Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Milwaukee Second 10-Year 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Limited Maintenance Plan, 19519-19526 [2024-05783]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
REG–117631–23. Requests to attend the
public hearing must be received by 5
p.m. ET by March 18, 2024.
Hearings will be made accessible to
people with disabilities. To request
special assistance during a hearing
please contact the Publications and
Regulations Section of the Office of
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and
Administration) by sending an email to
publichearings@irs.gov (preferred) or by
telephone at (202) 317–6901 (not a tollfree number) by 5 p.m. ET on March 18,
2024.
Any questions regarding speaking at
or attending a public hearing may also
be emailed to publichearings@irs.gov.
Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,
Section Chief, Publications and Regulations
Section, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure
and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2024–05745 Filed 3–18–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2022–0369; FRL–11761–
01–R5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin;
Milwaukee Second 10-Year 2006 24Hour PM2.5 Limited Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve,
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
limited maintenance plan (LMP)
submitted on April 8, 2022, by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) for the MilwaukeeRacine maintenance area including
Milwaukee, Waukesha, and Racine
counties. The plan addresses the second
10-year maintenance period for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal
2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). EPA is
proposing to approve Wisconsin’s LMP
submission for Milwaukee-Racine
because it provides for the maintenance
of the 2006 PM2.5 national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) through the
end of the second 10-year portion of the
maintenance period. In addition, EPA is
initiating the process to find the
Milwaukee-Racine PM2.5 LMP adequate
for transportation conformity purposes.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
OAR–2022–0369 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arra.sarah@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:
Cecilia Magos, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886–7336, magos.cecilia@
epa.gov. The EPA Region 5 office is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays and facility closures
due to COVID–19.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. The LMP Option
III. EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Submittal
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background
A. The PM2.5 NAAQS
PM2.5 is one of the criteria pollutants
for which a NAAQS is established to
protect human health and the
environment. In 1997, EPA established
the first PM2.5 standards based on
significant scientific evidence and
health studies demonstrating the serious
health effects associated with exposure
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19519
to PM2.5. EPA set an annual standard of
15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/
m3) and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of
65 mg/m3. In 2006, EPA strengthened the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by revising it to
35 mg/m3 and retained the level of the
annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 mg/m3.
Subsequently, in 2012, EPA established
an annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS at 12
mg/m3 and retained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 mg/m3. In 2024, EPA
revised the annual primary PM2.5
NAAQS to 9.0 mg/m3 and retained the
level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
at 35 mg/m3.
B. Regulatory Actions in MilwaukeeRacine
On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688),
EPA designated the Milwaukee-Racine
area as a PM2.5 nonattainment area due
to measured violations of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. On June 8, 2012,
supplemented on May 30, 2013, WDNR
submitted to EPA a request to
redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine
nonattainment area, to attainment of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submission
included a plan to provide for
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the area for 10 years. EPA
redesignated the Milwaukee-Racine area
on April 22, 2014 (79 FR 22415),and
approved the associated maintenance
plan into the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose
of WDNR’S April 8, 2022, LMP
submission is to fulfill the second 10year planning requirement of CAA
section 175A(b) to ensure PM2.5 NAAQS
compliance through 2034.
II. The LMP Option
A. Demonstration of Maintenance Using
the LMP Option
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan.
Under section 175A, a state must submit
a revision to the SIP that provides for
maintenance of the applicable NAAQS
for at least 10 years after an area is
redesignated to attainment. Section
175A also requires that eight years into
the first maintenance period, the state
must submit a second maintenance plan
demonstrating that the area will
continue to attain for the following 10year period.
EPA has published long-standing
guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.1 The Calcagni
memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by
1 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).
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
19520
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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). EPA
clarified in 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 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.2
Most recently, in October 2022, EPA
released guidance extending this
streamlined option for demonstrating
maintenance under CAA section 175A
to certain PM2.5 areas, titled ‘‘Guidance
on Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Moderate PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
and PM2.5 Maintenance Areas’’ (PM2.5
LMP Guidance).3
EPA refers to this streamlined
demonstration of maintenance as an
LMP. EPA has interpreted CAA section
175A as permitting this option because
CAA section 175A defines few specific
content requirements for maintenance
plans and, in EPA’s experience
implementing the various NAAQS,
areas that qualify for an LMP or have
approved LMPs have rarely, if ever,
experienced subsequent violations of
the NAAQS. As noted in the PM2.5 LMP
guidance, states seeking an LMP should
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 network, verification
of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan in the event of a future
violation of the NAAQS. Moreover,
states seeking an LMP must still submit
2 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’’ (PM10 LMP Guidance)
from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
Copies of these guidance memoranda can be found
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
3 The guidance document developed by the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, within the
Office of Air and Radiation, titled ‘‘Guidance on the
Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas and PM2.5 Maintenance
Areas’’ can be found at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1015UL4.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
their section 175A maintenance plan as
a revision to their state implementation
plan, with all attendant notice and
comment procedures.
The PM2.5 LMP Guidance, which
contains requirements similar to those
for an LMP under the PM10 LMP
Guidance, allows states to demonstrate
that areas qualify for an LMP by
showing that, based on their recent
measured air quality, they are unlikely
to violate the NAAQS in the future.
Specifically, the PM2.5 LMP Guidance
relies on the critical design value (CDV)
concept. The Guidance directs states to
calculate a site-specific CDV for the
monitoring site with the highest design
value in the area, and also for all other
active monitoring sites in the area with
complete data. The Guidance states that
areas should show that the average
design value (ADV) for each monitoring
site in the area, i.e., the average of at
least the most recent consecutive five
years of PM2.5 design values, does not
exceed the associated CDV for each
site.4 The CDV calculation for a
monitoring site involves parameters
including: (1) the level of the relevant
NAAQS; (2) the co-efficient of variation
of recent design values measured at that
site; and (3) a statistical parameter
corresponding to a 10 percent
probability of exceedance, such that
sites with historically high variability in
DVs result in a lower (or more stringent)
CDV. Evaluating if the ADV for each
monitoring site in the area is below the
CDV demonstrates that the probability
of a future exceedance, based on the
area’s historical air quality and
variability, is less than 10 percent. Per
EPA’s transportation conformity
regulations, areas with LMPs must also
‘‘demonstrate that it would be
unreasonable to expect that such an area
would experience enough motor vehicle
emissions growth for a NAAQS
violation to occur.’’ 5
B. Transportation Conformity Under the
LMP Option
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA. Under that
provision, conformity to a SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause or contribute to new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS
or any required interim emission
4 EPA recommends that the ADV be calculated
using at least five years of design values, each
representing a three-year period, because this
approach would rely on a more robust data set.
However, we acknowledge that an alternative
interpretation may be acceptable where these
variables could be calculated using three years of
design values, collectively representing five years of
air quality data.
5 40 CFR 93.109(e).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reductions or other milestones in any
area. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B).
EPA’s transportation conformity rule at
40 CFR part 93, subpart A, establishes
the criteria and procedures to determine
whether metropolitan transportation
plans, transportation improvement
programs, and federally supported
highway and transit projects conform to
the purpose of the SIP. Transportation
conformity applies for transportationrelated criteria pollutants in
nonattainment areas and redesignated
attainment areas with a CAA section
175A maintenance plan (i.e.,
maintenance areas).6
While qualification for the LMP
option does not exempt an area from the
need to determine conformity, in an
area with an LMP, conformity may be
demonstrated without a regional
emissions analysis for the relevant
NAAQS and pollutant (40 CFR
93.109(e)). An LMP must demonstrate
that it is unreasonable to expect that the
area would experience so much growth
in on-road emissions during the
maintenance period that a violation of
the relevant NAAQS would occur. See
40 CFR 93.109(e). Hence, because no
such impact is expected, areas with
LMPs are not required to do a regional
emissions analysis as part of a
transportation conformity
determination. See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
While areas with maintenance plans
approved or found adequate under the
LMP option are not required to do a
regional emissions analysis (and are not
subject to the budget test in 40 CFR
93.118), the areas remain subject to the
other transportation conformity
requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A, including fulfilling project-level
conformity requirements and
consultation requirements.
The PM2.5 LMP Guidance notes that
an LMP may be particularly appropriate
for a second maintenance plan, as the
area will have demonstrated attainment
of the PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 8 years.
To demonstrate that it would be
unreasonable to expect that the area
would experience enough motor vehicle
growth for a NAAQS violation to occur,
the guidance states that an LMP
submission for an area’s second
maintenance plan should address the
area’s PM2.5 air quality trends and the
historical and projected vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). Further, if re-entrained
road dust has been found to be
significant for PM2.5 transportation
6 In addition to PM , the criteria pollutants for
2.5
which transportation conformity applies include
ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10
micrometers, and nitrogen dioxide. See 40 CFR
93.102(b).
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
19521
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
conformity purposes under 40 CFR
93.102(b)(3), the plan should include an
on-road PM2.5 emissions analysis
consistent with the methodology
provided in Attachment B of the PM10
LMP Guidance, included in the
appendix for the PM2.5 LMP Guidance,
along with the discussion in the PM2.5
LMP Guidance itself. If the on-road
PM2.5 emissions analysis is necessary, it
would include a demonstration that for
each monitoring site in the area, the
ADV plus the expected on-road
emissions growth estimate does not
exceed the CDV.
In addition to the proposed action,
EPA is notifying the public that the
Agency is initiating the adequacy
process for the Milwaukee-Racine LMP.
See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). In the case of
an LMP, EPA’s adequacy review is to
assess whether the demonstration
required by 40 CFR 93.109(e) is met.
Any comments on the adequacy of the
submitted LMP for the MilwaukeeRacine area should be submitted to the
docket established for this rulemaking.
If EPA approves the second 10-year
maintenance plan as an LMP or finds
the submission adequate, the
Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area
will not be required to perform regional
emissions analyses after 2025 for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Note that the
Milwaukee area has approved motor
vehicle emission budgets for nitrogen
oxides (NOX), direct PM2.5, sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) for the year 2025
from the first maintenance plan that
must continue to be met in any
transportation conformity determination
made through the year 2025.7 In
addition, project-level conformity
requirements as well as the other
transportation conformity criteria
continue to apply with respect to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for conformity
determinations that occur through the
maintenance period, i.e., through 2034.8
We will complete the adequacy
determination process either in the final
action on this proposal or by notifying
the state in writing, publishing a notice
in the Federal Register and by posting
the finding on EPA’s adequacy web
page. See 40 CFR 93.118(f).
C. General Conformity Under LMP
Option
EPA’s general conformity program
requirements do not distinguish
between maintenance areas with an
approved LMP and those with an
approved ‘‘full maintenance plan,’’
which is developed and approved using
the long-standing methods that
demonstrate the area will maintain the
NAAQS. Thus, maintenance areas with
an approved LMP are subject to the
same general conformity requirements
under 40 CFR part 93, subpart B, as
those with a ‘‘full maintenance plan.’’
Both a ‘‘full maintenance plan’’ and an
LMP must be developed and approved
per the requirements of CAA section
175A.
III. EPA’s Analysis of the State’s
Submittal
A. Demonstration of Qualification for
the LMP Option
EPA redesignated the MilwaukeeRacine area from nonattainment to
attainment of the NAAQS on April 22,
2014 (79 FR 22415). This LMP was
developed as part of an interagency
consultation process which includes
Federal, state, and local agencies. Table
1 below shows the historical design
values for the area since the area was
redesignated in 2014.9 The 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS is attained when the 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations is equal to or less
than 35 mg/m3. As shown in table 1, the
area has been measuring air quality well
below the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
decreasing PM2.5 concentrations over
time. The design values at the
individual monitoring sites in the area
also measure air quality well below the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as shown in table 2.
TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES (DV) (μG/m3) FOR THE 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS IN THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE AREA SINCE
REDESIGNATION TO ATTAINMENT
[2013–2022]
Milwaukee-Racine
PM2.5 design value
Design value period
2011–2013
2012–2014
2013–2015
2014–2016
2015–2017
2016–2018
2017–2019
2018–2020
2019–2021
2020–2022
...................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................
27
27
25
24
22
21
22
22
23
24
TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES (DV) (μG/m3) FOR THE 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS AT MONITORING SITES IN THE MILWAUKEERACINE AREA
[2014–2022]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
AQS site ID
550790010
550790026
550790056
550790058
550790099
Site name
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
County
16th St. Health Center .......
Milw SER c ..........................
College Ave NR .................
College Ave P&R b .............
Milw Fire Dept a ..................
7 See
81 FR 8656 and 79 FR 22415.
40 CFR 93.102(b)(4) and Transportation
Conformity Guidance for Areas Reaching the End of
8 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
2014–
2016
2015–
2017
2016–
2018
2017–
2019
2018–
2020
2019–
2021
2020–
2022
24
20
............
23
* 23
22
19
............
20
* 23
20
20
............
19
............
21
21
22
* 19
............
21
21
21
............
............
23
............
22
............
............
24
............
22
............
............
the Maintenance Period (October 2014, EPA–420–
B–14–093).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9 See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values#map.
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
19522
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES (DV) (μG/m3) FOR THE 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS AT MONITORING SITES IN THE MILWAUKEERACINE AREA—Continued
[2014–2022]
2014–
2016
AQS site ID
Site name
County
551330027 .....
Cleveland Ave ....................
Waukesha ..........................
I
22
2015–
2017
I
21
2016–
2018
I
21
2017–
2019
I
22
2018–
2020
I
22
2019–
2021
I
23
2020–
2022
I
23
* 24-hr data did not meet completeness criteria. Associated DV’s are thus invalid.
a Milwaukee-Fire Dept. (550790099) shut down in 2017 and was replaced by Milwaukee-College Ave NR (550790056).
b Milwaukee-College Ave P&R (550790058) was shut down in October 2019.
c Milwaukee SER (550790026) was shut down in April 2021.
We propose to find that the
Milwaukee-Racine area meets the
critical design value demonstration for a
LMP. As noted above, the parameters of
the CDV calculation, outlined in the
PM2.5 LMP Guidance, include the level
of the relevant NAAQS, the co-efficient
of variation of recent design values, and
a statistical parameter corresponding to
a 10 percent probability of future
violation. The CDV demonstration is
designed such that if a site’s ADV is
lower than the site’s CDV, the
probability of a future violation of the
NAAQS is less than 10 percent.10 The
eligibility calculation equations for the
CDV demonstration are shown in Table
3. Table 4 below contains the CDV and
ADV for each monitor in the
Milwaukee-Racine area, including the
College Ave NR (monitor ID
550790056). EPA reviewed the data and
methodology provided by the state and
finds that each monitor’s 5-year average
design value is well below the
corresponding site-specific CDV.11
TABLE 3—ELIGIBILITY CALCULATION EQUATIONS
Critical Design Value ................................................................................
Coefficient of Variation .............................................................................
CDV = NAAQS/(1+(tC × CV)).
CV = s/ADV.
NAAQS = applicable standard (PM2.5 is 35 μg/m3).
tC = critical t-value.
s = standard deviation of design values.
TABLE 4—QUALIFICATION OF MONITORS FOR LMP IN THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE MAINTENANCE AREA IN μG/m3
[2016–2020]
Site name
Monitor
16th St. Health Center .....................................................................................
Milw SER .........................................................................................................
College Ave NR ...............................................................................................
Cleveland Ave .................................................................................................
ADV
(2016–2020)
550790010
550790026
1 550790056
551330027
21.6
20.2
21.75
21.6
CDV
(2016–2020)
31.6
32.9
33.8
33.7
Qualify for
LMP?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1 The ADV and CDV for this monitor were calculated using valid DV data from 2019 through 2022 due to monitor installation occurring in 2017
for the 2019 DV period. The monitor was installed to replace the Milwaukee-Fire Dept. monitor (Monitor ID 550790099) that was shut down in
2017 after two design value periods that did not meet data completeness criteria.
We also propose to find that
Wisconsin has adequately demonstrated
that it is unlikely there will be an
increase in motor vehicle emissions
growth sufficient to cause a NAAQS
violation in the Milwaukee-Racine
maintenance area. In the 2022 PM2.5
LMP Guidance, which was released
after Wisconsin submitted its SIP
revisions, EPA clarified that an area
submitting the second 10-year
maintenance plan may be eligible for
the LMP option as long as monitored air
quality data and VMT trends support
the LMP option. The state included both
air quality data and VMT trend data of
the maintenance area to satisfy
transportation conformity regulations
under an LMP option. The VMT
projections considered by Wisconsin
were based on transportation models
provided by both the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation (WDOT)
and Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC).
WDOT maintains a statewide travel
demand model that projects average
weekday VMT for each of the 72
counties in Wisconsin. WDOT provided
modeled VMT for the years 2017 and
2050 for the Milwaukee-Racine area.
WDNR linearly interpolated VMT
results between the 2017 and 2050
values to obtain values for 2034,
resulting in a 10.4 percent VMT growth
percentage for 2017 to 2034. SEWRPC
also has their own travel demand model
that covers their seven-county region,
which includes the Milwaukee-Racine
maintenance area. Wisconsin also
included in their submission the
SEWRPC modeled projections under a
high economic growth scenario from
2017 to 2035, showing a 13.6 percent
VMT growth percentage. Ultimately,
Wisconsin relied upon the highest VMT
growth calculated from the different
transportation models, at a VMT growth
of 13.6 percent. A LMP would have to
demonstrate that it would be
unreasonable to expect that such an area
would experience enough motor vehicle
emissions growth for a NAAQS
violation to occur. See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
10 See the ‘‘Example Site Calculation’’, page 7 of
the October 2022 PM2.5 LMP guidance (https://
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-10/
420b22044.pdf).
11 Two monitors in the Milwaukee-Racine
maintenance area were not included in the analysis
below. One of these monitors (Monitor ID
550790099) had invalid DV’s in 2016 and 2017
before being shut down, and one was shut down in
2019 (Monitor ID 550790058) and has valid DV’s
only through 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
EPA is proposing to conclude that the
higher VMT growth rate of 13.6 percent
between 2017 and 2035 would not cause
an exceedance of the CDV at the
monitors listed in table 4 and therefore,
that the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance
area would qualify for the LMP
option.12 Wisconsin’s submission
included an on-road PM2.5 emissions
analysis consistent with the
methodology provided in the 2001 PM10
LMP Guidance, because at the time of
the state’s submission, the PM2.5 LMP
Guidance had not yet been issued by
EPA. This specific on-road PM2.5
analysis is most critical for areas where
re-entrained road dust has been
identified as a significant contributor to
PM2.5 concentrations. Re-entrained road
dust was not determined to be a
significant contributor to PM2.5
concentrations in the Milwaukee-Racine
area. EPA evaluated the state’s analysis
as part of its consideration of whether
increases in VMT will lead to future
exceedances of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Based on that evaluation, EPA is
proposing to conclude that the results of
the analysis provide further evidence
that they will not. EPA is proposing to
approve the LMP for the MilwaukeeRacine area. Per 40 CFR 93.109(e) an
area is not required to satisfy the
regional emissions analysis for § 93.118
and/or § 93.119 for a given pollutant
and NAAQS, in this instance the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the first 10year maintenance plan included motor
vehicle emissions budgets for 2025.
Therefore, if 2025 is within the
timeframe of any transportation plan or
transportation improvement program
(TIP) and transportation conformity is
determined for that plan or TIP, a
regional emissions analysis is required
for 2025.
In addition to the VMT trends, the air
quality trends in the area provided in
the state’s submission (Table 1) also
support the LMP option. From the time
the area started attaining the NAAQS
(2014) through 2020, ambient PM2.5
concentrations have decreased
substantially. There has been a 19.5
percent decrease in the annual 98th
percentile PM2.5 concentrations in the
Milwaukee-Racine area during this time
period.13 Air quality trends from 2021
12 See ‘‘EPA_analysis_Milwaukee PM _
2.5
LMP.xlsx’’ provided in the docket of this
rulemaking.
13 Where available, 2020 and 2014 monitor data
was used at each monitoring site to compare the
percent decrease, averaged across the area. Where
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
and 2022 in table 1 also show ambient
PM2.5 concentrations well below the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The PM2.5 LMP guidance further notes
that, to the extent that the air agency is
submitting a second 10-year
maintenance plan for PM2.5, a record
showing that the area design value is
lower than the CDV, coupled with air
quality data demonstrating the area has
already been maintaining the NAAQS
for at least 8 years, provides EPA with
further confidence that the area will
continue to maintain the relevant PM2.5
standard. Given the current PM2.5 design
values in the area and the demonstrated
downward trend in PM2.5
concentrations over the last ten years,
and the state’s analysis of VMT trends
discussed above, we propose to find that
the state has adequately demonstrated
that, consistent with 40 CFR 93.109(e)
and the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, it would
be unreasonable to expect that the area
will experience a growth in motor
vehicle emissions sufficient to cause a
violation of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA therefore proposes to find that the
Milwaukee-Racine 2006 PM2.5
maintenance area meets the
qualification criteria set forth in the
PM2.5 LMP Guidance.
The following is a summary of EPA’s
interpretation of the section 175A
requirements and EPA’s evaluation of
how each requirement is met. Under the
LMP option, the state will be expected
to determine on a regular basis that the
criteria are still being met. If the state
determines that the LMP criteria are not
being met, it must take action to reduce
PM2.5 concentrations enough to
requalify. One possible approach the
state could take is to implement the
contingency measures contained in its
maintenance plan. See Section 6 of the
state’s submittal, placed in the docket
for this action, for a description of the
contingency measures. If the attempt to
reduce PM2.5 concentrations fails, or if
it succeeds but in future years it
becomes necessary again to address
increasing PM2.5 concentrations in an
area, the area will no longer qualify for
the LMP option.
B. Attainment Inventory
As noted above, states that qualify for
an LMP must still meet the other
2020 data was not available, the closest year prior
to 2020 with available data was used, and no earlier
than 2018. See ‘‘EPA_analysis_Milwaukee PM2.5_
LMP.xlsx’’ provided in the docket of this
rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19523
elements of a maintenance plan, as
articulated in the Calcagni Memo. This
includes an attainment year emissions
inventory.
WDNR’s Milwaukee-Racine PM2.5
LMP submission includes an emissions
inventory, with a base year of 2017. This
inventory was prepared as part of the
2017 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI),14 Version 2, under EPA’s Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (73 FR 76539,
December 17, 2008). The 2017 base year
represents the most recent emissions
inventory data available when the state
prepared the submissions, is
representative of the level of emissions
during the time that the area shows
monitored attainment of the NAAQS
and is consistent with the data used to
determine applicability of the LMP
option (i.e., having no violations of the
NAAQS during the 5-year period used
to calculate the design value). Table 5
shows the 2017 emissions of the
Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area in
tons per day included in the state’s
submission. EPA also considered
emissions from the 2020 NEI as shown
in table 6, as more recent emissions data
was subsequently available since
Wisconsin’s submission. The 2017 NEI
emissions from table 5 show slightly
overall higher emissions of certain
pollutants compared to the 2020 NEI
emissions from table 6 in the
Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area.
Some of the differences may be
attributed to changes and improvements
in the process and methods used for
estimating emissions while creating the
2020 NEI compared to 2017 methods.
Key process changes for the 2020 cycle
includes changes in pollutant, source
classification codes, and North
American Industry Classification
System codes, refined quality assurance
checks and features.15 In summary, the
2020 NEI updated emission methods
pertain to nonpoint solvent utilization,
nonpoint agricultural silage, nonpoint
asphalt paving, improved VOC and
PM2.5 speciation models, improvements
to residential wood combustion
emission factors and speciation, and
biogenic model updates.
14 See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-neidata.
15 See 2020 National Emissions Inventory
Technical Support Document: Overview (March
2023).
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
19524
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—2017 EMISSIONS (TONS PER DAY) FOR THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE MAINTENANCE AREA
Sector
PM2.5
SO2
NOX
VOC
Total
emissions
NH3
Milwaukee County Total ..................................................
Point ..........................................................................
Nonpoint ....................................................................
Onroad ......................................................................
Nonroad ....................................................................
Event .........................................................................
Waukesha County Total ..................................................
Point ..........................................................................
Nonpoint ....................................................................
Onroad ......................................................................
Nonroad ....................................................................
Event .........................................................................
Racine County Total ........................................................
Point ..........................................................................
Nonpoint ....................................................................
Onroad ......................................................................
Nonroad ....................................................................
Event .........................................................................
6.92
0.73
5.22
0.60
0.36
0.00
7.35
0.09
6.50
0.32
0.38
0.06
3.52
0.31
2.97
0.13
0.11
0.00
2.86
2.30
0.47
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.43
0.00
0.37
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.64
0.49
0.13
0.02
0.00
0.00
42.84
14.30
10.98
14.24
3.31
0.00
19.85
0.26
8.03
8.13
3.42
0.02
9.03
0.85
3.59
3.31
1.28
0.00
43.75
4.11
27.62
8.39
3.63
0.00
32.37
2.14
21.83
4.80
3.45
0.15
13.74
1.31
9.57
1.97
0.88
0.00
3.36
1.74
1.10
0.52
0.01
0.00
1.51
0.01
1.19
0.29
0.01
0.01
0.98
0.00
0.86
0.12
0.00
0.00
99.73
23.18
45.39
23.84
7.32
0.00
61.51
2.50
37.92
13.59
7.27
0.25
27.91
2.96
17.12
5.55
2.27
0.00
Milwaukee-Racine Maintenance Area Total ......
17.79
3.94
71.72
89.86
5.85
189.16
TABLE 6—2020 NEI EMISSIONS (TONS PER DAY) FOR THE MILWAUKEE-RACINE MAINTENANCE AREA
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Sector
PM2.5
SO2
NOX
VOC
NH3
Total
emissions
Milwaukee County Total ..............................................................
Point ......................................................................................
Nonpoint ................................................................................
Onroad ..................................................................................
Nonroad ................................................................................
Waukesha County Total ..............................................................
Point ......................................................................................
Nonpoint ................................................................................
Onroad ..................................................................................
Nonroad ................................................................................
Racine County Total ....................................................................
Point ......................................................................................
Nonpoint ................................................................................
Onroad ..................................................................................
Nonroad ................................................................................
8.52
0.92
6.89
0.39
0.32
8.73
0.12
8.08
0.20
0.33
4.07
0.38
3.52
0.09
0.09
2.20
1.89
0.26
0.05
0.00
0.37
0.04
0.29
0.03
0.00
0.60
0.48
0.11
0.01
0.00
34.29
12.21
9.16
10.08
2.84
15.10
0.48
6.36
5.38
2.88
7.21
0.91
2.91
2.34
1.05
44.89
3.63
32.53
5.23
3.49
34.41
1.85
26.51
2.76
3.29
17.48
1.08
14.37
1.22
0.81
2.20
0.09
1.66
0.44
0.01
2.34
0.01
2.07
0.26
0.01
1.31
0.00
1.20
0.11
0.00
92.09
18.74
50.50
16.19
6.67
60.95
2.50
43.32
8.63
6.51
30.67
2.85
22.10
3.77
1.96
Milwaukee-Racine Maintenance Area Total ..................
21.32
3.17
56.59
96.78
5.86
183.71
C. Air Quality Monitoring Network
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 the
attainment status of the area. WDNR
continues to operate a PM2.5 monitoring
network sited and maintained in
accordance with Federal siting and
design criteria in 40 CFR part 58, and in
consultation with EPA Region 5. WDNR
submitted the 2022–2023 Annual
Monitoring Network Plan,16 which EPA
approved on November 7, 2022.17
In its submission, WDNR details the
four existing EPA-approved PM2.5
16 See WDNR’s Air Monitoring website containing
the annual network plans at https://
dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/AirQuality/Monitor.html.
17 See EPA’S Approval Letter for WDNR’S 2022–
2023 Annual Network Monitoring Plan in the
docket of this rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
monitoring sites in the MilwaukeeRacine maintenance area. Consistent
with the EPA-approved WDNR annual
network plan, in order to meet the EPA
requirements at appendix D of 40 CFR
part 58, WDNR is required to maintain
a minimum of two monitors in the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Statistical
Area, including Milwaukee, Waukesha,
and West Allis counties based on
population criteria. EPA proposed to
find that the WDNR annual Air
Monitoring Network Plan is adequate to
verify the continued attainment of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the MilwaukeeRacine area.
D. Verification of Continued Attainment
The level of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
is 35 mg/m3. The NAAQS is attained
when the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
concentrations is equal to or less than
35 mg/m3 (40 CFR 50.6). As stated
previously, WDNR commits to continue
to operate a monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In
addition, WDNR commits to verifying
continued attainment of the PM2.5
standard through the maintenance plan
period with the operation of an
appropriate PM2.5 monitoring network.
In developing the second 10-year
maintenance plan, WDNR evaluated the
most recent three years of complete,
quality-assured data for the MilwaukeeRacine maintenance area at the time the
submissions were made (2018 through
2020) to verify continued attainment of
the standard. Air quality data from
2021, and air quality data from 2022
confirm continued attainment of the
standard as described in Table 1.
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
E. Contingency Provisions
CAA section 175A(d) states that a
maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to
ensure prompt correction of any
violation of the relevant NAAQS which
may occur after redesignation of the area
to attainment. As explained in the
Calcagni Memo, these contingency
provisions are an enforceable part of the
federally approved SIP. The
maintenance plan should clearly
identify the events that would ‘‘trigger’’
the adoption and implementation of a
contingency provision, the contingency
provision(s) that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule
indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the
provision(s). The Calcagni Memo states
that EPA will determine the adequacy of
a contingency plan on a case-by-case
basis. At a minimum, the plan must
require that the state implement all
measures contained in the CAA part D
nonattainment plan for the area prior to
redesignation.
In the Milwaukee-Racine PM2.5 LMP
submission, WDNR included
maintenance plan contingency
provisions to ensure the area will
continue to meet the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The submission describes a
process and a timeline to identify,
evaluate, and select the appropriate
contingency measure(s) from a list of
measures in the event of a violation of
the PM2.5 NAAQS. Wisconsin commits
to two levels of contingency response
that may be implemented to reduce
emissions, a ‘‘warning level response’’
and an ‘‘action level response’’ that are
initially prompted if the 98th percentile
24-hour PM2.5 concentration at any
monitoring site in the MilwaukeeRacine maintenance area shows a
renewed exceedance or violation,
respectively above the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. A warning level response will
initiate a study no later than 6 months
following data certification to assess
whether actual emissions have deviated
significantly from the emission
projections in the maintenance plan,
evaluate the sectors responsible for any
increases in precursor emissions,
evaluate the sectors and states
responsible for any increases in
precursor emissions transported to the
maintenance area, and determine if
unusual meteorological conditions or
exceptional events during the period led
to high PM2.5 concentrations. In the
event an action level response is
prompted, a study will be initiated no
later than 6 months following data
certification with the following factors:
level, distribution, and severity of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
ambient PM2.5 concentrations; weather
patterns contributing to PM2.5 levels;
potential contributing emissions
sources; geographic applicability of
possible contingency measures;
emissions trends including impact of
existing and forthcoming control
measures not yet implemented; current
and recently identified control
technologies; and air quality
contributions from outside the
maintenance area. See Section 6 of the
state’s LMP submission in the docket for
this action for further description of the
contingent response to triggering events.
The submission describes the
consultation from interested and
affected parties in the area that would
occur after a violation in order to
determine the control measures
necessary to assure attainment of the
NAAQS that can be implemented
within 18 months from the close of the
calendar year that prompted the
violation. EPA proposes to find that the
contingency provisions in the PM2.5
LMP for the Milwaukee-Racine 2006
PM2.5 maintenance area meet the
requirements of section 175A(d) of the
CAA.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve the
second 10-year PM2.5 LMP for the
Milwaukee-Racine 2006 PM2.5
maintenance area submitted by WDNR.
EPA’s review of the air quality data for
the maintenance area indicates that the
area continues to show attainment well
below the level of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and meets all the LMP
qualifying criteria as described in this
action. If finalized, EPA’s approval of
this LMP will satisfy the CAA section
175A requirements for the second 10year period for the Milwaukee-Racine
2006 PM2.5 maintenance area. EPA is
also initiating the process to determine
if the LMP is adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. As discussed in
section II.B, EPA may complete that
process either in its final action on the
LMP or through a separate process
provided for in the transportation
conformity regulations. See 40 CFR
93.118(f).
V. Environmental Justice
Considerations
To identify environmental burdens
and potentially susceptible populations
in the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance
area, EPA performed a screening-level
analysis using EPA’s environmental
justice (EJ) screening and mapping tool
(EJSCREEN).18 The results of EPA’s
screening analysis are being provided
18 See
PO 00000
https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19525
for informational and transparency
purposes, and EPA did not rely on these
findings in its action on Wisconsin’s
submissions. EPA utilized the
EJSCREEN tool to evaluate
environmental and demographic
indicators within each county contained
in the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance
area including Milwaukee, Racine, and
Waukesha counties. Each of the tool
output reports are contained in the
docket for this action. EPA’s screeninglevel analysis indicates that
communities affected by this action
score below the national average for the
EJSCREEN ‘‘Demographic Index’’,
which is the average of an area’s percent
minority and percent low-income
populations, i.e., the two demographic
indicators explicitly named in Executive
Order 12898 in Waukesha and Racine
counties, and the demographic index is
nine percent higher than the national
average. Additionally, the results
indicate that Racine and Waukesha
counties score below the 80th percentile
(in comparison to the Nation as a whole)
in the twelve EJ Indices established by
EPA, which include a combination of
environmental and demographic
information. Milwaukee county is above
the 80th percentile for the Traffic
Proximity, Lead Paint, and Hazardous
Waste Proximity EJ indices.19
This proposed action would approve
the 2nd 10-year maintenance plan as an
LMP submitted by Wisconsin for the
Milwaukee-Racine area. We expect that
this action, which would, among other
things, find that the state has adequately
provided for maintenance of the
NAAQS and approve the state’s
contingency plan to address any
potential violations of the NAAQS in
the future, will be generally neutral or
have a positive contribution to reduced
environmental and health impacts on all
populations in the Milwaukee-Racine
area, including people of color and lowincome populations. At a minimum,
this action would not worsen any
existing air quality and is expected to
ensure the area is meeting requirements
to maintain the air quality standards.
Further, there is no information in the
record indicating that this action is
expected to have disproportionately
high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on a particular
group of people.
19 See EPA’s EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation, available at https://gaftp.epa.gov/
EJSCREEN/2015/EJSCREEN_Technical_Document_
20150505.pdf for more information on these select
indices.
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
19526
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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 subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
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 rulemaking 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Mar 18, 2024
Jkt 262001
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
WDNR did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA performed an environmental
justice analysis, as is described above in
section V. titled, ‘‘Environmental Justice
Considerations.’’ The analysis was done
for the purpose of providing additional
context and information about this
rulemaking to the public, not as a basis
of the action. Due to the nature of the
action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected
area. In addition, there is no information
in the record upon which this decision
is based inconsistent with the stated
goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of
color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 13, 2024.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2024–05783 Filed 3–18–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0102;
FXES1111090FEDR–245–FF09E21000]
RIN 1018–BF72
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Bushy Whitlow-Wort and
Designation of Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the bushy whitlow-wort (Paronychia
congesta), a perennial herbaceous plant
species from northwestern Jim Hogg
County in south Texas, as an
endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). This determination also
serves as our 12-month finding on a
petition to list the bushy whitlow-wort.
After a review of the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we find that listing the species is
warranted. We also propose to designate
critical habitat for the bushy whitlowwort under the Act. In total,
approximately 41.96 acres (16.98
hectares) in Jim Hogg County, Texas, fall
within the boundaries of the proposed
critical habitat designation. We
announce the availability of a draft
economic analysis (DEA) of the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for bushy whitlow-wort. If we finalize
this rule as proposed, it would extend
the Act’s protections to the species and
its designated critical habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
May 20, 2024. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
eastern time on the closing date. We
must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by May 3, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R2–ES–2023–0102, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document
Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19519-19526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05783]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0369; FRL-11761-01-R5]
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Milwaukee Second 10-Year 2006 24-
Hour PM2.5 Limited Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the limited maintenance plan
(LMP) submitted on April 8, 2022, by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) for the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area
including Milwaukee, Waukesha, and Racine counties. The plan addresses
the second 10-year maintenance period for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5). EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's LMP
submission for Milwaukee-Racine because it provides for the maintenance
of the 2006 PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) through the end of the second 10-year portion of the
maintenance period. In addition, EPA is initiating the process to find
the Milwaukee-Racine PM2.5 LMP adequate for transportation
conformity purposes.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2022-0369 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: Cecilia Magos, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7336, [email protected]. The EPA Region 5
office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. The LMP Option
III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background
A. The PM2.5 NAAQS
PM2.5 is one of the criteria pollutants for which a
NAAQS is established to protect human health and the environment. In
1997, EPA established the first PM2.5 standards based on
significant scientific evidence and health studies demonstrating the
serious health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5.
EPA set an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\. In 2006, EPA
strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by revising it to 35
[mu]g/m\3\ and retained the level of the annual PM2.5
standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Subsequently, in 2012, EPA established an
annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS at 12 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/m\3\. In 2024, EPA
revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 9.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and
retained the level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 35
[mu]g/m\3\.
B. Regulatory Actions in Milwaukee-Racine
On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA designated the Milwaukee-
Racine area as a PM2.5 nonattainment area due to measured
violations of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On June 8, 2012,
supplemented on May 30, 2013, WDNR submitted to EPA a request to
redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area, to attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submission included a plan to
provide for maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the area
for 10 years. EPA redesignated the Milwaukee-Racine area on April 22,
2014 (79 FR 22415),and approved the associated maintenance plan into
the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose of WDNR'S
April 8, 2022, LMP submission is to fulfill the second 10-year planning
requirement of CAA section 175A(b) to ensure PM2.5 NAAQS
compliance through 2034.
II. The LMP Option
A. Demonstration of Maintenance Using the LMP Option
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan. Under section 175A, a state must submit a revision to the SIP
that provides for maintenance of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after an area is redesignated to attainment. Section 175A also
requires that eight years into the first maintenance period, the state
must submit a second maintenance plan demonstrating that the area will
continue to attain for the following 10-year period.
EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.\1\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by
[[Page 19520]]
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). EPA clarified in
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 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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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).
\2\ 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'' (PM10 LMP Guidance)
from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these
guidance memoranda can be found in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, in October 2022, EPA released guidance extending
this streamlined option for demonstrating maintenance under CAA section
175A to certain PM2.5 areas, titled ``Guidance on Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas and PM2.5 Maintenance Areas'' (PM2.5 LMP
Guidance).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The guidance document developed by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and the Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, within the Office of Air and Radiation, titled ``Guidance
on the Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM2.5
Nonattainment Areas and PM2.5 Maintenance Areas'' can be
found at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1015UL4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA refers to this streamlined demonstration of maintenance as an
LMP. EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting this option
because CAA section 175A defines few specific content requirements for
maintenance plans and, in EPA's experience implementing the various
NAAQS, areas that qualify for an LMP or have approved LMPs have rarely,
if ever, experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS. As noted in
the PM2.5 LMP guidance, states seeking an LMP should 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 network,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan in the
event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, states seeking an
LMP must still submit their section 175A maintenance plan as a revision
to their state implementation plan, with all attendant notice and
comment procedures.
The PM2.5 LMP Guidance, which contains requirements
similar to those for an LMP under the PM10 LMP Guidance,
allows states to demonstrate that areas qualify for an LMP by showing
that, based on their recent measured air quality, they are unlikely to
violate the NAAQS in the future.
Specifically, the PM2.5 LMP Guidance relies on the
critical design value (CDV) concept. The Guidance directs states to
calculate a site-specific CDV for the monitoring site with the highest
design value in the area, and also for all other active monitoring
sites in the area with complete data. The Guidance states that areas
should show that the average design value (ADV) for each monitoring
site in the area, i.e., the average of at least the most recent
consecutive five years of PM2.5 design values, does not
exceed the associated CDV for each site.\4\ The CDV calculation for a
monitoring site involves parameters including: (1) the level of the
relevant NAAQS; (2) the co-efficient of variation of recent design
values measured at that site; and (3) a statistical parameter
corresponding to a 10 percent probability of exceedance, such that
sites with historically high variability in DVs result in a lower (or
more stringent) CDV. Evaluating if the ADV for each monitoring site in
the area is below the CDV demonstrates that the probability of a future
exceedance, based on the area's historical air quality and variability,
is less than 10 percent. Per EPA's transportation conformity
regulations, areas with LMPs must also ``demonstrate that it would be
unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience enough motor
vehicle emissions growth for a NAAQS violation to occur.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA recommends that the ADV be calculated using at least
five years of design values, each representing a three-year period,
because this approach would rely on a more robust data set. However,
we acknowledge that an alternative interpretation may be acceptable
where these variables could be calculated using three years of
design values, collectively representing five years of air quality
data.
\5\ 40 CFR 93.109(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Transportation Conformity Under the LMP Option
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Under that provision, conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or
any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any
area. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B). EPA's transportation conformity
rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, establishes the criteria and
procedures to determine whether metropolitan transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs, and federally supported highway
and transit projects conform to the purpose of the SIP. Transportation
conformity applies for transportation-related criteria pollutants in
nonattainment areas and redesignated attainment areas with a CAA
section 175A maintenance plan (i.e., maintenance areas).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In addition to PM2.5, the criteria pollutants for
which transportation conformity applies include ozone, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to 10 micrometers, and nitrogen dioxide. See 40 CFR
93.102(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While qualification for the LMP option does not exempt an area from
the need to determine conformity, in an area with an LMP, conformity
may be demonstrated without a regional emissions analysis for the
relevant NAAQS and pollutant (40 CFR 93.109(e)). An LMP must
demonstrate that it is unreasonable to expect that the area would
experience so much growth in on-road emissions during the maintenance
period that a violation of the relevant NAAQS would occur. See 40 CFR
93.109(e). Hence, because no such impact is expected, areas with LMPs
are not required to do a regional emissions analysis as part of a
transportation conformity determination. See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
While areas with maintenance plans approved or found adequate under
the LMP option are not required to do a regional emissions analysis
(and are not subject to the budget test in 40 CFR 93.118), the areas
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of
40 CFR part 93, subpart A, including fulfilling project-level
conformity requirements and consultation requirements.
The PM2.5 LMP Guidance notes that an LMP may be
particularly appropriate for a second maintenance plan, as the area
will have demonstrated attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS for at
least 8 years. To demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect
that the area would experience enough motor vehicle growth for a NAAQS
violation to occur, the guidance states that an LMP submission for an
area's second maintenance plan should address the area's
PM2.5 air quality trends and the historical and projected
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Further, if re-entrained road dust has
been found to be significant for PM2.5 transportation
[[Page 19521]]
conformity purposes under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), the plan should include
an on-road PM2.5 emissions analysis consistent with the
methodology provided in Attachment B of the PM10 LMP
Guidance, included in the appendix for the PM2.5 LMP
Guidance, along with the discussion in the PM2.5 LMP
Guidance itself. If the on-road PM2.5 emissions analysis is
necessary, it would include a demonstration that for each monitoring
site in the area, the ADV plus the expected on-road emissions growth
estimate does not exceed the CDV.
In addition to the proposed action, EPA is notifying the public
that the Agency is initiating the adequacy process for the Milwaukee-
Racine LMP. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). In the case of an LMP, EPA's
adequacy review is to assess whether the demonstration required by 40
CFR 93.109(e) is met. Any comments on the adequacy of the submitted LMP
for the Milwaukee-Racine area should be submitted to the docket
established for this rulemaking. If EPA approves the second 10-year
maintenance plan as an LMP or finds the submission adequate, the
Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area will not be required to perform
regional emissions analyses after 2025 for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Note that the Milwaukee area has approved motor vehicle emission
budgets for nitrogen oxides (NOX), direct PM2.5,
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
for the year 2025 from the first maintenance plan that must continue to
be met in any transportation conformity determination made through the
year 2025.\7\ In addition, project-level conformity requirements as
well as the other transportation conformity criteria continue to apply
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for conformity
determinations that occur through the maintenance period, i.e., through
2034.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 81 FR 8656 and 79 FR 22415.
\8\ See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(4) and Transportation Conformity
Guidance for Areas Reaching the End of the Maintenance Period
(October 2014, EPA-420-B-14-093).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will complete the adequacy determination process either in the
final action on this proposal or by notifying the state in writing,
publishing a notice in the Federal Register and by posting the finding
on EPA's adequacy web page. See 40 CFR 93.118(f).
C. General Conformity Under LMP Option
EPA's general conformity program requirements do not distinguish
between maintenance areas with an approved LMP and those with an
approved ``full maintenance plan,'' which is developed and approved
using the long-standing methods that demonstrate the area will maintain
the NAAQS. Thus, maintenance areas with an approved LMP are subject to
the same general conformity requirements under 40 CFR part 93, subpart
B, as those with a ``full maintenance plan.'' Both a ``full maintenance
plan'' and an LMP must be developed and approved per the requirements
of CAA section 175A.
III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal
A. Demonstration of Qualification for the LMP Option
EPA redesignated the Milwaukee-Racine area from nonattainment to
attainment of the NAAQS on April 22, 2014 (79 FR 22415). This LMP was
developed as part of an interagency consultation process which includes
Federal, state, and local agencies. Table 1 below shows the historical
design values for the area since the area was redesignated in 2014.\9\
The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations is equal
to or less than 35 [micro]g/m\3\. As shown in table 1, the area has
been measuring air quality well below the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
with decreasing PM2.5 concentrations over time. The design
values at the individual monitoring sites in the area also measure air
quality well below the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as shown in table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#map.
Table 1--Design Values (DV) ([micro]g/m\3\) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the Milwaukee-Racine Area Since Redesignation to Attainment
[2013-2022]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee-Racine
Design value period PM2.5 design value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011-2013........................................... 27
2012-2014........................................... 27
2013-2015........................................... 25
2014-2016........................................... 24
2015-2017........................................... 22
2016-2018........................................... 21
2017-2019........................................... 22
2018-2020........................................... 22
2019-2021........................................... 23
2020-2022........................................... 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Design Values (DV) ([micro]g/m\3\) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at Monitoring Sites in the Milwaukee-Racine Area
[2014-2022]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQS site ID Site name County 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018 2017-2019 2018-2020 2019-2021 2020-2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
550790010................. 16th St. Health Center. Milwaukee............. 24 22 20 21 21 23 24
550790026................. Milw SER \c\........... Milwaukee............. 20 19 20 21 21 ......... .........
550790056................. College Ave NR......... Milwaukee............. ......... ......... ......... 22 21 22 22
550790058................. College Ave P&R \b\.... Milwaukee............. 23 20 19 * 19 ......... ......... .........
550790099................. Milw Fire Dept \a\..... Milwaukee............. * 23 * 23 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
[[Page 19522]]
551330027................. Cleveland Ave.......... Waukesha.............. 22 21 21 22 22 23 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 24-hr data did not meet completeness criteria. Associated DV's are thus invalid.
\a\ Milwaukee-Fire Dept. (550790099) shut down in 2017 and was replaced by Milwaukee-College Ave NR (550790056).
\b\ Milwaukee-College Ave P&R (550790058) was shut down in October 2019.
\c\ Milwaukee SER (550790026) was shut down in April 2021.
We propose to find that the Milwaukee-Racine area meets the
critical design value demonstration for a LMP. As noted above, the
parameters of the CDV calculation, outlined in the PM2.5 LMP
Guidance, include the level of the relevant NAAQS, the co-efficient of
variation of recent design values, and a statistical parameter
corresponding to a 10 percent probability of future violation. The CDV
demonstration is designed such that if a site's ADV is lower than the
site's CDV, the probability of a future violation of the NAAQS is less
than 10 percent.\10\ The eligibility calculation equations for the CDV
demonstration are shown in Table 3. Table 4 below contains the CDV and
ADV for each monitor in the Milwaukee-Racine area, including the
College Ave NR (monitor ID 550790056). EPA reviewed the data and
methodology provided by the state and finds that each monitor's 5-year
average design value is well below the corresponding site-specific
CDV.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See the ``Example Site Calculation'', page 7 of the October
2022 PM2.5 LMP guidance (https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-10/420b22044.pdf).
\11\ Two monitors in the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area were
not included in the analysis below. One of these monitors (Monitor
ID 550790099) had invalid DV's in 2016 and 2017 before being shut
down, and one was shut down in 2019 (Monitor ID 550790058) and has
valid DV's only through 2018.
Table 3--Eligibility Calculation Equations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Design Value.................. CDV = NAAQS/(1+(tC x CV)).
Coefficient of Variation............... CV = [sigma]/ADV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAAQS = applicable standard (PM2.5 is 35 [micro]g/m\3\).
tC = critical t-value.
[sigma] = standard deviation of design values.
Table 4--Qualification of Monitors for LMP in the Milwaukee-Racine Maintenance Area in [micro]g/m\3\
[2016-2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADV (2016- CDV (2016-
Site name Monitor 2020) 2020) Qualify for LMP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16th St. Health Center.............. 550790010 21.6 31.6 Yes.
Milw SER............................ 550790026 20.2 32.9 Yes.
College Ave NR...................... \1\ 550790056 21.75 33.8 Yes.
Cleveland Ave....................... 551330027 21.6 33.7 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ADV and CDV for this monitor were calculated using valid DV data from 2019 through 2022 due to monitor
installation occurring in 2017 for the 2019 DV period. The monitor was installed to replace the Milwaukee-Fire
Dept. monitor (Monitor ID 550790099) that was shut down in 2017 after two design value periods that did not
meet data completeness criteria.
We also propose to find that Wisconsin has adequately demonstrated
that it is unlikely there will be an increase in motor vehicle
emissions growth sufficient to cause a NAAQS violation in the
Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area. In the 2022 PM2.5 LMP
Guidance, which was released after Wisconsin submitted its SIP
revisions, EPA clarified that an area submitting the second 10-year
maintenance plan may be eligible for the LMP option as long as
monitored air quality data and VMT trends support the LMP option. The
state included both air quality data and VMT trend data of the
maintenance area to satisfy transportation conformity regulations under
an LMP option. The VMT projections considered by Wisconsin were based
on transportation models provided by both the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation (WDOT) and Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (SEWRPC). WDOT maintains a statewide travel demand model
that projects average weekday VMT for each of the 72 counties in
Wisconsin. WDOT provided modeled VMT for the years 2017 and 2050 for
the Milwaukee-Racine area. WDNR linearly interpolated VMT results
between the 2017 and 2050 values to obtain values for 2034, resulting
in a 10.4 percent VMT growth percentage for 2017 to 2034. SEWRPC also
has their own travel demand model that covers their seven-county
region, which includes the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area. Wisconsin
also included in their submission the SEWRPC modeled projections under
a high economic growth scenario from 2017 to 2035, showing a 13.6
percent VMT growth percentage. Ultimately, Wisconsin relied upon the
highest VMT growth calculated from the different transportation models,
at a VMT growth of 13.6 percent. A LMP would have to demonstrate that
it would be unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience
enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a NAAQS violation to occur.
See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
[[Page 19523]]
EPA is proposing to conclude that the higher VMT growth rate of 13.6
percent between 2017 and 2035 would not cause an exceedance of the CDV
at the monitors listed in table 4 and therefore, that the Milwaukee-
Racine maintenance area would qualify for the LMP option.\12\
Wisconsin's submission included an on-road PM2.5 emissions
analysis consistent with the methodology provided in the 2001
PM10 LMP Guidance, because at the time of the state's
submission, the PM2.5 LMP Guidance had not yet been issued
by EPA. This specific on-road PM2.5 analysis is most
critical for areas where re-entrained road dust has been identified as
a significant contributor to PM2.5 concentrations. Re-
entrained road dust was not determined to be a significant contributor
to PM2.5 concentrations in the Milwaukee-Racine area. EPA
evaluated the state's analysis as part of its consideration of whether
increases in VMT will lead to future exceedances of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on that evaluation, EPA is proposing to
conclude that the results of the analysis provide further evidence that
they will not. EPA is proposing to approve the LMP for the Milwaukee-
Racine area. Per 40 CFR 93.109(e) an area is not required to satisfy
the regional emissions analysis for Sec. 93.118 and/or Sec. 93.119
for a given pollutant and NAAQS, in this instance the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the first 10-year maintenance plan
included motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2025. Therefore, if 2025
is within the timeframe of any transportation plan or transportation
improvement program (TIP) and transportation conformity is determined
for that plan or TIP, a regional emissions analysis is required for
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See ``EPA_analysis_Milwaukee PM2.5_LMP.xlsx''
provided in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the VMT trends, the air quality trends in the area
provided in the state's submission (Table 1) also support the LMP
option. From the time the area started attaining the NAAQS (2014)
through 2020, ambient PM2.5 concentrations have decreased
substantially. There has been a 19.5 percent decrease in the annual
98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations in the Milwaukee-Racine
area during this time period.\13\ Air quality trends from 2021 and 2022
in table 1 also show ambient PM2.5 concentrations well below
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Where available, 2020 and 2014 monitor data was used at
each monitoring site to compare the percent decrease, averaged
across the area. Where 2020 data was not available, the closest year
prior to 2020 with available data was used, and no earlier than
2018. See ``EPA_analysis_Milwaukee PM2.5_LMP.xlsx''
provided in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5 LMP guidance further notes that, to the extent
that the air agency is submitting a second 10-year maintenance plan for
PM2.5, a record showing that the area design value is lower
than the CDV, coupled with air quality data demonstrating the area has
already been maintaining the NAAQS for at least 8 years, provides EPA
with further confidence that the area will continue to maintain the
relevant PM2.5 standard. Given the current PM2.5
design values in the area and the demonstrated downward trend in
PM2.5 concentrations over the last ten years, and the
state's analysis of VMT trends discussed above, we propose to find that
the state has adequately demonstrated that, consistent with 40 CFR
93.109(e) and the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, it would be
unreasonable to expect that the area will experience a growth in motor
vehicle emissions sufficient to cause a violation of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore proposes to find that the
Milwaukee-Racine 2006 PM2.5 maintenance area meets the
qualification criteria set forth in the PM2.5 LMP Guidance.
The following is a summary of EPA's interpretation of the section
175A requirements and EPA's evaluation of how each requirement is met.
Under the LMP option, the state will be expected to determine on a
regular basis that the criteria are still being met. If the state
determines that the LMP criteria are not being met, it must take action
to reduce PM2.5 concentrations enough to requalify. One
possible approach the state could take is to implement the contingency
measures contained in its maintenance plan. See Section 6 of the
state's submittal, placed in the docket for this action, for a
description of the contingency measures. If the attempt to reduce
PM2.5 concentrations fails, or if it succeeds but in future
years it becomes necessary again to address increasing PM2.5
concentrations in an area, the area will no longer qualify for the LMP
option.
B. Attainment Inventory
As noted above, states that qualify for an LMP must still meet the
other elements of a maintenance plan, as articulated in the Calcagni
Memo. This includes an attainment year emissions inventory.
WDNR's Milwaukee-Racine PM2.5 LMP submission includes an
emissions inventory, with a base year of 2017. This inventory was
prepared as part of the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI),\14\
Version 2, under EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (73 FR 76539,
December 17, 2008). The 2017 base year represents the most recent
emissions inventory data available when the state prepared the
submissions, is representative of the level of emissions during the
time that the area shows monitored attainment of the NAAQS and is
consistent with the data used to determine applicability of the LMP
option (i.e., having no violations of the NAAQS during the 5-year
period used to calculate the design value). Table 5 shows the 2017
emissions of the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area in tons per day
included in the state's submission. EPA also considered emissions from
the 2020 NEI as shown in table 6, as more recent emissions data was
subsequently available since Wisconsin's submission. The 2017 NEI
emissions from table 5 show slightly overall higher emissions of
certain pollutants compared to the 2020 NEI emissions from table 6 in
the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area. Some of the differences may be
attributed to changes and improvements in the process and methods used
for estimating emissions while creating the 2020 NEI compared to 2017
methods. Key process changes for the 2020 cycle includes changes in
pollutant, source classification codes, and North American Industry
Classification System codes, refined quality assurance checks and
features.\15\ In summary, the 2020 NEI updated emission methods pertain
to nonpoint solvent utilization, nonpoint agricultural silage, nonpoint
asphalt paving, improved VOC and PM2.5 speciation models,
improvements to residential wood combustion emission factors and
speciation, and biogenic model updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
\15\ See 2020 National Emissions Inventory Technical Support
Document: Overview (March 2023).
[[Page 19524]]
Table 5--2017 Emissions (Tons per Day) for the Milwaukee-Racine Maintenance Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3 Total emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee County Total........... 6.92 2.86 42.84 43.75 3.36 99.73
Point........................ 0.73 2.30 14.30 4.11 1.74 23.18
Nonpoint..................... 5.22 0.47 10.98 27.62 1.10 45.39
Onroad....................... 0.60 0.09 14.24 8.39 0.52 23.84
Nonroad...................... 0.36 0.01 3.31 3.63 0.01 7.32
Event........................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waukesha County Total............ 7.35 0.43 19.85 32.37 1.51 61.51
Point........................ 0.09 0.00 0.26 2.14 0.01 2.50
Nonpoint..................... 6.50 0.37 8.03 21.83 1.19 37.92
Onroad....................... 0.32 0.05 8.13 4.80 0.29 13.59
Nonroad...................... 0.38 0.01 3.42 3.45 0.01 7.27
Event........................ 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.25
Racine County Total.............. 3.52 0.64 9.03 13.74 0.98 27.91
Point........................ 0.31 0.49 0.85 1.31 0.00 2.96
Nonpoint..................... 2.97 0.13 3.59 9.57 0.86 17.12
Onroad....................... 0.13 0.02 3.31 1.97 0.12 5.55
Nonroad...................... 0.11 0.00 1.28 0.88 0.00 2.27
Event........................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee-Racine 17.79 3.94 71.72 89.86 5.85 189.16
Maintenance Area Total..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--2020 NEI Emissions (Tons per Day) for the Milwaukee-Racine Maintenance Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Sector PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3 emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee County Total.................. 8.52 2.20 34.29 44.89 2.20 92.09
Point............................... 0.92 1.89 12.21 3.63 0.09 18.74
Nonpoint............................ 6.89 0.26 9.16 32.53 1.66 50.50
Onroad.............................. 0.39 0.05 10.08 5.23 0.44 16.19
Nonroad............................. 0.32 0.00 2.84 3.49 0.01 6.67
Waukesha County Total................... 8.73 0.37 15.10 34.41 2.34 60.95
Point............................... 0.12 0.04 0.48 1.85 0.01 2.50
Nonpoint............................ 8.08 0.29 6.36 26.51 2.07 43.32
Onroad.............................. 0.20 0.03 5.38 2.76 0.26 8.63
Nonroad............................. 0.33 0.00 2.88 3.29 0.01 6.51
Racine County Total..................... 4.07 0.60 7.21 17.48 1.31 30.67
Point............................... 0.38 0.48 0.91 1.08 0.00 2.85
Nonpoint............................ 3.52 0.11 2.91 14.37 1.20 22.10
Onroad.............................. 0.09 0.01 2.34 1.22 0.11 3.77
Nonroad............................. 0.09 0.00 1.05 0.81 0.00 1.96
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee-Racine Maintenance 21.32 3.17 56.59 96.78 5.86 183.71
Area Total.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Air Quality Monitoring Network
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 the attainment status of the area. WDNR continues to operate a
PM2.5 monitoring network sited and maintained in accordance
with Federal siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 58, and in
consultation with EPA Region 5. WDNR submitted the 2022-2023 Annual
Monitoring Network Plan,\16\ which EPA approved on November 7,
2022.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See WDNR's Air Monitoring website containing the annual
network plans at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/AirQuality/Monitor.html.
\17\ See EPA'S Approval Letter for WDNR'S 2022-2023 Annual
Network Monitoring Plan in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its submission, WDNR details the four existing EPA-approved
PM2.5 monitoring sites in the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance
area. Consistent with the EPA-approved WDNR annual network plan, in
order to meet the EPA requirements at appendix D of 40 CFR part 58,
WDNR is required to maintain a minimum of two monitors in the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Statistical Area, including Milwaukee, Waukesha, and West
Allis counties based on population criteria. EPA proposed to find that
the WDNR annual Air Monitoring Network Plan is adequate to verify the
continued attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Milwaukee-Racine area.
D. Verification of Continued Attainment
The level of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is 35 [micro]g/m\3\.
The NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations is equal to or less than 35
[micro]g/m\3\ (40 CFR 50.6). As stated previously, WDNR commits to
continue to operate a monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. In addition, WDNR commits to verifying continued attainment of the
PM2.5 standard through the maintenance plan period with the
operation of an appropriate PM2.5 monitoring network. In
developing the second 10-year maintenance plan, WDNR evaluated the most
recent three years of complete, quality-assured data for the Milwaukee-
Racine maintenance area at the time the submissions were made (2018
through 2020) to verify continued attainment of the standard. Air
quality data from 2021, and air quality data from 2022 confirm
continued attainment of the standard as described in Table 1.
[[Page 19525]]
E. Contingency Provisions
CAA section 175A(d) states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of
any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after redesignation
of the area to attainment. As explained in the Calcagni Memo, these
contingency provisions are an enforceable part of the federally
approved SIP. The maintenance plan should clearly identify the events
that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency
provision, the contingency provision(s) that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the provision(s). The Calcagni Memo
states that EPA will determine the adequacy of a contingency plan on a
case-by-case basis. At a minimum, the plan must require that the state
implement all measures contained in the CAA part D nonattainment plan
for the area prior to redesignation.
In the Milwaukee-Racine PM2.5 LMP submission, WDNR
included maintenance plan contingency provisions to ensure the area
will continue to meet the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submission
describes a process and a timeline to identify, evaluate, and select
the appropriate contingency measure(s) from a list of measures in the
event of a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Wisconsin commits
to two levels of contingency response that may be implemented to reduce
emissions, a ``warning level response'' and an ``action level
response'' that are initially prompted if the 98th percentile 24-hour
PM2.5 concentration at any monitoring site in the Milwaukee-
Racine maintenance area shows a renewed exceedance or violation,
respectively above the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. A warning level
response will initiate a study no later than 6 months following data
certification to assess whether actual emissions have deviated
significantly from the emission projections in the maintenance plan,
evaluate the sectors responsible for any increases in precursor
emissions, evaluate the sectors and states responsible for any
increases in precursor emissions transported to the maintenance area,
and determine if unusual meteorological conditions or exceptional
events during the period led to high PM2.5 concentrations.
In the event an action level response is prompted, a study will be
initiated no later than 6 months following data certification with the
following factors: level, distribution, and severity of ambient
PM2.5 concentrations; weather patterns contributing to
PM2.5 levels; potential contributing emissions sources;
geographic applicability of possible contingency measures; emissions
trends including impact of existing and forthcoming control measures
not yet implemented; current and recently identified control
technologies; and air quality contributions from outside the
maintenance area. See Section 6 of the state's LMP submission in the
docket for this action for further description of the contingent
response to triggering events. The submission describes the
consultation from interested and affected parties in the area that
would occur after a violation in order to determine the control
measures necessary to assure attainment of the NAAQS that can be
implemented within 18 months from the close of the calendar year that
prompted the violation. EPA proposes to find that the contingency
provisions in the PM2.5 LMP for the Milwaukee-Racine 2006
PM2.5 maintenance area meet the requirements of section
175A(d) of the CAA.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year PM2.5 LMP
for the Milwaukee-Racine 2006 PM2.5 maintenance area
submitted by WDNR. EPA's review of the air quality data for the
maintenance area indicates that the area continues to show attainment
well below the level of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and meets all
the LMP qualifying criteria as described in this action. If finalized,
EPA's approval of this LMP will satisfy the CAA section 175A
requirements for the second 10-year period for the Milwaukee-Racine
2006 PM2.5 maintenance area. EPA is also initiating the
process to determine if the LMP is adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. As discussed in section II.B, EPA may complete
that process either in its final action on the LMP or through a
separate process provided for in the transportation conformity
regulations. See 40 CFR 93.118(f).
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
To identify environmental burdens and potentially susceptible
populations in the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area, EPA performed a
screening-level analysis using EPA's environmental justice (EJ)
screening and mapping tool (EJSCREEN).\18\ The results of EPA's
screening analysis are being provided for informational and
transparency purposes, and EPA did not rely on these findings in its
action on Wisconsin's submissions. EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool to
evaluate environmental and demographic indicators within each county
contained in the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area including Milwaukee,
Racine, and Waukesha counties. Each of the tool output reports are
contained in the docket for this action. EPA's screening-level analysis
indicates that communities affected by this action score below the
national average for the EJSCREEN ``Demographic Index'', which is the
average of an area's percent minority and percent low-income
populations, i.e., the two demographic indicators explicitly named in
Executive Order 12898 in Waukesha and Racine counties, and the
demographic index is nine percent higher than the national average.
Additionally, the results indicate that Racine and Waukesha counties
score below the 80th percentile (in comparison to the Nation as a
whole) in the twelve EJ Indices established by EPA, which include a
combination of environmental and demographic information. Milwaukee
county is above the 80th percentile for the Traffic Proximity, Lead
Paint, and Hazardous Waste Proximity EJ indices.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
\19\ See EPA's EJSCREEN Technical Documentation, available at
https://gaftp.epa.gov/EJSCREEN/2015/EJSCREEN_Technical_Document_20150505.pdf for more information on
these select indices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed action would approve the 2nd 10-year maintenance plan
as an LMP submitted by Wisconsin for the Milwaukee-Racine area. We
expect that this action, which would, among other things, find that the
state has adequately provided for maintenance of the NAAQS and approve
the state's contingency plan to address any potential violations of the
NAAQS in the future, will be generally neutral or have a positive
contribution to reduced environmental and health impacts on all
populations in the Milwaukee-Racine area, including people of color and
low-income populations. At a minimum, this action would not worsen any
existing air quality and is expected to ensure the area is meeting
requirements to maintain the air quality standards. Further, there is
no information in the record indicating that this action is expected to
have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental
effects on a particular group of people.
[[Page 19526]]
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
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 rulemaking 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
WDNR did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA performed an environmental
justice analysis, as is described above in section V. titled,
``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' The analysis was done for the
purpose of providing additional context and information about this
rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the
nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have
a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this
decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 13, 2024.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2024-05783 Filed 3-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
