Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Milwaukee Second 10-Year 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Limited Maintenance Plan
| Published date | 19 March 2024 |
| Record Number | 2024-05783 |
| Citation | 89 FR 19519 |
| Court | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Section | Proposed rules |
Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 2024)
[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
