Proposed Rule2023-27297
Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Birmingham Limited Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
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
December 13, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), via a letter dated February 2, 2021. The SIP revision includes the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the Birmingham, Alabama maintenance area (Birmingham Area or Area). The Birmingham 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> maintenance area is comprised of Jefferson County, Shelby County, and a portion of Walker County. EPA is proposing to approve the Birmingham Area LMP because it provides for the maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS within the Birmingham Area through the end of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period in 2034. The effect of this action would be to incorporate into the Alabama SIP certain commitments related to maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Birmingham Area, making them federally enforceable. EPA is also starting the adequacy process, consistent with requirements in the transportation conformity rule, for this LMP.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 86303-86312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27297]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0367; FRL-11573-01-R4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Birmingham Limited Maintenance Plan
for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), via a letter dated February 2, 2021. The SIP
revision includes the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national
[[Page 86304]]
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP)
for the Birmingham, Alabama maintenance area (Birmingham Area or Area).
The Birmingham 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> maintenance area is
comprised of Jefferson County, Shelby County, and a portion of Walker
County. EPA is proposing to approve the Birmingham Area LMP because it
provides for the maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
within the Birmingham Area through the end of the second 10-year
portion of the maintenance period in 2034. The effect of this action
would be to incorporate into the Alabama SIP certain commitments
related to maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in
the Birmingham Area, making them federally enforceable. EPA is also
starting the adequacy process, consistent with requirements in the
transportation conformity rule, for this LMP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0367 at <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://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. 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, 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>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianna Myers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9207. Ms. Myers can also be reached via electronic mail at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fe2f6eafdfca1ebe6eee1e1eecfeaffeea1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a9bda1b6b7eaa0ada5aaaaa584a1b4a5eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of EPA's Action
II. Background
III. Alabama's SIP Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Alabama's SIP Submittal
A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
B. Maintenance Demonstration
1. Evaluation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Levels
2. Stability of PM<INF>2.5</INF> Levels
C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
D. Contingency Plan
E. Conclusion
V. Transportation Conformity
VI. General Conformity
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of EPA's Action
In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA is proposing
to approve the Birmingham Area LMP for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, adopted by ADEM on February 2, 2021, and
submitted by ADEM as a revision to the Alabama SIP under a cover letter
with the same date.\1\ The Birmingham Area LMP is designed to maintain
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS within the Birmingham Area
through the end of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period
beyond redesignation. EPA is proposing to approve the plan because it
meets all applicable requirements under CAA sections 110 and 175A. As a
general matter, the Birmingham Area LMP relies on the same control
measures and similar contingency measures to maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS during the second 10-year portion of the
maintenance period as the maintenance plan submitted by ADEM for the
first 10-year period, which is not a limited maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA notes the Agency received the submittal on February 17,
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
Fine particulate matter, particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 microns or less, can be emitted directly into the
atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle (``primary PM<INF>2.5</INF>''
or ``direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>'') or can be formed in the atmosphere as a
result of various chemical reactions among precursor pollutants such as
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), sulfur oxides, volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) (``secondary
PM<INF>2.5</INF>'').\2\ Epidemiological studies have shown
statistically significant correlations between elevated levels of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and premature mortality. Other important health
effects associated with PM<INF>2.5</INF> exposure include aggravation
of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, changes in lung function,
and increased respiratory complications, contributing to premature
mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits.
Individuals particularly sensitive to PM<INF>2.5</INF> exposure include
older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 78 FR 3086 at 3090, 3121 (January 15, 2013).
\3\ See id.; ``Fact Sheet Final Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution (Particulate
Matter),'' September 21, 2006, accessible at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/20060921_standards_factsheet.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/20060921_standards_factsheet.pdf</a>; 71 FR 61144, 61145 (October 17,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards
for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. See 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations.\4\ On October 17, 2006, EPA
revised the 24-hour NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on the 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR
61144.\5\ Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the primary and
secondary 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS are attained when the 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentration, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than
or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ at all relevant monitoring sites in the
subject area over a 3-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated an annual standard
at a level of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on
a 3-year average of annual mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. See
62 FR 38652.
\5\ On January 15, 2013, and December 18, 2020, EPA retained the
24-hour primary and secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS at the 2006
level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 and 85 FR 82684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new revised NAAQS, EPA is required by
the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated designations
for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, designating the Birmingham
Area, which includes Jefferson County, Shelby County, and a portion of
Walker County, as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS based upon air quality data for calendar years 2006 through 2008.
See 74 FR 58688. Under the CAA, States are also required to adopt and
submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS in designated
nonattainment areas and throughout the State.
A State may submit a request to redesignate a nonattainment area
that is attaining the NAAQS, and, if the area has met the required
criteria described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, EPA may approve
the redesignation to
[[Page 86305]]
attainment for the area.\6\ One of the criteria for redesignation is to
have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The
maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue to
maintain the NAAQS for the period extending 10 years after
redesignation, and it must contain such additional measures as
necessary to ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as
necessary to assure that violations of the NAAQS will be promptly
corrected. Eight years after the effective date of redesignation, the
State must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional ten years pursuant to CAA
section 175A(b) (i.e., ensuring maintenance for 20 years after
redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. They include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval of the applicable SIP
pursuant to CAA section 110(k), determination that improvement in
air quality is a result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all applicable
section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, the Birmingham Area was designated as nonattainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. On June 17, 2010, ADEM
submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Birmingham Area to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. This submittal
included a plan to provide for maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Birmingham Area through 2024 as a
revision to the Alabama SIP. On September 20, 2010, EPA issued a clean
data determination under the Agency's Clean Data Policy based upon
complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient
air monitoring data for the years 2007-2009 showing that the Birmingham
Area had monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS. See 75 FR 57186. Subsequently, on January 25, 2013, EPA approved
the Birmingham Area's maintenance plan and the State's request to
redesignate the Birmingham Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. See 78 FR 5306.
EPA has published long-standing guidance for States on developing
maintenance plans.\7\ The Calcagni Memo provides that States may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that projected future
emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni Memo at 9. EPA clarified in
subsequent guidance memos that certain areas could meet the CAA section
175A requirement to provide for maintenance by showing that the area
was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future, using information such
as the area's design value \8\ being significantly below the standard
and the area having a historically stable design value.\9\ EPA refers
to a maintenance plan containing this streamlined demonstration as an
LMP, and in guidance, EPA has discussed certain criteria that it
intends to evaluate, including consistency with EPA regulations along
with other information as is relevant, in determining if this option is
appropriate for an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo). A copy of this
guidance is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
\8\ The 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> design value for a monitoring
site is the 3-year average of the annual 98th-percentile 24-hour
average PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. The design value for a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area is the highest design value of
any monitoring site in the area.
\9\ 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; ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM<INF>10</INF>
Nonattainment Areas,'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, dated August 9,
2001 (2001 PM<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance); and Guidance on the
Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Nonattainment Areas and PM<INF>2.5</INF> Maintenance Areas (2022
PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP Guidance). Copies of these guidance memoranda
can be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting the LMP option
because section 175A of the Act does not define how areas may provide
for maintenance, and in EPA's experience implementing the various
NAAQS, areas that qualify for an LMP and have approved LMPs have
rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS. As
noted in EPA's LMP guidance, States seeking an LMP must still submit
the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the Calcagni Memo,
including: an attainment emissions inventory, provisions for the
continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring network,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan in the
event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, a State seeking an
LMP as its section 175A maintenance plan must submit it as a revision
to its SIP, with all attendant notice and comment procedures. While the
LMP guidance memoranda were originally written with respect to certain
NAAQS,\10\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of section 175A to
certain other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by the
previous guidance memos.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Prior memos addressed unclassifiable areas under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM<INF>10</INF>
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the carbon monoxide (CO)
NAAQS.
\11\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (approval of second
ten-year LMP for Grant County 1971 sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>)
maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time ADEM was developing its February 2, 2021, SIP revision,
EPA had not developed specific LMP guidance for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and
ADEM consulted with the Agency in extending the rationale from the 2001
PM<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance, which was written for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM<INF>10</INF>),
to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> maintenance plan.\12\ Accordingly, ADEM
prepared its second maintenance plan submission in accordance with the
2001 PM<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance. Since the time of the February 2,
2021, submittal, EPA has released LMP guidance for PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
Specifically, on October 27, 2022, EPA published clarifying guidance
that focuses on the distinctions that are relevant specifically for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMPs for Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Maintenance Areas.\13\ The 2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP
Guidance applies the 2001 Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Areas guidance for PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP
submissions, except for the specific topics where the 2001 guidance is
superseded. Therefore, EPA has evaluated the February 2, 2021,
submittal in light of the criteria discussed in the 2022
PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP Guidance, as well as the relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As discussed further below, ADEM prepared its second
maintenance plan submission following the 2001 PM<INF>10</INF> LMP
Guidance.
\13\ A copy is available in the docket for this proposed action
and also available via <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/PM%202.5%20Limited%20Maintenance%20Plan%20Guidance.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/PM%202.5%20Limited%20Maintenance%20Plan%20Guidance.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to approve the Birmingham Area LMP because the
State has made a showing, consistent with EPA's current
PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP guidance, that the Birmingham Area's
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations are well below the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and have been historically stable, and that it
has met the other maintenance plan requirements. EPA's evaluation of
the Birmingham Area LMP is presented in Section IV of this notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
[[Page 86306]]
III. Alabama's SIP Submittal
Under CAA section 175A(b), States must submit a revision to the
first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for ten additional years following the end of
the first 10-year period. Accordingly, on February 2, 2021, Alabama
submitted a second maintenance plan for the Birmingham Area that shows
that the Area is expected to remain in attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS through 2034, i.e., through the end of the full
20-year maintenance period.
In recognition of the continuing record of air quality monitoring
data showing ambient 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the
Birmingham Area well below the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS,
ADEM chose the LMP option for the development of a second 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS maintenance plan. On February 2, 2021, ADEM
adopted the second 10-year maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and submitted the Birmingham Area LMP to EPA as
a revision to the Alabama SIP.
The February 2, 2021, submittal includes the LMP, air quality data
and other information demonstrating qualification for the LMP,
emissions inventory information, and appendices, as well as
certification of adoption of the plan by ADEM. Appendices to the plan
include a copy of the 2001 PM<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance, supplemental
information on ADEM's mobile source emissions analysis, emissions
inventory development data, and qualifying calculations in accordance
with the 2001 PM<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance. The submittal also includes
documentation of notice, hearing, and public participation prior to
adoption of the plan by ADEM on February 2, 2021. The Birmingham Area
LMP relies on the same emission reduction strategy and other already-
implemented measures as the Area's first 10-year maintenance plan,
which provides for the maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS through 2024. Specifically, the Birmingham Area LMP relies on the
following measures: the continuation of programs such as the local
Jefferson County and Shelby County burn bans, prioritizing funding for
diesel emissions reduction projects within the Birmingham Area,
continued implementation of Federal measures (for example, Tier 3 Motor
Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards,\14\ and interstate transport rules
\15\), and emission reductions achieved and documented for the first
CAA section 175A maintenance plan.\16\ Since Alabama submitted its
maintenance plan for the first 10-year portion of the maintenance
period, other changes that have decreased PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
precursor emissions in the Area have taken place, as noted in the
February 2, 2021, submittal. Examples include the permanent shutdown of
Units 1-5 at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Colbert Plant, the
permanent shutdown of Alabama Power Company's Plant Gorgas, the
installation of a baghouse with an electrostatic precipitator at
Alabama Power Company's Plant Gaston, and the conversion of the coal-
fired units to natural gas at Alabama Power Company's Greene County
Steam Plant.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014). The February 17, 2021,
submittal lists this as ``Tier IV,'' which is an error, as only Tier
3 standards have been set for on-road mobile source emissions
standards. EPA understands this to be in reference to the latest
emissions standards, referred to as ``Tier 3.''
\15\ See, e.g., 63 FR 57355 (October 27, 1998).
\16\ See also 78 FR 5306 (January 25, 2013), 76 FR 70091
(November 10, 2011), and the submittal at docket ID EPA-R04-OAR-
2011-0043.
\17\ See also EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and item EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0003-0213 supporting EPA's air quality designations for the
2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Alabama's SIP Submittal
EPA has reviewed the Birmingham Area LMP, which is designed to
maintain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS within the Birmingham
Area through the end of the 20-year period beyond redesignation, as
required under CAA section 175A(b). The following is a summary of EPA's
interpretation of the section 175A requirements \18\ and EPA's
evaluation of how each requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Calcagni Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a State should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A State should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For the 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the inventory should be based on representative
daily emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and precursor emissions,
including SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF>. The
Birmingham Area LMP includes a PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment inventory
for the Birmingham Area with emissions from 2017. Table 1 presents a
summary of the inventory for 2017 contained in the LMP for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and precursor emissions.
Table 1--2017 SO2, NOX, PM2.5, VOC, and NH3 Emissions for the Birmingham Area
[Tons/day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-point On-road Nonroad
Point source source mobile source mobile source Event Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2..................................................... 52.95 0.5 0.27 0.02 0.14 53.88
NOX..................................................... 73.06 10.02 27.96 9.44 0.32 120.8
PM2.5................................................... 9.0 13.94 0.80 1.07 1.17 25.98
VOC..................................................... 9.4 171.17 12.91 7.75 2.99 204.22
NH3..................................................... 0.40 1.77 0.95 0.02 0.16 3.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Attainment Emissions Inventory section of the Birmingham Area
LMP describes the methods, models, and assumptions used to develop the
attainment inventory. As described in the Attainment Emissions
Inventory section of the LMP, ADEM relied on the 2017 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) for point source, non-point (or area source),
and event emissions (which typically consist of activities such as
wildfires), except as described below.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Documentation and data for the 2017 NEI can be accessed via
the following website: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad mobile source emissions were, in part, estimated using the
latest version of the EPA's motor vehicle emissions model, MOVES3
(which provides the ability to estimate nonroad emissions from
agricultural, commercial, mining, industrial, and
[[Page 86307]]
recreational equipment, and commercial and residential lawn and garden
equipment, among others). Locomotives, aircraft, and marine nonroad
sources are not included in MOVES, and ADEM relied on EPA-generated
emissions for these sectors.\20\ ADEM estimated on-road mobile source
emissions using MOVES3 and local data such as vehicle type, activity,
and vehicle speeds from the Birmingham metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) to estimate vehicular emissions for 2017. ADEM's
estimates for vehicles reflect emissions inventories and ancillary data
files used for emissions modeling, as well as the meteorological,
initial condition, and boundary condition files needed to run the air
quality model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ EPA developed emissions for these sectors based on AP-42
emissions factors, and information supplied by the Eastern Regional
Technical Advisory Committee for locomotives and Federal Aviation
Administration's Aviation Environmental Design Tool. See 2017
National Emissions Inventory: January 2021 Updated Release,
Technical Support Document available via the following website:
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-technical-support-document-tsd">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-technical-support-document-tsd</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on EPA's review of the methods, models, and assumptions used
by Alabama to develop the inventory, as well as EPA's review of the
2017 daily emissions data, EPA proposes to find that the Birmingham
Area LMP includes a comprehensive, accurate inventory of actual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and precursor emissions in attainment year 2017 and
proposes to conclude that this is acceptable for the purposes of a
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).
B. Maintenance Demonstration
The maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied in an LMP if the State can provide sufficient weight of
evidence indicating that air quality in the area is well below the
level of the NAAQS, that past air quality trends have been shown to be
stable, and that the probability of the area experiencing a violation
during the second 10-year maintenance period is low.\21\ These criteria
are evaluated below with regard to the Birmingham Area. As noted in
Section II of this NPRM, EPA has evaluated ADEM's submittal and,
considering the submittal's contents and EPA's conclusions based
thereon, finds the LMP to be consistent with EPA's current LMP guidance
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Maintenance Areas. Although ADEM developed the
Birmingham Area LMP in accordance with the 2001 PM<INF>10</INF> LMP
Guidance, the LMP is nonetheless consistent with the portions of the
2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP Guidance that superseded the 2001
PM<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP Guidance; see also 2001
p.m.<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance; ``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; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS,
dated October 6, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Evaluation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Levels
To attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the three-year
average of the 98th percentile 24-hour average PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations (design value) at each monitor within an area must not
exceed 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Table 2 includes the Area-wide monitor design
values for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS from EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS) for the period 2015-2019, which covers the overall
period from 2013-2019.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 40 CFR 58.11(e) requires agencies to assess data from Class
III PM<INF>2.5</INF> Federal equivalent methods (FEMs) operating in
their network alongside collocated Federal reference methods (FRMs)
in accordance with table C-4 to subpart C of 40 CFR part 53. The
Jefferson County Department of Health (JCDH) submitted a
demonstration on November 28, 2022, showing that the FEM operating
at AQS site 01-073-0023 did not meet these performance criteria and
therefore should not be used for comparison to the NAAQS. EPA
approved this demonstration on February 2, 2023. As stated in EPA's
approval (which is included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking), JCDH included its demonstration and EPA's approval
thereof in the 2023 network plan that was posted for public comment.
See the docket for this proposed rulemaking for more information.
Table 2--2015-2019 Design Values (DV) ([mu]g/m\3\) for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS at Monitoring Sites in the Birmingham Area a b c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQS site ID Location 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018 2017-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01-073-0023............................... North Birmingham............ 23 23 22 21 \d\ 20
01-073-1005............................... McAdory..................... \e\ 20 \e\ 18 18 17 18
01-073-1010............................... Leeds....................... 20 19 17 18 18
01-073-2003............................... Wylam....................... 20 19 18 18 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is required to have a minimum of three PM2.5 monitoring sites. The MSA still maintains five regulatory PM2.5
monitoring sites, offering adequate coverage of the MSA.
\b\ Some of the data in this table is different than that transmitted in the February 2, 2021, submittal. EPA queried AQS to substitute the data for the
2014-2016 design values for the Leeds, McAdory, and Wylam sites and understands these differences to be the result of typographical errors.
\c\ There is one additional monitor in Jefferson County recording PM2.5 data. The Arkadelphia/Near Road site in AQS with ID 01-073-2059, identified as
the West Birmingham monitor in the February 2, 2021, SIP revision, began recording data to AQS in calendar year 2014, so 2014-2016 comprises the first
period with three full years of data to calculate a DV. However, until Quarter 3 of 2020, data collected were incomplete because the Federal reference
method monitor was operating on a 1-in-6-day sampling frequency rather than a 1-in-3-day sampling frequency as required by 40 CFR 58.12(d). The
incomplete data means that resulting calculated DVs are invalid. Accordingly, those data are not presented here or included in further analysis.
\d\ The 2017-2019 DV for the North Birmingham site differs from the DV submitted in the February 2, 2021, SIP revision because the updated value
presented in Table 2 reflects EPA-approved exclusion of data from one monitor at the site and utilization of data recorded at a collocated monitor for
NAAQS-comparison purposes.
\e\ These data are incomplete due to the need to relocate the monitor in the first quarter of 2014, and the resulting DVs for 2013-2015 and 2014-2016
are invalid.
From the available data in Table 2, the representative complete DV
for the Birmingham Area was the North Birmingham monitor DV for each
three-year period. The highest complete DV in this time period is 23
[micro]g/m\3\, which is 66% of the 24-hour NAAQS. The most recent
official DVs are for 2020-2022 and are as follows: North Birmingham, 17
[mu]g/m\3\; McAdory, 17 [mu]g/m\3\; Leeds, 18 [mu]g/m\3\; and Wylam, 18
[mu]g/m\3\. These most recent data are slightly lower than those
presented in Table 2 and continue to show the general downward
trend.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For more information on the air quality data, see
additional information in the document titled ``Technical Support
Document for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Air Plan Approval;
Alabama; Birmingham Limited Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24-Hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS'' (Birmingham TSD) with the file name ``AL-
124 TSD_Alabama Limited Maintenance Plan for 2006
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.pdf'' in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 86308]]
To qualify for the LMP option pursuant to EPA's 2022
PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP Guidance, a State must analyze the design value
(DV) trends to determine a critical design value (CDV), which is
typically calculated based on the five-year average of the most recent
DVs for the area and the statistical variation of the average DV. If
each site in the maintenance area has an average design value (ADV)
that is less than the CDV, it would demonstrate that the area has
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations that will likely remain below the level
of the standard in the future.
The ADVs are used to determine the CDV for the area. See Table 3
for relevant equations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13DE23.001
EPA notes that ADEM made use of a different calculation of the
standard deviation than that shown in Table 3, which affects the
calculations of the CV and the CDV. Specifically, ADEM made use of a
population standard deviation, which treats the seven-year period and
five resultant DVs as the entire set of available data needed to assess
the stability of the DVs over time. The 2001 PM<INF>10</INF> LMP
Guidance, which ADEM followed when it developed the LMP, did not
specify the approach for determining the standard deviation of DV data
analyzed. However, the seven-year period and five resultant DVs used to
assess the stability of the DVs over time are a subset, or sample, of
all of the available historical data. Therefore, EPA considers the
sample standard deviation, presented in Table 3, to be the most
appropriate approach for determining the variability in the data.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See the February 2, 2021, submittal and the Birmingham TSD
for more information on ADEM's calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEM calculated the CDV across the entire area to be 33.3 [mu]g/
m\3\ for the Birmingham Area, and the ADV across the Area to be 22.2
[mu]g/m\3\. ADEM determined the CDV and ADV based on the controlling,
or highest, DV across all monitoring sites in the Birmingham Area for
each three-year period. EPA clarified in the 2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP
Guidance that the CDV approach is specifically intended to be conducted
for each monitoring site in an area. Therefore, EPA has included the
CDV and ADV calculations across each site in Table 4.
Table 4--Statistical Analysis of 2015-2019 DVs at Monitoring Sites in the Birmingham Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADV ([mu]g/ CDV ([mu]g/ CDV-ADV
AQS site ID Location m\3\) [Sigma] CV m\3\) ([mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01-073-0023............................... North Birmingham............ 21.8 1.30 0.060 32.1 10.3
01-073-1005............................... McAdory..................... 18.2 1.10 0.060 32.0 13.8
01-073-1010............................... Leeds....................... 18.4 1.14 0.062 32.0 13.6
01-073-2003............................... Wylam....................... 18.4 1.14 0.062 32.0 13.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has calculated the CDVs over this time and across the Area,
with the highest CDV being 32.1 [mu]g/m\3\ at the North Birmingham site
and the lowest being 32.0 [mu]g/m\3\ at the other sites. The ADVs
across the Birmingham Area in Table 4 are far below the CDVs, with the
lowest margin between these values shown as 10.3 [mu]g/m\3\, so the
Area qualifies for the LMP based on this portion of the analysis.
The most recent DVs for 2018-2020, 2019-2021, and 2020-2022,
available through EPA's AQS, do not alter the conclusions of the
analysis conducted based on the 2015-2019 DVs. The available margins
between the updated CDV and ADV for the 2018-2022 DVs covering the
seven-year period from 2016-2022 for each site are as follows: North
Birmingham, 11.8 [mu]g/m\3\; McAdory, 15.9 [mu]g/m\3\; Leeds, 15 [mu]g/
m\3\; and Wylam, 15.9 [mu]g/m\3\. These most recent margins between the
calculated CDVs and ADVs are greater than those presented in Table 4,
meaning the data at the monitoring sites more easily meet the criteria
in the 2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP Guidance.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See the Birmingham TSD for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP Guidance describes circumstances in
which an LMP may be appropriate for a first and/or second 10-year
maintenance plan.
[[Page 86309]]
For example, the 2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP Guidance discusses how an
LMP might be especially appropriate for second maintenance plans,
considering that the given area will have demonstrated attainment of
the applicable PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for at least eight years. With
respect to second maintenance plans, the 2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP
Guidance indicates that the LMP submission should address the area's
PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality trends and historical and projected
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to meet the regulatory requirements at 40
CFR 93.109(e). The LMP would need to include documentation supporting
the demonstration that it would be unreasonable to expect that such an
area would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a NAAQS
violation to occur, per 40 CFR 93.109(e). The 2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP
Guidance goes on to note that if re-entrained road dust emissions have
been found to be significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> transportation
conformity purposes under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), then the LMP should
include an additional motor vehicle emissions analysis.
As a result of neither the EPA Regional Administrator nor the ADEM
director having made a finding that re-entrained road dust emissions
within the Birmingham Area were a significant contributor to the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment problem, this LMP and ADEM's first 10-
year maintenance plan did not include emissions of re-entrained road
dust as significant for transportation conformity analyses under 40 CFR
93.102(b)(3). Therefore, it was not necessary to perform additional on-
road emissions analysis. The Birmingham Area MPO provided local VMT
data, and ADEM included these VMT data, which show only a 12 percent
projected VMT growth from the base year of 2017 to the final year of
the plan in 2034, in the submittal. Additionally, EPA considered the
regional emissions analysis results from the most recent transportation
conformity determination adopted by the Birmingham MPO,\26\ shown in
Table 5, to include on-road emissions in the year 2024 of 0.57 and
16.48 tons per day of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ A copy of the August 9, 2023, conformity determination is
included in the docket for more information.
Table 5--Birmingham MPO 2006 On-Road Emissions in Tons/Day (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road emissions
Analysis year -------------------
PM2.5 NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024................................................ 0.57 16.48
2034................................................ 0.38 9.14
2044................................................ 0.37 8.41
2050................................................ 0.38 8.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM<INF>2.5</INF> on-road emissions are 47 percent below the
2024 budget of 1.21 tpd. The PM<INF>2.5</INF> on-road emissions
continue to decline steadily from years 2034 to 2050 to 31 percent of
the budget. The NO<INF>X</INF> on-road emissions are 34 percent below
the 2024 budget of 48.41 tpd and continue to decline steadily from
years 2034 to 2050 to 18 percent of the budget. Because the on-road
emissions show an overall downward trend for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF>, it would be unreasonable to expect that the Area would
experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS violation to occur as shown by the ADV and CDV calculations
above. For the preceding reasons, the low projected growth in VMT over
the 17-year period, and the downward trend in PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> on-road vehicle emissions compared to the budget, the
mobile source emissions are not expected to adversely impact the Area's
ability to continue to maintain compliance with the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
Therefore, the Birmingham Area is eligible for the LMP option, and
the more detailed mobile source analysis that is found in the
PM<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance is not required.\27\ EPA proposes to find
that the long record of monitored PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations that
attain the NAAQS, ADEM's air quality statistical analysis and EPA's
updated analysis, together with the continuation of existing emissions
control programs, adequately provide for the maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in Birmingham through the second 10-year
maintenance period and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ADEM completed additional motor vehicle emissions analysis
based on the 2001 PM<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance. This analysis is not
required for the Birmingham Area under the 2022 PM<INF>2.5</INF> LMP
Guidance, and EPA is not relying on it here. See the February 2,
2021, SIP revision for more details on this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Stability of PM<INF>2.5</INF> Levels
As discussed above, the Birmingham Area has maintained air quality
well below the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS during the first
maintenance period. Additionally, the DV data shown within Table 2
illustrate that 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels have been relatively
stable over this timeframe, with a modest downward trend. For example,
the data within Table 2 indicate that the highest year-over-year change
in complete DVs at any given monitor between 2015-2019 was 2 [mu]g/
m\3\, which represented a 10 percent change. See, e.g., the change at
the Leeds monitor (AQS 01-073-1010) from 2014-2016 to 2015-2017.
Furthermore, the overall trend in DVs for the Birmingham Area between
2015 and 2019 shows a decrease of 13 percent at the highest-reading
monitor with valid DVs, North Birmingham 01-073-0023, with overall
decreases in DVs at each individual monitoring site in the Birmingham
Area. Considering the 2020, 2021, and 2022 DVs, which were finalized
after ADEM's February 2, 2021, submittal, the trend between 2015-2022
shows a decrease of 26.1 percent at the North Birmingham monitor, 01-
073-0023. This downward trend in PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels, coupled with
the relatively small, year-over-year variation in PM<INF>2.5</INF> DVs,
makes it reasonable to conclude that the Birmingham Area will not
exceed the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS during the second 10-
year maintenance period.
C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
EPA periodically reviews the PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring network
that the Jefferson County Department of Health (JCDH) operates and
maintains in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This network plan, which
is submitted annually to EPA, is consistent with the most recent
ambient air quality monitoring network assessment. The annual network
plans developed by ADEM and JCDH follow a public notification and
review process. EPA has reviewed and approved the 2023 Ambient Air
Monitoring Network Plan for JCDH.<SUP>28 29</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ADEM does not monitor PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the Birmingham
MSA.
\29\ The letter approving this network plan, except for the
SO<INF>2</INF> network, is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. As noted above, JCDH's Network Plan for
Birmingham, covering the PM<INF>2.5</INF> network, has been approved by
EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and the State has committed to
continue operating all required PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitors in the Area
in accordance with part 58. EPA therefore proposes to find that the
monitoring network is adequate to
[[Page 86310]]
verify continued attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
in the Birmingham Area.
D. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of such contingency provisions is
to prevent future violations of the NAAQS or to promptly remedy any
NAAQS violations that might occur during the maintenance period. The
State should identify specific triggers which will be used to determine
when the contingency measures need to be implemented.
The LMP contains a commitment from Alabama to adopt, within 18
months of certification of a violating DV \30\ of the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Birmingham Area, one or more control
measures as needed to reattain the NAAQS.\31\ If a certified violation
occurs, Alabama will assess the violation and consider planned local
and regional emission reductions and consider additional control
measures as needed to attain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ A certified air quality design value would be quality
assured and quality controlled.
\31\ ADEM also states that in the event that any given year's
98th percentile 24-hour concentrations is 36 [mu]g/m\3\ or higher at
any monitor in the Area the State will evaluate existing control
measures to determine whether any further emission reductions should
be implemented at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that the contingency provisions in Alabama's
second maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
meet the requirements of CAA section 175A(d).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See the Contingency Plan section of the LMP for further
information regarding the contingency plan, including measures that
ADEM will consider for adoption if a certified violation occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Conclusion
EPA proposes to approve the Birmingham LMP for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which includes updates of the various elements
(including attainment inventory, assurance of adequate monitoring and
verification of continued attainment, and contingency provisions) of
the initial EPA-approved maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA also finds that the Birmingham Area
qualifies for the LMP option and adequately provides for maintenance of
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS through 2034, i.e., beyond the
20 years following redesignation of the Area to attainment, and thereby
satisfies the requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b).
EPA is therefore proposing to approve Alabama's February 2, 2021,
submission of the Birmingham Area 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
LMP as a revision to the Alabama SIP.
V. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B).
EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A,
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to
SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether they conform. The conformity rule generally requires a
demonstration that emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent
with the motor vehicle emissions budget (budget) contained in the
control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan. See 40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124. A motor vehicle emissions budget is defined as
``that portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the
submitted or approved control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting
reasonable further progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors,
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions.'' See 40
CFR 93.101.
Under the transportation conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate
conformity without a regional emissions analysis. See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
For LMPs, which do not include budgets, EPA also reviews whether the
LMP makes the demonstration that it would be unreasonable to expect so
much motor vehicle emissions growth that the area would violate the
NAAQS. See 40 CFR 93.109(e). As discussed in the Section IV above, the
low VMT growth from 2017 to 2034, the downward trend in
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> on-road vehicle emissions
documented in the Birmingham MPO's recent conformity determination, and
the emission results from the MPO's conformity determination compared
to the 2024 budgets collectively demonstrate that it is unreasonable to
expect so much motor vehicle emissions growth that the area would
violate the NAAQS.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ On January 25, 2013, EPA approved the 2024 motor vehicle
emissions budgets associated with the first 10-year maintenance plan
for the Birmingham Area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
See 78 FR 5306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of certain
SIP submissions, including maintenance plans, are set out in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy is outlined in 40
CFR 93.118(f). EPA intends to make its determination regarding the
adequacy of the Birmingham Area LMP for transportation conformity
purposes in the near future by completing the adequacy process together
with any final decision on this proposed rulemaking.
Today's proposal notifies the public that EPA has received this
LMP, which EPA will review for adequacy, and begins the public comment
period. EPA invites the public to comment on the adequacy of the LMP as
well as other aspects of the action EPA is proposing in this notice.
Comments submitted as part of the adequacy process must be submitted by
the close of the comment period on this NPRM.
If EPA approves this LMP or makes an adequacy finding for this LMP,
after 2024, the motor vehicle emissions in the Birmingham Area may be
treated as essentially not constraining for the second 10-year
maintenance period because EPA would have concluded that it is
unreasonable to expect that the area will experience so much motor
vehicle emissions growth during this period of time that a violation of
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS would result. When determining conformity of
transportation plans and TIPs after the year 2024, MPOs would not have
to do a regional emissions analysis. Birmingham has approved budgets
from the first 10-year maintenance plan for the year 2024, and if a
transportation conformity determination is needed and 2024 is in the
timeframe of the determination, the MPO would have to perform a
regional emissions analysis and compare the results to the 2024
budgets. All actions for transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs that would require a transportation conformity
determination for the Birmingham 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
maintenance area under EPA's transportation conformity rule provisions
are considered to have already satisfied the regional emissions
analysis and ``budget test'' requirements in 40 CFR 93.118. See 40 CFR
93.109(e) and 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004).
However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs, and projects. As stated in
40 CFR 93.109(e), ``A conformity determination that meets other
applicable criteria in Table 1 of
[[Page 86311]]
paragraph (b) of this section is still required.'' Specifically,
consultation (40 CFR 93.112) is required for all transportation
conformity determinations. Conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs
still will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40
CFR 93.108) and provide for timely implementation of Transportation
Control Measures from the applicable implementation plan (40 CFR
93.113). Any conformity determinations made for transportation projects
must demonstrate that there is a currently conforming transportation
plan and TIP (40 CFR 93.114) and that the project is from that
conforming plan and TIP (40 CFR 93.115), meet the hot-spot requirements
for projects (40 CFR 93.116), and ensure that the project complies with
any PM control measures in the SIP (40 CFR 93.117).
Additionally, conformity of transportation plans and TIPs, plan and
TIP amendments, and transportation projects must be demonstrated in
accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104; for
RTPs and TIPs, this is no less frequently than every four years.
VI. General Conformity
The conformity requirement under CAA section 176(c) ensures that
Federal activities implemented by Federal agencies will not interfere
with a State's ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Under CAA
176(c)(1), the requirement prohibits Federal agencies from approving,
permitting, licensing, or funding activities that do not conform to the
purpose of the applicable SIP for the control and prevention of air
pollution. See CAA section 176(c)(1)(A). Under CAA section
176(c)(1)(B), conformity to an implementation plan means that Federal
activities will not cause or contribute to any new violations of the
NAAQS, increase the frequency or severity of any existing NAAQS
violation, or delay timely attainment or any required interim emissions
reductions or other milestones contained in the applicable SIP.
The general conformity program implements CAA section 176(c)(4)(A),
and the criteria and procedures for determining conformity of general
Federal activities to the applicable SIP are established under 40 CFR
part 93, subpart B, sections 93.150 through 93.165. General conformity
requirements apply to Federal activities that (1) would cause emissions
of relevant criteria or precursor pollutants to originate within
nonattainment areas or areas that have been redesignated to attainment
with an approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan (i.e., maintenance
areas), as given under 40 CFR 93.153(b), and (2) are not Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
transportation projects as defined in 40 CFR 93.101 under the
transportation conformity requirements. See 40 CFR 93.153(a).
The general conformity regulations do not provide special
flexibility to account for when EPA establishes a LMP for a maintenance
area. EPA notes that the PM<INF>10</INF> LMP Guidance (2001) stated
that Federal actions subject to the general conformity regulations
could be considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' because the budgets
are essentially considered to be unlimited (i.e., unconstrained).
However, unlike the transportation conformity regulations, the concept
of unconstrained emissions budgets has no meaning under the general
conformity regulations. There is no provision in the general conformity
regulations for a LMP claiming unconstrained emissions budgets and no
exception to applying the limitations of the de minimis threshold rates
to an action's emissions that could trigger the requirement for a
general conformity determination. The concept of an unconstrained
budget cannot be relied upon by a Federal agency to make a general
conformity determination. Thus, for general Federal actions proposed
for maintenance areas with LMPs, such as this proposed rulemaking, the
criteria and procedures outlined in subpart B shall apply in the same
way as for any non-LMP maintenance area.
VII. Proposed Action
Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA and for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the Birmingham Area LMP for
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, submitted by ADEM on February
2, 2021, as a revision to the Alabama SIP. EPA is proposing to approve
the Birmingham Area LMP because it includes an acceptable update of the
various elements of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS maintenance
plan approved by EPA for the first 10-year period (including emissions
inventory, assurance of adequate monitoring and verification of
continued attainment, and contingency provisions), and retains the
relevant provisions of the SIP.
EPA also finds that the Birmingham Area qualifies for the LMP
option. We propose to approve the LMP because the Birmingham Area LMP
adequately provides for maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS over the second 10-year maintenance period,
through 2034, and thereby satisfies the requirements for such a plan
under CAA section 175A(b).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
<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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
<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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<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.
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
[[Page 86312]]
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on 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.''
ADEM 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 did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the
nature of the action being proposed here, this proposed action is
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the
affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this
proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 7, 2023.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023-27297 Filed 12-12-23; 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 December 13, 2023.
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.