Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; New Haven and Fairfield Counties Second 10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard, 79189-79195 [2024-22114]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Dated: September 23, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2024–22115 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2024–0117; FRL–12283–
01–R1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; New
Haven and Fairfield Counties Second
10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan for
the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard
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) for the
2006 PM2.5 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for New Haven and
Fairfield Counties, which comprise the
Connecticut portion of the New York-N.
New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT)
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance area.
This LMP was submitted on May 9,
2023, and supplemented on February
21, 2024, by the Connecticut
Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP).
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, known as PM2.5. EPA is
proposing approval of Connecticut’s
LMP submission because it provides for
the maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS through the end of the
second 10-year portion of the
maintenance period. In addition, EPA is
initiating the process to find the
Connecticut PM2.5 LMP adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 28, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2024–0117 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
martinelli.ayla@gmail.com. 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, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that, if possible, you contact
the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID–19.
Ayla
Martinelli, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite
100, (Mail code 5–MI), Boston, MA
02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1057, email
martinelli.ayla@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)
B. Regulatory Actions in New Haven and
Fairfield Counties
II. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option
A. Demonstration of Maintenance Using
the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
B. Transportation Conformity Under
Limited Maintenance Plan Option
C. General Conformity Under Limited
Maintenance Plan Option
III. EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Submittal
A. Demonstration of Qualification for the
Limited Maintenance Plan Option
B. Attainment Inventory
C. Air Quality Monitoring Network
D. Verification of Continued Attainment
E. Contingency Provisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
79189
I. Background and Purpose
A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)
EPA has established NAAQS for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers, known as PM2.5, 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 (mg/m3) and
a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 mg/
m3. In 2006, EPA strengthened the 24hour 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
12.0 mg/m3 and retained the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 mg/m3. In early
2024, EPA strengthened the level of the
annual primary PM2.5 standard to 9.0 mg/
m3 and retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS at 35 mg/m3.
B. Regulatory Actions in New Haven
and Fairfield Counties
Hereafter, ‘‘New Haven-Fairfield’’
means the Connecticut portion of the
NY-NJ-CT maintenance area which is
comprised of New Haven and Fairfield
Counties. EPA promulgated the
designations for New Haven-Fairfield as
a PM2.5 nonattainment area for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS on January 5,
2005 (70 FR 944) and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688) on
November 13, 2009, due to measured
violations of the standards. These
designations became effective on April
5, 2005, and December 14, 2009,
respectively. On June 22, 2012, CT
DEEP submitted a request to EPA to
redesignate the New Haven- Fairfield
nonattainment area to attainment of
both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal included
a maintenance plan to provide for
maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the
area for 10 years. EPA redesignated New
Haven-Fairfield to attainment for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on
October 24, 2013 (78 FR 58467) and
approved the associated maintenance
plan into the Connecticut State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose
of CT DEEP’s May 9, 2023
(supplemented on February 21, 2024)
LMP submission is to fulfill the second
10-year planning requirement of CAA
section 175A(b), thus ensuring PM2.5
NAAQS compliance through the end of
the maintenance period.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
79190
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules
In the LMP submittal, CT DEEP
indicates that it is seeking approval of
the LMP for both the 2006 24-hour
standard as well as the 1997 annual
standard. However, as explained in the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule (81 FR
58009), a second 10-year maintenance
plan for the revoked 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS is not required. Therefore, CT
DEEP clarified via email that it
incorrectly sought approval of the plan
for the revoked 1997 annual standard
and asked that EPA ignore the request
for approval of the plan for this
standard. The email, sent on July 7,
2023, can be found in the docket of this
action. Thus, EPA will only proceed
with proposing approval of the LMP for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. The Limited Maintenance Plan
Option
A. Demonstration of Maintenance Using
the Limited Maintenance Plan 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
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1 See 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). A copy of this
memorandum can be found in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 an area’s design
value is well below the NAAQS and that
the historical stability of the area’s air
quality levels shows that the area is
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 section
175A of the Act defines few specific
content requirements for maintenance
plans, and in EPA’s experience
implementing the various NAAQS,
areas that qualify for an LMP and 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
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 See the guidance document developed by the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, and 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’’. A copy of this guidance can be found in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 SIP, with all attendant
notice and comment procedures.
The PM2.5 LMP Guidance, similar to
the PM10 LMP Guidance, allows states
to demonstrate that certain 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. This guidance
directs states to calculate a site-specific
CDV for the monitoring site in an area
with the highest design value, and also
for all other active monitoring sites in
the area with complete data. The PM2.5
LMP 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 5 years of PM2.5
design values, does not exceed the
associated CDV for each site.4 If the
ADV for each monitoring site in the area
is below the CDV then the probability of
a future exceedance, based on the area’s
historical air quality and variability, is
less than 10 percent. The CDV
calculation for a monitoring site
involves the following parameters: (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 design values result in a
lower (or more stringent) CDV. The
eligibility calculation equations for the
CDV demonstration are shown in table
1.
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 dataset.
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.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules
79191
Table 1. The Critical Desit?n Value Calculation
Standard Deviation (a)
I
L (Xi -ADV) 2
c;=
'\J
n-1
Coefficient of Variation (CV)
CV=a/ADV
Critical Design Value (CDV)
CDV = NAAQS/(1 +(tc * CV))
B. Transportation Conformity Under
Limited Maintenance Plan 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,
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 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).
While qualification for the LMP
option does not exempt an area from the
need to determine conformity, in an
area with an adequate or approved LMP,
conformity may be demonstrated for a
transportation plan or a transportation
improvement program without a
regional emissions analysis for the
relevant NAAQS and pollutant (40 CFR
93.109(e)). However, transportation plan
and transportation improvement
program conformity determinations that
meet applicable requirements continue
to be required in these areas (see table
1 in 40 CFR 93.109). The areas also
remain subject to the other
transportation conformity requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, including
fulfilling project-level conformity
analyses requirements and consultation
requirements. In addition, an LMP must
demonstrate that it is unreasonable to
expect that the qualifying area would
experience enough growth in on-road
emissions during the maintenance
period such that a violation of the
relevant NAAQS would occur (40 CFR
93.109(e)). Furthermore, consistent with
the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, if re-entrained
road dust has been found to be
significant for PM2.5 transportation
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. EPA discusses CT
DEEP’s submittal in section III.A of this
notice.
Along with this proposed action, EPA
is initiating an adequacy process for the
New Haven and Fairfield LMP. See 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 93.118(f). Since
LMPs do not include motor vehicle
emissions budgets, EPA’s adequacy
review is to assess whether the
demonstration required by 40 CFR
93.109(e) is met.
C. General Conformity Under Limited
Maintenance Plan Option
The general conformity rule of
November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214)
applies to nonattainment areas and
redesignated attainment areas operating
under maintenance plans (i.e.,
maintenance areas). General conformity
requires compliance to the purpose of a
SIP, which means that federal activities
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not related to transportation plans,
programs, and projects will not cause or
contribute to any new violation of any
standard in any area, increase the
frequency or severity of any existing
violation of any standard in any area or
delay timely attainment of any standard
or any required interim emission
reductions or other milestones in any
area (CAA section
176(c)(1)(A)and(1)(B)). As noted in the
PM2.5 LMP Guidance, EPA’s general
conformity regulations do not
distinguish between maintenance areas
with an approved ‘‘full maintenance
plan’’ and those with an approved LMP.
Thus, maintenance areas with an
approved LMP are subject to the same
general conformity requirements under
40 CFR part 93 subpart B, as those
covered by a ‘‘full maintenance plan.’’
Full compliance with the general
conformity program is required within
an LMP.
III. EPA’s Analysis of the State’s
Submittal
A. Demonstration of Qualification for
the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
EPA redesignated New HavenFairfield to attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS on October 24, 2013 (78 FR
58467). Table 2 below shows the
historical design values for each
monitoring site within the maintenance
area since it was redesignated in 2013.5
The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is
attained when the 3-year average of the
98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5
5 See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
EP27SE24.001</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
ADV= Average of3-year design values.
DV = Design value.
NAAQS = Applicable standard (35 µglm3).
tc = Critical t-value (based on the one-tail student's t-distribution, at a significance level of0.10).
x; = a given three-year period design value for the area.
n = the total number ofdesign values evaluated, which in this case is f,ve.
79192
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules
concentrations is equal to or less than
35 mg/m3, and as shown in table 2, the
area has been measuring air quality well
below the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with an
overall decrease in PM2.5 concentrations
over time. These design values from the
individual monitoring sites within the
maintenance area demonstrate the
stability of ambient PM2.5
concentrations over time.
TABLE 2—PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES IN NEW HAVEN-FAIRFIELD SINCE REDESIGNATION TO ATTAINMENT IN μG/M3
[2013–2023]
090010010—
Roosevelt
School—
Bridgeport
Design value period
2011–2013
2012–2014
2013–2015
2014–2016
2015–2017
2016–2018
2017–2019
2018–2020
2019–2021
2020–2022
2021–2023
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
090011123—
Western Conn
State
University
23
23
24
24
21
20
19
21
22
21
21
25
24
25
23
22
21
20
21
21
22
21
090090027—
Criscuolo
Park—
New Haven
090092123—
Meadow and
Bank Streets
24
21
22
20
20
19
18
20
21
21
20
23
24
24
* 23
* 20
* 20
19
20
20
21
6 20
* 24-hr data invalid due to site reconstruction.
EPA proposes to find that the New
Haven-Fairfield area meets the critical
design value demonstration for an LMP.
As noted above, the parameters of the
CDV calculation 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.7 Section
2.2 of CT DEEP’s LMP submittal
demonstrates the likelihood of
continued attainment. EPA reviewed the
data and methodology provided by the
state and we find that each monitor’s 5year ADV is well below the
corresponding site-specific CDV, as
shown in table 3.
TABLE 3—RESULTS OF CALCULATION OF CDVS AT NEW HAVEN-FAIRFIELD MONITORS FOR THE 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS
Site
090010010
090011123
090090027
090092123
Average
design value
(2017–2021) a
CDV
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
32.3
33.3
32.1
33.2
20.6
21.0
19.6
b 19.7
Qualify for LMP?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
a CT DEEP uses the term ‘mean’ interchangeably with ADV in the proposed LMP; the design values averaged for the ADV span seven years
of data (2015–2017, 2016–2018, 2017–2019, 2018–2020, 2019–2021).
b Only three years of design values (5 years of data) were used for the Meadow and Bank Streets’ monitor due to site reconstruction. activities
resulting in incomplete data for 2016 and invalidating design values for 2016–2018.
We also propose to find that the CT
DEEP LMP submittal satisfies
transportation conformity regulations
under the LMP option. Connecticut
holds annual transportation conformity
interagency consultation meetings
which include Federal, State, and local
agencies. Additionally, the LMP SIP
submittal for New Haven-Fairfield was
developed in accordance with
interagency consultation between
Federal, State, and local partners. CT
DEEP also includes analysis that
addresses the demonstration under 40
CFR 93.109(e) in their supplement
submitted on February 21, 2024. This
transportation conformity regulation
requires that an LMP would have to
demonstrate that it would be
unreasonable to expect that a
maintenance area would experience
enough motor vehicle emissions growth
for a NAAQS violation to occur (40 CFR
93.109(e)).
The state’s demonstration assesses the
total projected growth in on-road motor
vehicle PM2.5 emissions through the end
of the 20-year maintenance period,
where the projected percentage increase
in vehicle miles traveled (VMTpi) to the
end of the 20-year maintenance period
(i.e., 2033), is multiplied by the motor
vehicle design value (DVmv). The DVmv
is based on the on-road mobile portion
of the attainment year inventory. CT
DEEP analyzed whether the area’s ADV
for the period used to demonstrate LMP
qualification plus (VMTpi × DVmv) was
less than or equal to the CDV for the
relevant PM2.5 standard in mg/m3 for the
given area. The state calculated the CDV
for the entire maintenance area, 33 mg/
m3, using the most recent (2017–2021)
maximum design values from each
year.8 CT DEEP calculated the projected
6 The 2020–2022 and 2021–2023 design values
were not finalized until after CT DEEP submitted
the PM2.5 LMP to EPA; they are included here to
show the most recent air quality data.
7 See the ‘‘Example Site Calculation’’, page 7 of
the October 2022 PM2.5 LMP guidance, found in the
docket for this rulemaking.
8 See appendix A of the state submittal for the
complete calculation, which is included in the
docket of this rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules
design value in 2033 to be 21.49 mg/m3
which is less than the determined CDV,
33 mg/m3. Thus, CT DEEP concludes that
it is unlikely that increased emissions
from on-road mobile sources could, in
the next 10 years, increase
concentrations in the area enough to
threaten the maintenance of the PM2.5
NAAQS. In consultation with the
Connecticut Department of
Transportation (CTDOT), CT DEEP also
provided a VMTpi of .0565 from 2017 to
2033, which is a 5.65% increase.
The VMT projection considered by
Connecticut was based on the on-road
emissions analysis calculation as laid
out in the PM10 LMP Guidance. Under
the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, this on-road
emissions analysis is only necessary for
LMPs where re-entrained road dust has
been found to be significant for PM2.5
transportation conformity purposes
under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3) for a given
maintenance area. While CT DEEP does
not identify re-entrained road dust as a
significant contributor to PM2.5
concentrations in the maintenance area,
the state utilizes the same methodology
to address projected VMT and motor
vehicle emissions growth in its LMP
submittal. CT DEEP’s analysis indicates
that the projected design value in 2033
is significantly below the area’s CDV
signaling future continued maintenance
of the relevant NAAQS, with limited
growth in VMT from 2017 to 2033. This
analysis supports a conclusion that the
state has demonstrated that it would be
unreasonable to expect New HavenFairfield to experience enough growth
in on-road emissions during the
remaining maintenance period such that
a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS will occur.
Also, per 40 CFR 93.109(e), an area
with an adequate or approved LMP 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 10-year
maintenance plan for the New HavenFairfield area 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 the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, EPA
clarifies that an area submitting the
second 10-year maintenance plan may
be eligible for the LMP option if
monitored air quality data and VMT
trends support the LMP option. Given
the air quality data demonstrating that
New Haven- Fairfield has been
maintaining the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
at least 8 years, the current PM2.5 design
values in the area, the demonstrated
downward trend in PM2.5
concentrations over the last ten years,
and the state’s on-road emissions
analysis of projected VMT discussed
above, we propose to find that CT
DEEP’s LMP submittal for the New
Haven-Fairfield 2006 PM2.5
maintenance area meets the
qualification criteria for an LMP,
consistent with 40 CFR 93.109(e) and
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 should 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
first maintenance plan (78 FR 58467),
that the state will continue to adhere to
for the second maintenance period (See
section 3.6 of the current state
submittal). 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. CT DEEP’s New HavenFairfield 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 9 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
submission and is representative of the
level of emissions during a period 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 5year period used to calculate the design
value). Table 3 shows the total 2017
emissions in New Haven-Fairfield in
9 See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-neidata.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
79193
tons per year included in the state’s
submission.
TABLE 3—2017 EMISSIONS (TONS/
YEAR) IN NEW HAVEN-FAIRFIELD
Pollutant
Total
emissions
PM2.5 ....................................
Ammonia (NH3) ....................
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) ..........
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) .............
Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) ..............................
4,361
1,485
22,020
1,296
43,518
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. CT DEEP
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 1. CT
DEEP submitted its 2023 Annual
Monitoring Network Plan on June 26,
2023,10 which EPA approved on July 12,
2023.11 In the LMP submittal, CT DEEP
commits to continued operation of its
PM2.5 monitors within New HavenFairfield, consistent with the EPAapproved CT DEEP annual network
plan. Currently, there are 4 monitors in
the New Haven-Fairfield maintenance
area.
D. Verification of Continued Attainment
The level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS is 35 mg/m3 (40 CFR 50.13). The
NAAQS is attained when the 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of PM2.5
concentrations is equal to or less than
the NAAQS, which CT DEEP has proven
in its LMP submittal. As stated
previously, CT DEEP commits to
verifying continued attainment of the
PM2.5 standards through the
maintenance plan period with the
operation of an appropriate PM2.5
monitoring network. In developing the
second 10-year maintenance plan, CT
DEEP evaluated the last 5 years of
complete, quality-assured data (2017
through 2021) for New Haven-Fairfield
at the time of the submittal to verify
continued attainment of the standard.
Certified air quality data from 2023, as
10 See CT DEEP’s 2023 Annual Air Monitoring
Network Plan found in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
11 See EPA’S Approval Letter for CT DEEP’S 2023
Annual Monitoring Network Plan found in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
79194
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules
IV. Proposed Action
shown in table 2, confirms continued
attainment of the standard.12
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 timeframe 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.
CT DEEP will continue to adhere to
the contingency plan they submitted
with their first maintenance plan, which
includes the required contingency
provisions to ensure the area will
promptly correct any violation of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.13 Connecticut’s
contingency measures include a
Warning Level Response and an Action
Level Response. CT DEEP also commits
to pursuing adoption (and submittal to
EPA) and implementation of any
appropriate regulatory revisions within
18 to 24 months after the verified
violation. CT DEEP will select
contingency measures based on cost
effectiveness, emission reduction
potential, economic and social
considerations, or other appropriate
factors. Stakeholder input will be
solicited before final selection of any
contingency measures. The contingency
measures are described in detail in the
NPRM for the first maintenance plan
and will not be repeated here. See 78 FR
43096. EPA proposes to find that the
contingency provisions in the PM2.5
LMP for the New Haven-Fairfield 2006
PM2.5 maintenance area meet the
requirements of section 175A(d) of the
CAA.
12 See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values.
13 See section 5.4 of PM
2.5 post-comment
supplemental submission to EPA found in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
EPA is proposing to approve the
second 10-year PM2.5 LMP for the New
Haven-Fairfield 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance area submitted by CT
DEEP on May 9, 2023, and
supplemented on February 21, 2024.
EPA’s review of the air quality data for
the maintenance area indicates that it
continues to show attainment well
below the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and meet 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 maintenance period.
As discussed previously, EPA is also
initiating as part of this proposed
rulemaking the process to determine if
the LMP is adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. Any comments on
the adequacy of the submitted CT LMP
should be submitted to the docket
established for this rulemaking. EPA
may complete that process either in a
final action on this LMP or through a
separate process provided for in the
transportation conformity regulations.
See 40 CFR 93.118(f). EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this notice or on other
relevant matters. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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 Clean
Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed
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 proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); 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 rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on communities with
environmental justice (EJ) concerns to
the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines 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.’’
CT DEEP did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Proposed Rules
neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this
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.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for
communities with EJ concerns.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: September 23, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2024–22114 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0371; FRL–12159–
01–R10]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Redesignation
Request and Associated Maintenance
Plan for Whatcom County, WA 2010
SO2 Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
On July 25, 2024, the State of
Washington (WA) submitted a request
for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to redesignate to
attainment a portion of Whatcom
County immediately surrounding the
now permanently closed aluminum
smelter, Intalco Aluminum LLC, which
the EPA designated nonattainment for
the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). Washington also submitted a
request for the EPA to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan for the
area. In response to this submittal, the
EPA is proposing to take the following
actions: determine that the Whatcom
County (partial) SO2 nonattainment area
(NAA) is attaining the 2010 SO2 primary
NAAQS; approve Washington’s plan for
maintaining attainment of the 2010 SO2
primary NAAQS in the area; and
redesignate the Whatcom County
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
(partial) SO2 NAA to attainment for the
2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 28, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2024–0371 at https://
www.regulations.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, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information or
other information the disclosure of
which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about confidential business
information or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101,
at (206) 553–6357 or hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the use of
‘‘we’’ and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
I. What is the background for the EPA’s
proposed actions?
On June 22, 2010, the EPA published
a new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75
parts per billion (ppb), which is met at
an ambient air quality monitoring site
when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum 1hour average concentrations does not
exceed 75 parts per billion (ppb), as
determined in accordance with
appendix T of 40 CFR part 50 (75 FR
35520). Under Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 107(d)(1), the EPA is required to
designate areas as ‘‘nonattainment,’’
‘‘attainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’ within
two years of establishing a new or
revising an existing standard. As part of
this process, states must submit
recommendations for area designations
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
79195
and boundaries to the EPA within one
year of the effective date of the standard.
In 2011, Washington State, like many
states across the nation, did not have
sufficient SO2 monitoring data for
specific stationary sources that may
cause or contribute to violations of the
revised SO2 NAAQS and recommended
that all areas in the state be designated
as unclassifiable. In response to the lack
of sufficient SO2 monitoring data across
the nation, the EPA promulgated the
Data Requirements Rule (DRR) on
August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), which
established a phased-in approach for
state air agencies to characterize air
quality via additional monitoring or
modeling in areas associated with
sources meeting certain criteria. In
addition to the original round of
nonattainment designations published
on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), the
EPA promulgated three subsequent
rounds of designations in 2016 (81 FR
45039, July 12, 2016), 2018 (83 FR1098,
January 9, 2018), and 2021 (86 FR
16055, March 26, 2021), as information
to characterize air quality became
available. The EPA designated Whatcom
County (partial), Washington (also
referred to as the ‘‘nonattainment area’’
or ‘‘area’’) as nonattainment effective
April 30, 2021, as part of the Agency’s
Round 4 designations (86 FR 16055,
March 26, 2021).
In the case of Washington, the EPA
and the Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) identified the Alcoa
Intalco Aluminum LLC (Intalco) facility,
located in the Cherry Point Industrial
Area in Whatcom County, as emitting
2,000 tons or more of SO2 annually,
which triggered the DRR requirement
for additional modeling or monitoring to
characterize air quality in the area.
Washington chose to meet this DRR
requirement via the establishment of
monitoring at the Intalco facility
beginning on January 1, 2017. Based on
the monitoring data established under
the DRR, the Ferndale Mountain View
Road monitor (AQS ID 53–073–0017)
violated the 75 ppb level of the revised
1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS with a
2017–2019 design value of 106 ppb.1
The state did not send an updated
formal designation recommendation for
Whatcom County. However, Ecology, in
collaboration with Northwest Clean Air
Agency (NWCAA), submitted a
technical report and modeling analysis
on June 12, 2020, to help inform the
EPA’s nonattainment boundary
determination using data from the
monitors that were installed pursuant to
1 The design value is the metric used for
determining compliance with the SO2 NAAQS
under appendix T of 40 CFR part 50.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79189-79195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2024-0117; FRL-12283-01-R1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; New Haven and Fairfield Counties
Second 10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
Standard
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) for the 2006 PM2.5 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for New Haven and Fairfield Counties, which comprise
the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island (NY-
NJ-CT) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance area. This LMP was
submitted on May 9, 2023, and supplemented on February 21, 2024, by the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT
DEEP). 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, known as PM2.5. EPA is proposing
approval of Connecticut's LMP submission because it provides for the
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through the end
of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period. In addition,
EPA is initiating the process to find the Connecticut PM2.5
LMP adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 28, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2024-0117 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, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that, if possible, you contact the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ayla Martinelli, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1057, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
B. Regulatory Actions in New Haven and Fairfield Counties
II. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option
A. Demonstration of Maintenance Using the Limited Maintenance
Plan Option
B. Transportation Conformity Under Limited Maintenance Plan
Option
C. General Conformity Under Limited Maintenance Plan Option
III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal
A. Demonstration of Qualification for the Limited Maintenance
Plan Option
B. Attainment Inventory
C. Air Quality Monitoring Network
D. Verification of Continued Attainment
E. Contingency Provisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
EPA has established NAAQS for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, known as
PM2.5, 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 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/m\3\. In early
2024, EPA strengthened the level of the annual primary PM2.5
standard to 9.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
B. Regulatory Actions in New Haven and Fairfield Counties
Hereafter, ``New Haven-Fairfield'' means the Connecticut portion of
the NY-NJ-CT maintenance area which is comprised of New Haven and
Fairfield Counties. EPA promulgated the designations for New Haven-
Fairfield as a PM2.5 nonattainment area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944) and the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688) on November 13, 2009, due to
measured violations of the standards. These designations became
effective on April 5, 2005, and December 14, 2009, respectively. On
June 22, 2012, CT DEEP submitted a request to EPA to redesignate the
New Haven- Fairfield nonattainment area to attainment of both the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal included
a maintenance plan to provide for maintenance of the PM2.5
NAAQS in the area for 10 years. EPA redesignated New Haven-Fairfield to
attainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 24,
2013 (78 FR 58467) and approved the associated maintenance plan into
the Connecticut State Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose of CT
DEEP's May 9, 2023 (supplemented on February 21, 2024) LMP submission
is to fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement of CAA section
175A(b), thus ensuring PM2.5 NAAQS compliance through the
end of the maintenance period.
[[Page 79190]]
In the LMP submittal, CT DEEP indicates that it is seeking approval
of the LMP for both the 2006 24-hour standard as well as the 1997
annual standard. However, as explained in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule (81 FR 58009), a second 10-year maintenance plan for
the revoked 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is not required.
Therefore, CT DEEP clarified via email that it incorrectly sought
approval of the plan for the revoked 1997 annual standard and asked
that EPA ignore the request for approval of the plan for this standard.
The email, sent on July 7, 2023, can be found in the docket of this
action. Thus, EPA will only proceed with proposing approval of the LMP
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option
A. Demonstration of Maintenance Using the Limited Maintenance Plan
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 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 an area's
design value is well below the NAAQS and that the historical stability
of the area's air quality levels shows that the area is unlikely to
violate the NAAQS in the future.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 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). A copy of this
memorandum can be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
\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\ EPA refers to this streamlined demonstration of
maintenance as an LMP. EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as
permitting this option because section 175A of the Act defines few
specific content requirements for maintenance plans, and in EPA's
experience implementing the various NAAQS, areas that qualify for an
LMP and 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 SIP, with all
attendant notice and comment procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the guidance document developed by the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, the Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, and 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''. A copy
of this guidance can be found in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5 LMP Guidance, similar to the PM10
LMP Guidance, allows states to demonstrate that certain 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. This guidance directs states to calculate a site-specific CDV
for the monitoring site in an area with the highest design value, and
also for all other active monitoring sites in the area with complete
data. The PM2.5 LMP 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 5 years
of PM2.5 design values, does not exceed the associated CDV
for each site.\4\ If the ADV for each monitoring site in the area is
below the CDV then the probability of a future exceedance, based on the
area's historical air quality and variability, is less than 10 percent.
The CDV calculation for a monitoring site involves the following
parameters: (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
design values result in a lower (or more stringent) CDV. The
eligibility calculation equations for the CDV demonstration are shown
in table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 dataset. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 79191]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE24.001
B. Transportation Conformity Under Limited Maintenance Plan 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, 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 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).
While qualification for the LMP option does not exempt an area from
the need to determine conformity, in an area with an adequate or
approved LMP, conformity may be demonstrated for a transportation plan
or a transportation improvement program without a regional emissions
analysis for the relevant NAAQS and pollutant (40 CFR 93.109(e)).
However, transportation plan and transportation improvement program
conformity determinations that meet applicable requirements continue to
be required in these areas (see table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109). The areas
also remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements
of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, including fulfilling project-level
conformity analyses requirements and consultation requirements. In
addition, an LMP must demonstrate that it is unreasonable to expect
that the qualifying area would experience enough growth in on-road
emissions during the maintenance period such that a violation of the
relevant NAAQS would occur (40 CFR 93.109(e)). Furthermore, consistent
with the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, if re-entrained road dust has
been found to be significant for PM2.5 transportation
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. EPA discusses CT DEEP's submittal in section III.A of this
notice.
Along with this proposed action, EPA is initiating an adequacy
process for the New Haven and Fairfield LMP. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
and 93.118(f). Since LMPs do not include motor vehicle emissions
budgets, EPA's adequacy review is to assess whether the demonstration
required by 40 CFR 93.109(e) is met.
C. General Conformity Under Limited Maintenance Plan Option
The general conformity rule of November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214)
applies to nonattainment areas and redesignated attainment areas
operating under maintenance plans (i.e., maintenance areas). General
conformity requires compliance to the purpose of a SIP, which means
that federal activities not related to transportation plans, programs,
and projects will not cause or contribute to any new violation of any
standard in any area, increase the frequency or severity of any
existing violation of any standard in any area or delay timely
attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions
or other milestones in any area (CAA section 176(c)(1)(A)and(1)(B)). As
noted in the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, EPA's general conformity
regulations do not distinguish between maintenance areas with an
approved ``full maintenance plan'' and those with an approved LMP.
Thus, maintenance areas with an approved LMP are subject to the same
general conformity requirements under 40 CFR part 93 subpart B, as
those covered by a ``full maintenance plan.'' Full compliance with the
general conformity program is required within an LMP.
III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal
A. Demonstration of Qualification for the Limited Maintenance Plan
Option
EPA redesignated New Haven- Fairfield to attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 58467). Table 2 below
shows the historical design values for each monitoring site within the
maintenance area since it was redesignated in 2013.\5\ The 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5
[[Page 79192]]
concentrations is equal to or less than 35 [micro]g/m\3\, and as shown
in table 2, the area has been measuring air quality well below the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with an overall decrease in PM2.5
concentrations over time. These design values from the individual
monitoring sites within the maintenance area demonstrate the stability
of ambient PM2.5 concentrations over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
Table 2--PM2.5 Design Values in New Haven-Fairfield Since Redesignation to Attainment in [micro]g/m\3\
[2013-2023]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
090010010-- 090011123-- 090090027--
Roosevelt Western Conn Criscuolo 090092123--
Design value period School-- State Park-- New Meadow and
Bridgeport University Haven Bank Streets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011-2013....................................... 23 25 24 23
2012-2014....................................... 23 24 21 24
2013-2015....................................... 24 25 22 24
2014-2016....................................... 24 23 20 * 23
2015-2017....................................... 21 22 20 * 20
2016-2018....................................... 20 21 19 * 20
2017-2019....................................... 19 20 18 19
2018-2020....................................... 21 21 20 20
2019-2021....................................... 22 21 21 20
2020-2022....................................... 21 22 21 21
2021-2023....................................... 21 21 20 \6\ 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 24-hr data invalid due to site reconstruction.
EPA proposes to find that the New Haven-Fairfield area meets the
critical design value demonstration for an LMP. As noted above, the
parameters of the CDV calculation 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.\7\ Section 2.2 of CT
DEEP's LMP submittal demonstrates the likelihood of continued
attainment. EPA reviewed the data and methodology provided by the state
and we find that each monitor's 5-year ADV is well below the
corresponding site-specific CDV, as shown in table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The 2020-2022 and 2021-2023 design values were not finalized
until after CT DEEP submitted the PM2.5 LMP to EPA; they
are included here to show the most recent air quality data.
\7\ See the ``Example Site Calculation'', page 7 of the October
2022 PM2.5 LMP guidance, found in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Table 3--Results of Calculation of CDVs at New Haven-Fairfield Monitors for the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average design
value (2017-
Site CDV 2021) \a\ Qualify for LMP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
090010010..................................... 32.3 20.6 Yes.
090011123..................................... 33.3 21.0 Yes.
090090027..................................... 32.1 19.6 Yes.
090092123..................................... 33.2 \b\ 19.7 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CT DEEP uses the term `mean' interchangeably with ADV in the proposed LMP; the design values averaged for
the ADV span seven years of data (2015-2017, 2016-2018, 2017-2019, 2018-2020, 2019-2021).
\b\ Only three years of design values (5 years of data) were used for the Meadow and Bank Streets' monitor due
to site reconstruction. activities resulting in incomplete data for 2016 and invalidating design values for
2016-2018.
We also propose to find that the CT DEEP LMP submittal satisfies
transportation conformity regulations under the LMP option. Connecticut
holds annual transportation conformity interagency consultation
meetings which include Federal, State, and local agencies.
Additionally, the LMP SIP submittal for New Haven-Fairfield was
developed in accordance with interagency consultation between Federal,
State, and local partners. CT DEEP also includes analysis that
addresses the demonstration under 40 CFR 93.109(e) in their supplement
submitted on February 21, 2024. This transportation conformity
regulation requires that an LMP would have to demonstrate that it would
be unreasonable to expect that a maintenance area would experience
enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a NAAQS violation to occur
(40 CFR 93.109(e)).
The state's demonstration assesses the total projected growth in
on-road motor vehicle PM2.5 emissions through the end of the
20-year maintenance period, where the projected percentage increase in
vehicle miles traveled (VMTpi) to the end of the 20-year
maintenance period (i.e., 2033), is multiplied by the motor vehicle
design value (DVmv). The DVmv is based on the on-
road mobile portion of the attainment year inventory. CT DEEP analyzed
whether the area's ADV for the period used to demonstrate LMP
qualification plus (VMTpi x DVmv) was less than
or equal to the CDV for the relevant PM2.5 standard in
[micro]g/m\3\ for the given area. The state calculated the CDV for the
entire maintenance area, 33 [mu]g/m\3\, using the most recent (2017-
2021) maximum design values from each year.\8\ CT DEEP calculated the
projected
[[Page 79193]]
design value in 2033 to be 21.49 [mu]g/m\3\ which is less than the
determined CDV, 33 [mu]g/m\3\. Thus, CT DEEP concludes that it is
unlikely that increased emissions from on-road mobile sources could, in
the next 10 years, increase concentrations in the area enough to
threaten the maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS. In consultation
with the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT), CT DEEP also
provided a VMTpi of .0565 from 2017 to 2033, which is a
5.65% increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See appendix A of the state submittal for the complete
calculation, which is included in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VMT projection considered by Connecticut was based on the on-
road emissions analysis calculation as laid out in the PM10
LMP Guidance. Under the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, this on-road
emissions analysis is only necessary for LMPs where re-entrained road
dust has been found to be significant for PM2.5
transportation conformity purposes under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3) for a
given maintenance area. While CT DEEP does not identify re-entrained
road dust as a significant contributor to PM2.5
concentrations in the maintenance area, the state utilizes the same
methodology to address projected VMT and motor vehicle emissions growth
in its LMP submittal. CT DEEP's analysis indicates that the projected
design value in 2033 is significantly below the area's CDV signaling
future continued maintenance of the relevant NAAQS, with limited growth
in VMT from 2017 to 2033. This analysis supports a conclusion that the
state has demonstrated that it would be unreasonable to expect New
Haven-Fairfield to experience enough growth in on-road emissions during
the remaining maintenance period such that a violation of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS will occur.
Also, per 40 CFR 93.109(e), an area with an adequate or approved
LMP 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 for the New Haven-Fairfield area 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 the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, EPA clarifies that an area
submitting the second 10-year maintenance plan may be eligible for the
LMP option if monitored air quality data and VMT trends support the LMP
option. Given the air quality data demonstrating that New Haven-
Fairfield has been maintaining the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for at
least 8 years, the current PM2.5 design values in the area,
the demonstrated downward trend in PM2.5 concentrations over
the last ten years, and the state's on-road emissions analysis of
projected VMT discussed above, we propose to find that CT DEEP's LMP
submittal for the New Haven-Fairfield 2006 PM2.5 maintenance
area meets the qualification criteria for an LMP, consistent with 40
CFR 93.109(e) and 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 should 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 first maintenance plan (78 FR
58467), that the state will continue to adhere to for the second
maintenance period (See section 3.6 of the current state submittal). 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. CT DEEP's
New Haven-Fairfield 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 \9\ 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 submission and is
representative of the level of emissions during a period 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 3 shows the total 2017 emissions in New Haven-
Fairfield in tons per year included in the state's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
Table 3--2017 Emissions (Tons/Year) in New Haven-Fairfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Pollutant emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5................................................... 4,361
Ammonia (NH3)........................................... 1,485
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)................................... 22,020
Sulfur dioxide (SO2).................................... 1,296
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)....................... 43,518
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. CT DEEP 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 1. CT DEEP submitted its 2023
Annual Monitoring Network Plan on June 26, 2023,\10\ which EPA approved
on July 12, 2023.\11\ In the LMP submittal, CT DEEP commits to
continued operation of its PM2.5 monitors within New Haven-
Fairfield, consistent with the EPA-approved CT DEEP annual network
plan. Currently, there are 4 monitors in the New Haven-Fairfield
maintenance area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See CT DEEP's 2023 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan found
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
\11\ See EPA'S Approval Letter for CT DEEP'S 2023 Annual
Monitoring Network Plan found in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Verification of Continued Attainment
The level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 35 [mu]g/
m\3\ (40 CFR 50.13). The NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of PM2.5 concentrations is equal to or
less than the NAAQS, which CT DEEP has proven in its LMP submittal. As
stated previously, CT DEEP commits to verifying continued attainment of
the PM2.5 standards through the maintenance plan period with
the operation of an appropriate PM2.5 monitoring network. In
developing the second 10-year maintenance plan, CT DEEP evaluated the
last 5 years of complete, quality-assured data (2017 through 2021) for
New Haven-Fairfield at the time of the submittal to verify continued
attainment of the standard. Certified air quality data from 2023, as
[[Page 79194]]
shown in table 2, confirms continued attainment of the standard.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 timeframe 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.
CT DEEP will continue to adhere to the contingency plan they
submitted with their first maintenance plan, which includes the
required contingency provisions to ensure the area will promptly
correct any violation of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\13\
Connecticut's contingency measures include a Warning Level Response and
an Action Level Response. CT DEEP also commits to pursuing adoption
(and submittal to EPA) and implementation of any appropriate regulatory
revisions within 18 to 24 months after the verified violation. CT DEEP
will select contingency measures based on cost effectiveness, emission
reduction potential, economic and social considerations, or other
appropriate factors. Stakeholder input will be solicited before final
selection of any contingency measures. The contingency measures are
described in detail in the NPRM for the first maintenance plan and will
not be repeated here. See 78 FR 43096. EPA proposes to find that the
contingency provisions in the PM2.5 LMP for the New Haven-
Fairfield 2006 PM2.5 maintenance area meet the requirements
of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See section 5.4 of PM2.5 post-comment
supplemental submission to EPA found in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year PM2.5 LMP
for the New Haven-Fairfield 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
area submitted by CT DEEP on May 9, 2023, and supplemented on February
21, 2024. EPA's review of the air quality data for the maintenance area
indicates that it continues to show attainment well below the level of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and meet 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 maintenance period.
As discussed previously, EPA is also initiating as part of this
proposed rulemaking the process to determine if the LMP is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. Any comments on the adequacy of the
submitted CT LMP should be submitted to the docket established for this
rulemaking. EPA may complete that process either in a final action on
this LMP or through a separate process provided for in the
transportation conformity regulations. See 40 CFR 93.118(f). EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 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 rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines 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.''
CT DEEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations
[[Page 79195]]
neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an
EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this 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.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for communities with EJ
concerns.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 23, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2024-22114 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
