Proposed Rule2022-04758
Air Plan Approval; Montana; Whitefish PM10 Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 8, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to fully approve the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by the State of Montana to EPA on August 6, 2021, for the Whitefish Moderate nonattainment area (NAA) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM<INF>10</INF>) and concurrently redesignate the NAA to attainment for the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In order to approve the LMP and redesignation, EPA is proposing to determine that the Whitefish NAA has attained the 1987 24- hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\. This determination is based upon monitored air quality data for the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS during the years 2015-2020. EPA is taking this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12912-12919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04758]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0808; FRL-9595-01-R8]
Air Plan Approval; Montana; Whitefish PM10 Nonattainment Area
Limited Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
fully approve the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by the State
of Montana to EPA on August 6, 2021, for the Whitefish Moderate
nonattainment area (NAA) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM<INF>10</INF>) and concurrently redesignate the NAA to attainment
for the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). In order to approve the LMP and redesignation, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Whitefish NAA has attained the 1987 24-
hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\. This determination is
based upon monitored air quality data for the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS
during the years 2015-2020. EPA is taking this action pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 7, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2021-0808 to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for
this action we do not
[[Page 12913]]
plan to offer hard copy review of the docket. Please email or call the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you
need to make alternative arrangements for access to the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail
Code 8P-ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
telephone number: (303) 312-6175, email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ef9ecfbf9f1ece7b0f5ffeafbdefbeeffb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9cedbcccec6dbd087c2c8ddcce9ccd9c887cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
Description of the Whitefish NAA
The Whitefish NAA is in Flathead County and is in the northwest
corner of the Flathead Valley, with the Whitefish range of mountains on
the north and east sides of the small, rural, city of Whitefish and the
Salish mountains to the west. The EPA promulgated the PM<INF>10</INF>
National NAAQS on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634). The Whitefish NAA was
originally designated as a Group III area on July 1, 1987 (52 FR
24634), meaning, at that time, there was a strong likelihood the
Whitefish NAA would attain the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS and, therefore,
needed only adjustments to their preconstruction permit review program
and monitoring network. However, on July 16, 1992, the Administrator of
EPA, Region 8 notified the Governor of Montana that EPA believed that
the area around Whitefish should be redesignated as nonattainment for
PM<INF>10</INF> and subsequently the Whitefish NAA was classified as
Moderate for the 1987 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS on November 18,
1993 (58 FR 53886).\1\ Within 18 months of this Moderate designation,
by May 18, 1995, Montana was required to submit to EPA a Moderate NAA
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Whitefish NAA containing, among
other requirements, provisions to assure that reasonably available
control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control
technologies (RACT), are implemented and a demonstration as to whether
it was practicable to attain the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS by December 31,
2000 (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See p. 64 of document titled FR-1993-10-19.pdf in docket for
58 FR 53886.
\2\ See also 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992) and 66 FR 55102
(November 1, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Montana submitted an initial PM<INF>10</INF> SIP to
EPA on June 26, 1997, and a subsequent submission on June 13, 2000. EPA
approved both the June 26, 1997 and the June 13, 2000 PM<INF>10</INF>
SIP submissions for the Whitefish initial control plan on April 24,
2008 (73 FR 22057). The State of Montana's SIP for the Whitefish
Moderate NAA included but was not limited to a comprehensive emissions
inventory, RACM (implemented by November 18, 1997), a demonstration
that attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS would be achieved in
Whitefish by December 31, 2000; Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
requirements and control measures that satisfy the contingency measures
requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. The EPA fully approved the
Whitefish NAA PM<INF>10</INF> attainment plan on April 24, 2008 (73 FR
22057).
II. Requirements for Redesignation
A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of NAAs
NAAs can be redesignated to attainment after the area has measured
air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS and when certain
planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the
General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for redesignation. See
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). These criteria are further clarified in a
policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards dated September 4, 1992, ``Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.'' \3\ The criteria for
redesignation are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo) outlines the criteria for
redesignation (see docket for memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS;
(2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the
area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
(3) The state containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
(4) The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and
(5) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
B. The LMP Option for PM10 NAAs
On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM<INF>10</INF> NAAs
seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director,
Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment
Areas,'' (hereafter the LMP Option memo)).\4\ The LMP Option memo
contains a statistical demonstration to show that areas meeting certain
air quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain
the standard 10 years into the future. Thus, the EPA has already
provided the maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria
outlined in the LMP Option memo. It follows that future year emission
inventories for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to
determine transportation conformity with the SIP are no longer
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Areas'' outlines the criteria for
development of a PM<INF>10</INF> limited maintenance plan (see
docket for memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the
1987 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, based upon the most recent 5 years
of air quality data at all monitors in the area, and the 24-hour design
concentration should be at or below the ``Critical Design Value''
(CDV). The CDV is a calculated design concentration that indicates that
the area has a low probability (1 in 10) of exceeding the NAAQS in the
future. For the purposes of qualifying for the LMP option, a
presumptive CDV of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ is most often employed, but an area
may elect to use a site-specific CDV should the average design
concentration (ADC) be above 98 [micro]g/m\3\, while demonstrating that
the area has a low probability of exceeding the NAAQS in the future.
The annual PM<INF>10</INF> standard was effectively revoked on December
18, 2006 (71 FR 61143), and as such will not be discussed as a
requirement for qualifying for the LMP option. In addition, the area
should expect only limited growth in on-road motor vehicle
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions (including fugitive dust) and should have
passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. The LMP Option
memo also identifies core provisions that must be included in the LMP.
These provisions include an attainment year emissions inventory,
assurance of continued operation of an EPA-approved air quality
monitoring network, and contingency provisions.
[[Page 12914]]
III. Review of Montana's Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plan
A. Has the Whitefish NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?
States must demonstrate that an area has attained the 24-hour
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS through analysis of ambient air quality data from
an ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM<INF>10</INF>
concentrations. The data should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) database. The request for redesignation of the Whitefish
PM<INF>10</INF> NAA submitted by the State of Montana presented data
and analyses to demonstrate that the area attained the PM<INF>10</INF>
standard using 2015-2019 data. The redesignation request excluded two
values in 2018 that it believed would be removed from the dataset prior
to this action, but those values have not been concurred on as
exceptional events and were included in the EPA's data and analyses
presented in this action. In addition to reviewing the 2015-2019 data
the EPA included 2020 PM<INF>10</INF> data in this action (as it is
currently the most recent year of certified data present in AQS) to
confirm that the area is still attaining the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF>
NAAQS. Additionally, preliminary 2021 data indicates the area continues
to attain.
Today, EPA is proposing to determine that the Whitefish NAA has
attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS based on monitoring data from
calendar years 2015-2020. The 24-hour standard is attained when the
expected number of 24-hour average concentrations above 150 [micro]g/
m\3\ (averaged over a 3-year period) is less than or equal to one. See
40 CFR 50.6(a). A minimum of three complete and consecutive years of
air quality data are generally necessary to show attainment of the
standard. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. A complete year of air
quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is
comprised of all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing
data from at least 75% of the scheduled sampling days.
The Whitefish NAA has one State and Local Air Monitoring Station
(SLAMS) PM<INF>10</INF> monitor, Whitefish Dead End (AQS ID 30-029-
0009), operated by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ). Table 1 summarizes the PM<INF>10</INF> data collected from
2015-2020 for the Whitefish NAA.\5\ The EPA deems the data collected
from these monitors valid, and the data have been submitted and
certified by the MDEQ to be included in AQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ While the submission from the State for this action includes
2015-2019 monitoring data, EPA provided 2020 monitoring data in this
action in order to provide an analysis of PM<INF>10</INF>
concentrations in the Whitefish, NAA area using the most current
monitoring data available.
Table 1--Summary of Maximum 24-Hour PM10 Concentrations ([micro]g/m\3\), Design Concentrations ([micro]g/m\3\),
and Number of Exceedances for Whitefish 2015-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
exceedances
excluding
Year Maximum Design regionally
concentration concentration \6\ concurred
exceptional
events \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015....................................................... 135 122 0
2016....................................................... 105 122 0
2017....................................................... 153 131 0
2018....................................................... 188 135 1
2019....................................................... 86 135 0
2020....................................................... 145 136 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA allows for the exclusion of air quality monitoring data
from design value calculations when there are exceedances caused by
exceptional events, including for expected number exceedances for
PM<INF>10</INF> averaged over a 3-year period, that meet the criteria
for an exceptional event identified in the EPA's implementing
regulations, the Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.1, 50.14, and
51.930. For the purposes of this proposed action, on November 23, 2021,
the State of Montana submitted exceptional event demonstrations to
request exclusion of data impacted by wildfires. The EPA evaluated the
State of Montana's exceptional event demonstrations for the flagged
values of the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> listed in Table 3 below in the
Whitefish Moderate NAA, with respect to the requirements of EPA's
Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 50.1, 50.14, and 50.930).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The design concentrations are calculated using three years
of data and the ``Table Look-up'' method described in the
``PM<INF>10</INF> SIP Development Guideline'', EPA-450/2-86-001,
June 1987.
\7\ Exceedances in 2017 and 2020 have been flagged and concurred
on as exceptional events. Additional information on 2017 data can be
found in Appendix A, p. a-1, of the submission by the state in the
docket of this action and additional information on 2020 data can be
found in the docket for this action, document titled: Montana 2020
PM<INF>10</INF> Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 2022, EPA concurred with the State of Montana's
requests to exclude event-influenced data listed in Table 3 finding
that the State of Montana's demonstration met the Exceptional Event
Rule criteria. As such, the event-influenced data have been removed
from the data set used for regulatory purposes. For this proposed
action, EPA relies on the PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations reported at
the Whitefish monitoring site which showed only one exceedance from
2015-2020 when exceptional events are excluded. Therefore, the expected
number of days with 24-hour average concentrations above 150 [micro]g/
m\3\ averaged over a 3-year period is less than one, and as such, the
EPA proposes to determine that the Whitefish NAA has attained the
standard for the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Please see section III(F) of this action for further
discussion and description of exceptional events in the Whitefish
NAA during the 2015-2020 time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA concurred on the State of Montana's request
to exclude PM<INF>10</INF> data listed in Table 3 in regulatory
decisions. For further information, refer to the State of Montana's
Exceptional Event demonstration packages and the EPA's concurrence and
analyses located in the docket for this proposed action.
B. Does the Whitefish NAA have a fully approved SIP under CAA section
110(k)?
In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be
fully approved under CAA section 110(k) and must satisfy all
requirements that apply
[[Page 12915]]
to the area. Section 189 of the CAA contains requirements and
milestones for all initial Moderate NAA SIPs including: (1) Provisions
to assure that RACM (including such reductions in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption,
at a minimum, of RACT shall be implemented no later than December 10,
1993; (2) A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable by no
later than December 31, 1994, or, where the state is seeking an
extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration
that attainment by December 31, 1994, is impracticable and that the
plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable (CAA sections 189(a)(1)(A)); (3) Quantitative milestones
which are to be achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate RFP toward
attainment by December 31, 1994, (CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c));
and (4) Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to
make RFP or attain by its attainment deadline. These contingency
measures are to take effect without further action by the state or the
EPA (CAA section 172(c)(9)).
The EPA fully approved the Whitefish NAA PM<INF>10</INF> attainment
plan on April 24, 2008 (73 FR 22057). The Whitefish plan included RACM,
an attainment demonstration, emissions inventory, quantitative
milestones, and control and contingency measure requirements. As such,
the area has a fully approved NAA SIPs under section 110(k) of the CAA.
C. Has the state met all applicable requirements under section 110 and
part D of the CAA?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a state containing a
NAA must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D
of the CAA for an area to be redesignated to attainment. The EPA
interprets this to mean that the state must meet all requirements that
applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the submission of a
complete redesignation request. The following is a summary of how
Montana meets these requirements.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for
SIPs. These requirements include, but are not limited to, submittal of
a SIP that has been adopted by a state after reasonable notice and
public hearing, provisions for establishment and operation of
appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality, implementation of a permit program,
provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs, criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting,
provisions for modeling and provisions for public and local agency
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of
these requirements. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
For purposes of redesignation, the EPA's review of the Montana SIP
shows that the State has satisfied all requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Further, in 40 CFR 52.1372, the EPA has approved
Montana's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national
standards under section 110.
2. Part D Requirements
Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas
designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed by a
series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM<INF>10</INF> NAAs
must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and the specific
PM<INF>10</INF> provisions in Subpart 4, ``Additional Provisions for
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following paragraphs
discuss these requirements as they apply to the Whitefish NAA.
3. Subpart 1, Section 172(c)
Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for NAA
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the
General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). CAA section
172(c)(2) requires nonattainment plans to provide for RFP. Section
171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions
in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part
(part D of title I) or may reasonably be required by the Administrator
for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national
ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.'' Since EPA is
proposing to determine that the Whitefish NAA is in attainment of the
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, we believe that no further showing of RFP or
quantitative milestones is necessary.
4. Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory Section
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Whitefish
PM<INF>10</INF> NAA. Montana included an emissions inventory for the
calendar year 2017 with the August 6, 2021 submittal of the LMP for the
NAA. The LMP Option memo states that an attainment inventory should
represent emissions during the same 5-year period associated with the
air quality data used to determine that the area meets the
applicability requirements of the LMP option. The Whitefish LMP
includes an emission inventory from 2017, representative of the 2015-
2019 5-year period which served as the 5-year period relied upon in the
LMPs as meeting the air quality data requirements of the LMP option
memo.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The emissions inventory included in the Whitefish MT
submission is the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI
is a composite of data from many different sources, with PM data
coming primarily from EPA models as well as from state, tribal, and
local air quality management agencies. Different data sources use
different data collection methods, and many of the emissions data
are based on estimates rather than actual measurements. The EPA
considers the 2017 NEI representative of the period from 2015-2019
because MT provided comparable vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data in
their submission. See Whitefish, MT Submission, Appendix C, Montana
Department of Transportation Future VMT Projections, p.C-1 in
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Section 172(c)(5)--NSR
The 1990 CAA Amendments contained revisions to the NSR program
requirements for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources located in NAAs. The CAA requires states to
amend their SIPs to reflect these revisions but does not require
submittal of this element along with the other SIP elements. The CAA
established June 30, 1992, as the submittal date for the revised NSR
programs (section 189 of the CAA).
Montana has a fully approved nonattainment NSR program, approved on
September 18, 1995 (60 FR 36715). Montana also has a fully approved PSD
program, approved on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 36715). Upon the
effective date of redesignation of an area from nonattainment to
attainment, the requirements of the Part D NSR program will be replaced
by the PSD program and the maintenance area NSR program.
6. Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air
Quality Monitoring Requirements
Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify attainment status of the area. The State of Montana operates one
PM<INF>10</INF> SLAMS in each of the NAAs. The Whitefish monitoring
site meets EPA SLAMS network design and siting requirements set forth
at 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. In section 3.5 of the LMP that
we are
[[Page 12916]]
proposing to approve, the State commits to continued operation of the
monitoring network.
7. Section 172(c)(9)--Contingency Measures
The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if the area
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Since the Whitefish NAA has attained the
1987 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, contingency measures are no longer
required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. However, contingency
provisions are required for maintenance plans under section 175(a)(d).
We describe the contingency provisions Montana provided in the LMP
section below.
8. Part D, Subpart 4
Part D subpart 4, section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to
any Moderate NAA before the area can be redesignated to attainment. The
requirements which were applicable prior to the submission of the
request to redesignate the area must be fully approved into the SIP
before redesignating the area to attainment. These requirements
include: (a) Provisions to assure that RACM was implemented by December
10, 1993; (b) Either a demonstration that the plan provided for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not later than December
31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by that date was
impracticable; (c) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every 3
years and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994;
and (d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable
to major stationary sources of PM<INF>10</INF> also apply to major
stationary sources of PM<INF>10</INF> precursors except where the
Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM<INF>10</INF> levels which exceed the NAAQS in the
area. These provisions were fully approved into the SIP upon the EPA's
approval of the PM<INF>10</INF> Moderate area plan for the Whitefish
NAA on March 22, 1995 (60 FR 15056).
D. Has the state demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions?
A state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air
quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making
this showing, a state must demonstrate that air quality improvements
are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. This showing
should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other
related information. The analysis should assume that sources are
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic. Permanent and
enforceable control measures in the Whitefish NAA SIP includes RACM.
Emission sources in the NAA have been implementing RACM for at least 10
years.
Areas that qualify for the LMP will meet the NAAQS, even under
worst case meteorological conditions. Under the LMP option, the
maintenance demonstration is presumed to be satisfied if an area meets
the qualifying criteria. Thus, by qualifying for the LMP, Montana has
demonstrated that the air quality improvements in the Whitefish NAA is
the result of permanent emission reductions and not a result of either
economic trends or meteorology. A description of the LMP qualifying
criteria and how the Whitefish area meets these criteria is provided in
the following section.
Permanent and enforceable emission reductions in the Whitefish NAA
have reduced emissions since the 1993 baseline year. The primary
controls incorporated into the SIP included reducing fugitive dust
emissions from roads, parking lots, construction and demolition
projects, and barren ground as well as stipulations on industrial
emissions. Additionally, the approved control plan satisfied the
requirements for RACM of area sources. Based on the 2017 national
emissions inventory, PM<INF>10</INF> emissions in all source areas are
below the levels approved in the original control plan.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Whitefish, MT submission in docket, Table 2.4--
Whitefish, MT--PM<INF>10</INF> Emission Summary, p. 2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA?
In this action, we are proposing to approve the LMP for the
Whitefish NAA in accordance with the principles outlined in the LMP
Option.
F. Has the state demonstrated that the Whitefish NAA qualifies for the
LMP Option?
The LMP Option memo outlines the requirements for an area to
qualify for the LMP Option. First, the area should be attaining the
NAAQS. As stated above in section III.A., the EPA has determined that
the Whitefish NAA is attaining the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS.
Second, the ADC for the past 5 years of monitoring data (2015-2019)
must be at or below the CDV and the area must meet the motor vehicle
regional emissions analysis test in attachment B of the LMP Option
memo. As noted in section II.B., the CDV is a margin of safety value
and is the value at which an area has been determined to have a 1 in 10
probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The LMP Option memo provides two
methods for review of monitoring data for the purpose of qualifying for
the LMP option. The first method is a comparison of a site's ADC with
the CDV of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. A
second method that applies to the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS is the
calculation of a site-specific CDV and a comparison of the site-
specific CDV with the ADC for the past 5 years of monitoring data.
Table 2 below outlines the design concentrations for the years 2015-
2020 and presents the ADC.
Table 3 summarizes the wildfire related events that were excluded
from the calculated design concentrations in Table 2. Table 3 includes
all regionally concurred exceptional events, as well as values between
98 [micro]g/m\3\ and 155 [micro]g/m\3\, which were treated in a manner
analogous to exceedance data under the Exceptional Events Rule for the
purpose of determining the LMP option eligibility. The values between
98 [micro]g/m\3\ and 155 [micro]g/m\3\ remain in the AQS database for
use in calculating design concentration for every purpose besides
determining LMP eligibility.\11\ The Exceptional Events Rule can be
found in 40 CFR 50.14 and 40 CFR 51.930, and outlines the requirements
for the treatment of monitored air quality data that has been heavily
influenced by an exceptional event. 40 CFR 50.1(j) defines an
exceptional event as an event which affects air quality, is not
reasonably controllable or preventable, is an event caused by human
activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a
natural event and is determined by the Administrator in accordance with
40 CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event. Exceptional events do not
include stagnation of air masses or meteorological inversions,
meteorological events involving high temperatures or lack of
precipitation, or air pollution relating to source noncompliance. 40
CFR 50.14(b) states that the EPA shall exclude data from use in
determinations of exceedances and NAAQS violations where a state
demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that an exceptional event caused
a specific air pollution concentration in excess of one or more NAAQS
at a
[[Page 12917]]
particular air quality monitoring location and otherwise satisfies the
requirements of section 50.14. Table 3 below includes some values
between 98 [micro]g/m\3\ and 155 [micro]g/m\3\ that were excluded for
the sole purpose of determining PM<INF>10</INF> LMP eligibility in
accordance with the LMP guidance.\12\ Supporting documentation of EPA's
concurrence with the wildfire related events can be found in the
docket.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Update on Application of the Exceptional Events Rule to the
PM<INF>10</INF> Limited Maintenance Plan Option, US EPA, William T.
Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, May 7, 2009.
\12\ See Update on Application of the Exceptional Events Rule to
the PM<INF>10</INF> Limited Maintenance Plan Option, US EPA, William
T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, May 7,
2009 and Additional Methods, Determinations, and Analyses to Modify
Air Quality Data Beyond Exceptional Events, US EPA, Richard Wayland,
Director, Air Quality Assessment Division and Anna Marie Wood,
Director, Air Quality Policy Division, April 4, 2019 memos in
docket.
\13\ February 8, 2019 letter to MDEQ, Re: Exceptional Events
Requests Regarding Exceedances of the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS
and the LMP Eligibility Threshold at Montana Monitoring Sites with
PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Areas; and November 1, 2018 letter to
MDEQ, Re: Request for EPA concurrence on exceptional event claims
for fine (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) and coarse (PM<INF>10</INF>) particulate
matter data impacted by wildfires in 2015 and 2016. See Whitefish,
MT submission in docket.
Table 2--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Concentrations ([micro]g/m\3\)
for Whitefish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on data from Whitefish Dead End, AQS Identification Number (30-
029-0009)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design
Design concentration years concentration
([micro]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2017.............................................. 118
2016-2018.............................................. 98
2017-2019.............................................. 91
2018-2020.............................................. 103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Design Concentration (Of Most Recent 3 Design Concentrations) 97
[micro]g/m\3\.
Table 3--Whitefish 24-Hour PM10 Events Excluded From the 2015-2020 Data
for the Purpose of Determining LMP Eligibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on data from Whitefish Dead End Site, AQS Identification Number
(30-029-0009)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-Hour value
Date ([micro]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/20/2015.............................................. 128
8/21/2015.............................................. 131
8/24/2015.............................................. 122
8/25/2015.............................................. 106
8/27/2015.............................................. 118
8/28/2015.............................................. 110
8/29/2015.............................................. 104
9/4/2017............................................... 153
9/5/2017............................................... 122
9/6/2017............................................... 143
9/7/2017............................................... 212
9/8/2017............................................... 215
9/9/2017............................................... 130
9/13/2020.............................................. 145
9/14/2020.............................................. 172
9/15/2020.............................................. 139
9/18/2020.............................................. 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values between 98 [micro]g/m\3\ and 155 [micro]g/m\3\ were excluded by
EPA solely for the purpose of determining limited maintenance plan
(LMP) eligibility in accordance with LMP guidance. The values remain
in AQS and are still used for all other purposes (including
calculating the estimated exceedances and official design
concentrations).
The ADC for the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS for Whitefish, based
on data from the SLAMS monitor for the years 2016-2020 is 97 [micro]g/
m\3\. This value falls just below the presumptive 24-hour CDV of 98
[micro]g/m\3\ but leaves very little room for any growth under the
motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. Therefore, an area-
specific CDV is necessary. Using design concentrations from 2009
through 2020 and the methodology outlined in the LMP memo, the EPA
calculates the area-specific CDV at 130 [micro]g/m\3\. This area-
specific CDV was used for the remaining calculations in this action.
In addition to having an ADC that is at the presumptive or area-
specific CDV, and in order to qualify for the LMP, the area must meet
the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test in attachment B of
the LMP Option memo. Using the methodology outlined in the memo, the
data presented in the State's submission in section 3.2 and based on
monitoring data for the period 2016-2020, the EPA has determined that
the Whitefish NAA has a projected design concentration of 119 [micro]g/
m\3\ after 10 years, attributable to motor vehicle emission growth.
This value is below the area-specific 24-hour CDV of 130 [micro]g/m\3\
and therefore passes the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis
test. For the detailed calculations used to determine how the Whitefish
NAA passed the motor vehicle regional analysis test, see the supporting
documents in the docket.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See memo to file in docket dated January 10, 2022 titled
``Memo to File--Whitefish, MT Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions
Analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the most recent 5 years of data (2016-2020), the analyses in
this section of the action demonstrates that the Whitefish NAA has
attained the 24-hour NAAQS for PM<INF>10</INF>, that the 24-hour ADC
for the area is less that the area-specific 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> CDV
of 130 [micro]g/m\3\, and the area has met the regional vehicle
emissions analysis test. Thus, the Whitefish NAA qualifies for the LMP
Option described in the LMP Option memo. The LMP Option memo also
indicates that once a state selects the LMP Option and it is in effect,
the state will be expected to determine, on an annual basis, that the
LMP criteria are still being met. If a state determines that the LMP
criteria are not being met, it should take action to reduce
PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations enough to requalify for the LMP. One
possible approach a state could take is to implement contingency
measures. Please see section 3.6 of the Whitefish LMP for a description
of contingency provisions submitted as part of the State's submittal.
G. Does the state have an approved attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?
A state's approved attainment plan should include an emissions
inventory (attainment inventory) which can be used to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions
during the same 5-year period associated with air quality data used to
determine whether the area meets the applicability requirements of the
LMP Option. A state should review its inventory every 3 years to ensure
emissions growth is incorporated in the attainment inventory if
necessary. In this instance, Montana completed an attainment year
inventory for the attainment year 2017 for the Whitefish NAA. The EPA
has reviewed the 2017 emissions inventories and determined that they
are current, accurate and complete. In addition, the emissions
inventory submitted with the LMP for the calendar year 2017 is
representative of the level of emissions during the time period used to
calculate the ADC since 2017 is included in the 5-year period used to
calculate the design concentrations (2015-2019).
H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of an
appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58?
The PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring network for the Whitefish NAA has
been developed and maintained in accordance with federal siting and
design criteria in 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E and in
consultation with the EPA Region 8. In section 3.5 of the Whitefish
LMP, Montana states that it will continue to operate its monitoring
network to meet EPA requirements.
[[Page 12918]]
I. Does the plan meet the CAA requirements for contingency provisions
for maintenance plans?
Section 175A of the CAA states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to
attainment. As explained in the LMP Option memo, these contingency
measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation.
As noted above, CAA section 175A requirements are distinct from CAA
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures. Section 3.6 of the Whitefish
LMP describes a process and timeline to identify and evaluate
appropriate contingency measures in the event of a quality assured
violation of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. Upon notification of a
PM<INF>10</INF> exceedance in any of the three areas, the MDEQ and the
appropriate local government will develop contingency measures designed
to prevent or correct a violation of the PM<INF>10</INF> standard. This
process will be completed within twelve months of the exceedance
notification. Upon violating the PM<INF>10</INF> standard, the MDEQ and
local government will determine if the local contingency measures will
be adequate to prevent further exceedances or violations. If the
agencies determine that local measures will be inadequate, the MDEQ and
local government will adopt State-enforceable measures.
The current and proposed contingency provisions in the Whitefish
LMP meet the requirements for contingency provisions as outlined in the
LMP Option memo.
IV. Conformity and the LMP Option
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires the conformity of federal
actions to the air quality goals of an NAA or maintenance area. Such
federal actions include actions on transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded, or approved by federal agencies or by
recipients of federal funds, as well as more general actions receiving
federal assistance or approval. Conformity of these two types of
actions is known, respectively, as ``transportation conformity'' and
``general conformity.'' The purpose of conformity is to ensure that
such federal actions will not produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
The EPA's transportation and general conformity rules are found in 40
CFR part 93, subparts A and B, respectively.
The transportation conformity rule generally requires a
demonstration that emissions from the relevant projects of a
transportation plan and transportation improvement program covering a
designated area are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB or `budget') contained in the SIP or maintenance plan for that
area. The MVEB is the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant
relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or
maintain the NAAQS in the NAA or maintenance area.
Under the transportation conformity rule, designated areas meeting
the criteria for the LMP Option will not be required to satisfy the
rule's regional emissions analysis requirements (40 CFR 93.109(e)).
When the EPA approves an LMP, we are concluding that it is unreasonable
to expect that the qualifying area will experience sufficient growth
during the maintenance period that a violation of the PM<INF>10</INF>
NAAQS would result. Therefore, the EPA is concluding with an LMP
approval that the area's budget is essentially not constraining for the
duration of the maintenance period and a regional emissions analysis
will not be necessary to demonstrate conformity.
However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, approval of
a Whitefish LMP does not remove certain transportation conformity rule
requirements for transportation plans, programs, and projects. As an
isolated rural maintenance area, the Whitefish area will generally be
subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 93.109(g), as modified by the
requirements for LMP areas in 40 CFR 93.109(e). Specifically, state
transportation plans, transportation improvement programs and
transportation projects still must demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (30 CFR 93.108), are still subject to consultation
requirements (40 CFR 93.112), and projects must not interfere with the
implementation of any transportation control measures from the
applicable implementation plan (40 CFR 93.113).
Approval of the LMP option would have similar implications with
respect to general conformity. Federal actions subject to general
conformity in an LMP area will not be required to satisfy the budget
test requirement of the general conformity rule. Such federal actions
are presumed to conform under the LMP option as emissions budgets in
such areas are essentially not constraining for the duration of the
maintenance period.
V. Environmental Justice Concerns
To identify potential environmental burdens and susceptible
populations in the Whitefish NAA, EPA performed a screening-level
analysis using the EPA's EJSCREEN tool to evaluate environmental and
demographic indicators within the area. The tool outputs are contained
in the docket for this action. The results indicate that the Whitefish
NAA is not a potential area of EJ concern and is not a candidate for
further EJ review.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Region 8, EPA considers an area a ``potential EJ area'' or
``potential area of EJ concern'', and a candidate for further
review, if any of the following criteria are met: The area is in the
80th percentile or above for any EJ index when compared to the
nation, region, or state, the percentage of Low-income population in
the area exceeds the state average for the state in which the area
exist and the percentage of People of Color population in the area
exceeds the state average for the state in which the area exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires
the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment,
attainment, or unclassifiable. If an area is designated nonattainment
of the NAAQS, the CAA provides for the EPA to redesignate the area to
attainment upon a demonstration by the state authority that the
criteria for a redesignation are met, including a showing that air
quality is attaining the NAAQS and will continue to maintain the NAAQS
in order to ensure that all those residing, working, attending school,
or otherwise present in those areas are protected. This action
addresses a plan for continued attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS
for the Whitefish NAA. Approval of this plan does not impose any
additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by
state law. As discussed in this document, Montana has demonstrated that
the air quality in the Whitefish NAA is attaining the PM<INF>10</INF>
NAAQS and will ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS. For these
reasons, this action does not result in disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with
environmental justice concerns.
VI. Proposed Action
For the reasons explained in section III., we are proposing to
approve the LMP for the Whitefish NAA and the State's request to
redesignate the Whitefish NAA from nonattainment to attainment for the
1987 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is proposing
to determine that the Whitefish NAA has attained the NAAQS for
PM<INF>10</INF>. This determination is based upon monitored air quality
data for the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS during the years 2014-2020. The EPA
is proposing to approve the Whitefish LMP as meeting the appropriate
transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A.
[[Page 12919]]
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
<bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
and Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 28, 2022.
K.C. Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2022-04758 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 8, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.