessary to assure maintenance.
Table 2 presents the design values for each monitor site in the
subject areas over the 2015-2017 period to address whether the entire
area is at or below 85 percent of the NAAQS. These monitoring sites
have been well below the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS over the entire
first 10-year maintenance period. As shown on the table, the most
current design value for all sites continues to be below the level of
85% of the NAAQS, consistent with prior LMP guidance.
Table 2--1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values
[Part per million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value DV <0.071 ppm
Maintenance area County AQS Site ID (DV) 2015-2017 eligible LMP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzie County................................... Benzie 26-019-0003 0.067 Yes.
Flint........................................... Genesee 26-049-2001 0.067 Yes.
Lapeer 26-049-0021 0.067 Yes.
Grand Rapids.................................... Kent 26-081-0020 0.068 Yes.
Kent 26-081-0022 0.067 Yes.
Ottawa 26-139-0005 0.068 Yes.
Huron County.................................... Huron 26-063-0007 0.067 Yes.
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek.......................... Kalamazoo 26-077-0008 0.069 Yes.
Lansing-East Lansing............................ Ingham 26-037-0001 0.062 Yes.
Ingham 26-065-0012 0.067 Yes.
Mason County.................................... Mason 26-105-0007 0.068 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Benzie County, Flint, Grand Rapids, Huron County,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, and Mason County areas
are eligible for the LMP option, and EPA proposes to find that the long
record of monitored ozone concentrations that attain the NAAQS,
together with the continuation of existing VOC and NOX
emissions control programs, adequately provide for the maintenance of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Michigan areas through the second 10-year
maintenance period and beyond.
Additional supporting information that these areas are expected to
continue to maintain the standard can be found in EPA modeling
projections of future year design values. This modeling was completed
to assist states with development of interstate transport SIPs for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. Those projections, made for the year 2023, show
design values for the Michigan areas that are well below the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. See Table 3.
Table 3--2023 Projected Ozone Design Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest projected
design value for
Maintenance area the maintenance
areas (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzie County..................................... 0.061
Flint............................................. 0.060
Grand Rapids...................................... 0.062
Huron County...................................... 0.059
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek............................ 0.060
Lansing-East Lansing.............................. 0.057
Mason County...................................... 0.061
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring network that Michigan
operates and maintains, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This network
is consistent with the ambient air monitoring network assessment and
plan developed by Michigan that is submitted annually to EPA and that
follows a public notification and review process. Michigan has
committed to continue to maintain a network in accordance with EPA
requirements.
4. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency
[[Page 66351]]
measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The state should
also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will
implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA.
Michigan adopted the list of contingency measures from its first
maintenance plan with one revision. The Cross-State Air Pollution
Control rule replaces the Clean Air Interstate rule.
Contingency measures to be considered will be selected from a
comprehensive list of measures deemed appropriate and effective at the
time the selection is made. Listed below are example measures that may
be considered. The selection of measures will be based upon cost-
effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social
considerations or other factors that Michigan deems appropriate.
Michigan will solicit input from all interested and affected persons in
the maintenance area prior to selecting appropriate contingency
measures. The listed contingency measures are potentially effective or
proven methods of obtaining significant reductions of ozone precursor
emissions. Because it is not possible at this time to determine what
control measure will be appropriate at an unspecified time in the
future, the list of contingency measures outlined below is not
exhaustive. Michigan's potential contingency measures:
1. Lower Reid Vapor Pressure gasoline program
2. Reduced VOC content in Architectural, Industrial, and Maintenance
coatings rule
3. Auto body refinisher self-certification audit program
4. Reduced VOC degreasing/solvent cleaning rule
5. Transit improvements
6. Diesel retrofit program
7. Reduced VOC content in commercial and consumer products
8. Cross-State Air Pollution Control rule reductions
9. Tier II reductions including low sulfur fuel and vehicle standards
10. Reduce idling program
11. Portable fuel container replacement rule
12. Reduced VOC content for emulsified asphalt rule
13. Stage II vapor recovery rule for marinas
EPA proposes to find that Michigan's contingency measures, as well
as the commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements,
satisfy the pertinent requirements of CAA section 175A.
IV. Does the plan show transportation conformity?
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as ``that
portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance
plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further
progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). Michigan
confirmed that its LMP areas are considered to have already satisfied
the regional emissions analysis and budget test requirements in 40 CFR
part 93.
However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically,
for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still
will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR
93.108), meet the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105) and
Transportation Control Measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively).
Additionally, conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be
determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of
plan and TIP amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in
accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In
addition, for projects to be approved they must come from a currently
conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115).
V. What action is proposed?
Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA, for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the LMPs for the Benzie
County, Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Grand Rapids (Ottawa and
Kent Counties), Huron County, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun,
Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties), Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton,
Eaton, and Ingham Counties), and Mason County areas in Michigan for the
1997 ozone NAAQS. Michigan submitted these LMPs on July 24, 2019. EPA
finds that the 1997 ozone NAAQS LMPs are sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in these areas through the second
10-year portion of the maintenance period.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under section 175A of 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);
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
[[Page 66352]]
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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 20, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-26144 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
