Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0617-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed approval of the Ohio 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Second Maintenance Plans for Canton, Cleveland and Steubenville
Posted Date: 2023-07-05T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42900-42907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14103]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0615; EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0616; EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0617; 
FRL-11003-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville 
Second 10-Year 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Limited Maintenance Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the limited maintenance plans 
(LMP) submitted on September 8, 2021, by the Ohio Environmental 
Protection Agency (OEPA) for the Canton-Massillon (Stark County), 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and 
Summit Counties) and Steubenville-Weirton (Ohio-West Virginia, 
Jefferson County) maintenance areas. The plans address the second 10-
year maintenance periods for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers 
(PM2.5). EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's LMP submissions 
for Canton-Massillon, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, and Steubenville-Weirton 
because they provide for the maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) through 
the end of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance periods. In 
addition, EPA is initiating the process to find the Canton-Massillon, 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, and Steubenville-Weirton PM2.5 LMPs

[[Page 42901]]

adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2021-0615 (Canton-Massillon), EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0616 (Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain), or EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0617 (Steubenville-Weirton) at 
https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For 
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may 
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents 
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI 
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olivia Davidson, Attainment Planning 
and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0266, [email protected]. The EPA Region 
5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

    Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 
to 2.5 micrometers, known as PM2.5, is one of the criteria 
pollutants for which a NAAQS is established to protect human health and 
the environment. In 1997, EPA established the first PM2.5 
standards based on significant scientific evidence and health studies 
demonstrating the serious health effects associated with exposure to 
PM2.5. EPA set an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 [mu]g/
m\3\. In 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 
revising it to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the level of the annual 
PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Subsequently, in 2012, 
EPA established an annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS at 12 [mu]g/
m\3\ and retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/
m\3\.

B. Regulatory Actions in Canton-Massillon, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, and 
Steubenville-Weirton

    On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the Canton-Massillon (Canton), 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (Cleveland), and Steubenville-Weirton 
(Steubenville) areas as PM2.5 nonattainment areas due to 
measured violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 
58688). On June 18, May 30, and May 25, 2012, OEPA submitted to EPA 
requests to redesignate the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville 
nonattainment areas, respectively, to attainment of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. These submissions included plans to provide for 
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the areas for 
10 years. EPA redesignated the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville 
areas to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on 
October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62459), September 18, 2013 (78 FR 57270 and 78 
FR 57273), respectively, and approved the associated maintenance plans 
into the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose of OEPA'S 
September 8, 2021, LMP submissions is to fulfill the second 10-year 
planning requirement of CAA section 175A(b) to ensure PM2.5 
NAAQS compliance through 2033.

II. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option

A. Demonstration of Maintenance Using the Limited Maintenance Plan 
Option

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan. Under section 175A, a state must submit a revision to the SIP 
that provides for maintenance of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 
years after an area is redesignated to attainment. Section 175A also 
requires that eight years into the first maintenance period, the state 
must submit a second maintenance plan demonstrating that the area will 
continue to attain for the following 10-year period.
    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing 
maintenance plans.\1\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may 
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality 
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will 
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that future emissions 
of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level of 
emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e., 
attainment year inventory). EPA clarified in subsequent guidance memos 
that certain nonattainment areas could meet the CAA section 175A 
requirement to provide for maintenance by demonstrating that the area's 
design value was well below the NAAQS and that the historical stability 
of the area's air quality levels showed that the area was unlikely to 
violate the NAAQS in the future.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Calcagni, John, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September 
4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
    \2\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable 
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994; 
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO 
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' (PM10 LMP Guidance) 
from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these 
guidance memoranda can be found in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most recently, in October 2022, EPA released guidance extending 
this streamlined option for demonstrating maintenance under CAA section 
175A to certain PM2.5 areas, titled ``Guidance on Limited 
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM2.5 Nonattainment 
Areas and PM2.5 Maintenance Areas'' (PM2.5 LMP 
Guidance).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The guidance document developed by the Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, the Office of Transportation and Air 
Quality, and the Office of Air and Radiation titled ``Guidance on 
the Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM2.5 
Nonattainment Areas and PM2.5 Maintenance Areas'' can be 
found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/PM%202.5%20Limited%20Maintenance%20Plan%20Guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA refers to this streamlined demonstration of maintenance as an 
LMP. EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting this option 
because section 175A of the Act defines few specific content 
requirements for maintenance plans, and in EPA's experience 
implementing the various NAAQS, areas that qualify for a LMP and have 
approved LMPs have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations

[[Page 42902]]

of the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP guidance, states seeking an LMP 
should still submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the 
Calcagni memo, including: an attainment emissions inventory, provisions 
for the continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring 
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan 
in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, states 
seeking an LMP must still submit their section 175A maintenance plan as 
a revision to their SIP, with all attendant notice and comment 
procedures.
    The PM2.5 LMP Guidance, similar to qualification for a 
LMP under the PM10 LMP Guidance, allows states to 
demonstrate that areas qualify for a LMP by showing that, based on 
their recent measured air quality, they are unlikely to violate the 
NAAQS in the future.
    Specifically, the PM2.5 LMP Guidance relies on the 
critical design value (CDV) concept. The Guidance directs states to 
calculate a site-specific CDV for the monitoring site in an area with 
the highest design value, and also for all other active monitoring 
sites in the area with complete data. The Guidance states that areas 
should show that the average design value (ADV) for each monitoring 
site in the area, i.e., the average of at least the most recent 
consecutive 5 years of PM2.5 design values, does not exceed 
the associated CDV for each site.\4\ The CDV calculation for a 
monitoring site involves parameters including: (1) the level of the 
relevant NAAQS; (2) the co-efficient of variation of recent design 
values measured at that site; and (3) a statistical parameter 
corresponding to a 10 percent probability of exceedance, such that 
sites with historically high variability in design values result in a 
lower (or more stringent) CDV. Evaluating if the ADV for each 
monitoring site in the area is below the CDV demonstrates that the 
probability of a future exceedance, based on the area's historical air 
quality and variability, is less than 10 percent. Per EPA's 
transportation conformity regulations, areas with LMPs must also 
``demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect that such an area 
would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a violation 
of the NAAQS to occur.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA recommends that the ADV be calculated using at least 
five years of design values, each representing a three-year period, 
because this approach would rely on a more robust dataset. However, 
we acknowledge that an alternative interpretation may be acceptable, 
where these variables could be calculated using three years of 
design values, collectively representing five years of air quality 
data.
    \5\ See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Transportation Conformity Under Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
Under that provision, conformity to a SIP means that transportation 
activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, 
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or 
any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any 
area. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B). EPA's transportation conformity 
rule at 40 CFR part 93 subpart A establishes the criteria and 
procedures to determine whether metropolitan transportation plans, 
transportation improvement programs, and federally supported highway 
and transit projects conform to the purpose of the SIP.
    While qualification for the LMP option does not exempt an area from 
the need to determine conformity, in an area with an LMP, conformity 
may be demonstrated without a regional emissions analysis for the 
relevant NAAQS and pollutant (40 CFR 93.109(e)). An LMP must 
demonstrate that it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas 
would experience so much growth in on-road emissions during the 
maintenance period that a violation of the relevant NAAQS would occur 
(40 CFR 93.109(e)). Hence, because no such impact is expected, areas 
with LMPs are not required to do a regional emissions analysis as part 
of a transportation conformity determination. See 40 CFR 93.109(e). 
Therefore, an LMP does not include motor vehicle emissions budgets.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved or found adequate under 
the LMP option are not required to do a regional emissions analysis 
(and are not subject to the budget test in 40 CFR 93.118), the areas 
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of 
40 CFR part 93, subpart A, including fulfilling project-level 
conformity analyses requirements and consultation requirements. Ohio 
has established transportation conformity criteria and procedures 
related to interagency consultation, and enforceability of certain 
transportation related control and mitigation measures. Updates to the 
OEPA transportation conformity SIP were approved March 3, 2015 (80 FR 
11133), which addresses the consultation requirements for the purpose 
of evaluating the conformity of transportation plans. The LMP SIP 
submissions for Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville were developed as 
part of an interagency consultation process which includes Federal, 
state, and local agencies.
    The PM2.5 LMP Guidance notes that an LMP may be 
particularly appropriate for a second maintenance plan, as the area 
will have demonstrated attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS for at 
least 8 years. To demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect 
that the area would experience enough motor vehicle growth for a NAAQS 
violation to occur, the guidance states that an LMP submissions should 
address the PM2.5 air quality trends and the historical and 
projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Further, if re-entrained road 
dust has been found to be significant for PM2.5 
transportation conformity purposes under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), the plan 
should include an on-road PM2.5 emissions analysis 
consistent with the methodology provided in attachment B of the 
PM10 LMP Guidance, which is included in the appendix for the 
PM2.5 LMP Guidance. The on-road emissions analysis would 
include a demonstration that for each monitoring site in the area, the 
ADV plus the expected on-road emissions growth estimate does not exceed 
the CDV.
    In addition to these proposed actions, EPA is notifying the public 
that the Agency is initiating the adequacy process for the Canton, 
Cleveland, and Steubenville LMPs. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Since LMPs 
do not include motor vehicle emissions budgets, in the case of an LMP, 
EPA's adequacy review is to assess whether the demonstration required 
by 40 CFR 93.109(e) is met. Any comments on the adequacy of the 
submitted OH LMPs should be submitted to the docket established for 
this rulemaking. If EPA approves the second 10-year LMPs or finds them 
adequate, the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville maintenance areas 
will not be required to perform regional emissions analyses but must 
meet project-level conformity analyses requirements as well as the 
other transportation conformity criteria. We will complete the adequacy 
determination process either in the final action on this proposal or by 
notifying the state in writing, publishing a notice in the Federal 
Register and by posting the finding on EPA's adequacy web page. See 40 
CFR 93.118(f).

C. General Conformity Under Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The general conformity rule of November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214) 
applies to nonattainment areas and redesignated attainment areas 
operating under maintenance plans (i.e., maintenance areas). General 
conformity requires compliance to the purpose of a SIP, which means 
that Federal activities not related to transportation plans,

[[Page 42903]]

programs, and projects will not cause or contribute to any new 
violation of any standard in any area, increase the frequency or 
severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area, or 
delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim 
emission reductions or other milestones in any area (CAA section 
176(c)(1)(A)and(1)(B)). As noted in the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, 
EPA's general conformity regulations do not distinguish between 
maintenance areas with an approved ``full maintenance plan'' and those 
with an approved LMP. Thus, maintenance areas with an approved LMP are 
subject to the same general conformity requirements under 40 CFR part 
93 subpart B, as those covered by a ``full maintenance plan.'' Nothing 
less than full compliance with the general conformity program is 
required within an LMP.

III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal

A. Demonstration of Qualification for the Limited Maintenance Plan 
Option

    EPA redesignated the Cleveland and Steubenville areas to attainment 
of the NAAQS on September 18, 2013 (78 FR 57270 and 78 FR 57273) and 
the Canton area on October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62459). Table 1 below shows 
the historical design values for each area since the areas were 
redesignated in 2013.\6\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 
attained when the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 
PM2.5 concentrations is equal to or less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\, 
and as shown in table 1, these three areas have been measuring air 
quality well below the 2006 standard with decreasing PM2.5 
concentrations over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#map.

 Table 1--PM2.5 Design Values in Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville Since Redesignation to Attainment in [mu]g/
                                                      m\3\
                                                   [2013-2022]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Canton PM2.5     Cleveland PM2.5    Steubenville PM2.5
                 Design value period                     design value      design value         design value
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011-2013............................................               27                  28                    26
2012-2014............................................               26                  27                    26
2013-2015............................................               26                  27                    27
2014-2016............................................               24                  25                    27
2015-2017............................................               22                  25                    25
2016-2018............................................               21                  23                    22
2017-2019............................................               21                  24                    21
2018-2020............................................               22                  25                    29
2019-2021............................................               22                  23                    20
2020-2022............................................               22                  24                    19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find that the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville 
areas meet the critical design value demonstration for a limited 
maintenance plan. As noted above, the parameters of the CDV 
calculation, outlined in the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, include the 
level of the relevant NAAQS, the co-efficient of variation of recent 
design values, and a statistical parameter corresponding to a 10 
percent probability of exceedance. The CDV demonstration is designed 
such that if a site's ADV is lower than the site's CDV, the probability 
of a future exceedance is less than 10%.\7\ Table 2 below contains the 
CDV and ADV for each monitor in the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville 
maintenance areas. EPA reviewed the data and methodology provided by 
the State and finds that each monitor's 5-year average design value is 
well below the corresponding site-specific CDV.\8\ Due to data 
completeness issues in 2020 at the design value monitors in the 
areas,\9\ the design values from 2015 through 2019 were used to 
determine the ADV and CDV at all monitors where possible for purposes 
of comparison. Monitoring data issues were related to COVID-19 
restrictions preventing field operations, including travel restrictions 
barring staff from visiting and maintaining monitoring stations, 
resulting in data loss.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the ``Example Site Calculation'', page 7 of the October 
2022 PM2.5 LMP guidance (https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-10/420b22044.pdf).
    \8\ The submission from OEPA uses a different standard deviation 
formula in excel to calculate the CDV than EPA. EPA recommends using 
the STDEV.S() formula whereas WDNR used the STDEV.P() formula. EPA 
has corrected this for the proposed rule and the spreadsheet in the 
docket of this rulemaking contains the calculations with the revised 
formula. See Appendix C in each submission for Canton, Cleveland, 
and Steubenville, contained in the docket of this rulemaking for 
OEPA's calculations.
    \9\ Typically, the design value for each area is the highest 
among monitors with valid design values. Here, because the 
historically highest (design value) monitors were invalid in 2020 
due to setbacks from COVID, we rely on data up to 2019 for this 
test.
    \10\ OEPA provided additional information about data loss due to 
COVID in and annual air quality report for 2020, available at 
https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/air-pollution-control/reports-and-data/air-monitoring.

     Table 2--Qualification of Monitors for LMP in Canton, Cleveland and Steubenville, Ohio in [micro]g/m\3\
                                                   [2015-2019]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            ADV (2015-      CDV (2015-
                 Monitor                       2019)           2019)                 Qualify for LMP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Canton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39-151-0017.............................            22.8            30.5  Yes.
39-151-0020.............................            21.4            31.3  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 42904]]

 
                                                    Cleveland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39-35-0065..............................            24.4            33.1  Yes.
39-035-0034.............................            19.6            30.1  Yes.
39-035-0038.............................            24.0            30.8  Yes.
39-035-0045.............................            22.2            30.9  Yes.
39-035-0060 \1\.........................            23.7            31.8  Yes.
39-035-1002.............................            19.6            31.3  Yes.
39-085-0007.............................            17.0            31.5  Yes.
39-093-3002.............................            19.2            30.3  Yes.
39-103-0004.............................            19.8            31.4  Yes.
39-133-0002 \2\.........................            17.3            31.1  Yes.
39-153-0017.............................            22.2            30.2  Yes.
39-153-0023.............................            20.0            30.6  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Steubenville
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39-081-0017.............................            24.4            29.8  Yes.
54-009-0005.............................            21.2            29.7  Yes.
54-009-0011.............................            22.0            31.5  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Design values for 2018, 2019, and 2020 used for calculation due to data completeness issues.
\2\ Design values for 2017, 2018, and 2019 used for calculation due to data completeness issues.

    We also propose to find that Ohio has adequately demonstrated that 
it is unlikely there will be an increase in motor vehicle emissions 
growth sufficient to cause a NAAQS violation in any of these three 
areas. In its submission, Ohio included an on-road PM2.5 
emissions analysis consistent with the methodology provided in the 2001 
PM10 LMP Guidance, because at the time of the state's 
submission, the PM2.5 LMP Guidance had not yet been issued 
by EPA. That analysis, consistent with the on-road calculation in the 
PM10 LMP Guidance and as modified in the later 
PM2.5 Guidance, examined the total projected growth in on-
road motor vehicle PM2.5 emissions through the end of the 
20-year maintenance period, where the projected percentage increase in 
vehicle miles traveled (VMTpi) over the next 10 years 
(through 2033) is multiplied by the motor vehicle design value 
(DVmv) which is based on the on-road mobile portion of the 
attainment year inventory. Per the PM LMP Guidances, this test is met 
when (VMTpi x DVmv) plus the design value for the 
most recent 5 years of quality assured air quality data, referred to as 
the future projected DV based on projected mobile source growth, is 
below the margin of safety, or in the case of PM2.5, the 
CDV, for the relevant PM standard in [mu]g/m\3\ for a given area.
    The site-specific 2006 24-hour PM2.5 CDVs for the 
historically highest monitors in each of the three areas is as follows: 
Canton (at Canton Fire St8 monitor 39-151-0017) is 30.5 [mu]g/m\3\, 
Cleveland (at Harvard Yards monitor, 39-35-0065) is 33.1 [mu]g/m\3\, 
and Steubenville (Steubenville monitor, 39-081-0017) is 29.8 [mu]g/
m\3\.\11\ See the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville LMP's, Chapter 5 
and associated appendices, located in the docket for this action, for 
details of this computation. While re-entrained road dust was not 
identified as a significant contributor to PM2.5 
concentrations in any of the three areas, OEPA submitted the results of 
the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis (as described in 
attachment B of the PM10 LMP Guidance) as part of the LMPs 
for the areas. The motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test 
results adjusted for VMT growth for Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville 
show a future projected DV based on projected mobile source growth of 
23.0, 24.6, and 24.4 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively, and therefore are below 
the calculated site-specific CDVs of 30.5, 33.1, and 29.8 [mu]g/m\3\, 
respectively. Conservatively, OEPA considered all PM2.5 
precursors and direct PM2.5 in their analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OEPA consulted with the Ohio Department of Transportation 
(ODOT), EPA, the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, Stark 
County (Canton), Akron County (Cleveland), and the Brooke Hancock 
Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission (Steubenville) to 
generate the projected VMT growth from 2017 through 2033 for Canton, 
Cleveland, and Steubenville 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
maintenance areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, this specific on-road PM2.5 emissions 
analysis is most critical for areas where re-entrained road dust has 
been identified as a significant contributor to PM2.5 
concentrations. While this is not the case in any of the three areas, 
OEPA submitted the results of the motor vehicle regional emissions 
analysis (as described in Attachment B of the PM10 LMP 
Guidance) as part of the LMPs for the areas. EPA clarified in the 2022 
PM2.5 LMP Guidance, which was released after Ohio submitted 
its SIP revisions, that an area submitting the second 10-year 
maintenance plan may be eligible for the LMP option as long as 
monitored air quality data and VMT trends support the LMP option. We 
propose to find that the state's analysis of VMT using the on-road 
emissions test satisfies the obligation to demonstrate that motor 
vehicle emissions growth in the remaining maintenance period cannot 
reasonably be expected to cause a violation of the NAAQS.
    We think this is particularly so given the air quality trends in 
each area provided in the state's submission. From the time the areas 
started attaining the NAAQS in 2013 through 2019, ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations have decreased substantially. There has 
been a 19, 14.3, and 23.2 percent decrease in the annual 98th 
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations in Canton, 
Cleveland, and Steubenville, respectively, during this time period.\12\

[[Page 42905]]

Given the current PM2.5 design values in these 3 areas, and 
the demonstrated downward trend in PM2.5 concentrations over 
the last 10 years, we propose to find that the state has adequately 
demonstrated that, consistent with 40 CFR 93.109(e) and the 
PM2.5 Guidance, it would be unreasonable to expect that 
these areas will experience a growth in motor vehicle emissions 
sufficient to cause a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Where available, 2019 and 2013 monitor data was used at 
each monitoring site to compare the percent decrease, averaged 
across the area. While 2020 monitoring data was provided in OEPA's 
submission, EPA chose to examine 2019 for any concerns of COVID 
disproportionally decreasing emissions. Where 2013 data was not 
available due to data completeness issues, 2012 data was used and 
where 2019 data was not available, the closest year prior to 2019 
with available data was used, and no earlier than 2017. See 
``EPA_analysis_CantonClevelandSteubenville_PM2.5LMP.xlsx''
 provided in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA therefore proposes to find that the Canton, Cleveland, and 
Steubenville 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance areas meet the 
qualification criteria set forth in the PM2.5 LMP Guidance. 
Under the LMP option, the state will be expected to determine on a 
regular basis that the criteria are still being met. If the state 
determines that the LMP criteria are not being met, it should take 
action to reduce PM2.5 concentrations enough to requalify. 
One possible approach the state could take is to implement the 
contingency measures contained in its maintenance plan. See Chapter 7 
of each of the state's submittals, placed in the docket for this 
action, for a description of the contingency measures. If the attempt 
to reduce PM2.5 concentrations fails, or if it succeeds but 
in future years it becomes necessary again to address increasing 
PM2.5 concentrations in an area, that area will no longer 
qualify for the LMP option.

B. Attainment Inventory

    As noted above, states that qualify for an LMP must still meet the 
other elements of a maintenance plan, as articulated in the Calcagni 
Memo. This includes an attainment year emissions inventory.
    OEPA's Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville PM2.5 LMP 
submissions include emissions inventories, with a base year of 2017. 
These inventories were prepared as part of the 2017 National Emissions 
Inventory \13\ Version 2 under EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (73 
FR 76539, December 17, 2008). The 2017 base year represents the most 
recent emissions inventory data available when the state prepared the 
submissions, is representative of the level of emissions during a 
period of time that the areas show monitored attainment of the NAAQS, 
and is consistent with the data used to determine applicability of the 
LMP option (i.e., having no violations of the NAAQS during the 5-year 
period used to calculate the design value).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissionsinventory-nei-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Air Quality Monitoring Network

    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an 
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to 
verify the attainment status of the area. OEPA continues to operate a 
PM2.5 monitoring network sited and maintained in accordance 
with Federal siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 58, and in 
consultation with EPA Region 5. OEPA submitted the 2022-2023 Annual 
Monitoring Network Plan,\14\ which EPA approved on November 28, 
2022.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See OEPA's Air Monitoring website containing the annual 
network plans at https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/air-pollution-control/reports-and-data/air-monitoring.
    \15\ See EPA'S Approval Letter for OEPA'S 2022-2023 Annual 
Network Monitoring Plan in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its submission, OEPA commits to continued operation of at least 
one EPA-approved PM2.5 monitoring site in the Canton and 
Steubenville maintenance areas and 3 in the Cleveland maintenance area 
through the end of the maintenance planning periods, 2033, and will 
continue to operate the monitors consistent with the EPA-approved OEPA 
annual network plan in order to meet the EPA requirements at 40 CFR 
part 58. Currently, there are 2 monitors in the Canton maintenance 
area, 11 monitors in the Cleveland maintenance area, and 3 monitors in 
the Steubenville maintenance area.

D. Verification of Continued Attainment

    The level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 35 [mu]g/
m\3\. The NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the 98th 
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations is equal to or 
less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (40 CFR 50.6). As stated previously, OEPA 
commits to continue to operate a monitoring network in accordance with 
40 CFR part 58. In addition, OEPA commits to verifying continued 
attainment of the PM2.5 standard through the maintenance 
plan period with the operation of an appropriate PM2.5 
monitoring network. In developing the second 10-year maintenance plan, 
OEPA evaluated the most recent 3 years of complete, quality-assured 
data for the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville maintenance areas at 
the time the submissions were made (2017 through 2019) to verify 
continued attainment of the standard. Air quality data from 2020, 2021, 
and preliminary air quality data from 2022 confirm continued attainment 
of the standard as described in Table 1.

E. Contingency Provisions

    CAA section 175A(d) states that a maintenance plan must include 
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of 
any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after redesignation 
of the area to attainment. As explained in the Calcagni Memo, these 
contingency provisions are an enforceable part of the federally 
approved SIP. The maintenance plan should clearly identify the events 
that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency 
provision, the contingency provision(s) that would be adopted and 
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the 
State would adopt and implement the provision(s). The Calcagni Memo 
states that EPA will determine the adequacy of a contingency plan on a 
case-by-case basis. At a minimum, the plan must require that the state 
implement all measures contained in the CAA part D nonattainment plan 
for the area prior to redesignation.
    In the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville PM2.5 LMP 
submissions, OEPA included maintenance plan contingency provisions to 
ensure the areas will continue to meet the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The submissions describe a process and a 
timeline to identify, evaluate, and select the appropriate contingency 
measure(s) from a list of measures in the event of a violation of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The contingency measures that may be 
implemented to reduce emissions are listed in Chapter 7 of the LMP 
submissions in the docket for this action. The submissions describe the 
metropolitan planning organization or regional council of government 
consultation that will occur after a violation in order to determine 
the control measures necessary to assure attainment of the NAAQS that 
can be implemented within 18 months from the close of the calendar year 
that prompted the violation.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year PM2.5 
LMPs for Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 maintenance areas submitted by OEPA. EPA's review of 
the air quality data for the maintenance areas indicates that they 
continue to show attainment well below the level of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS and meet

[[Page 42906]]

all the LMP qualifying criteria as described in this action. If 
finalized, EPA's approval of these LMPs will satisfy the CAA section 
175A requirements for the second 10-year period for the Canton, 
Cleveland, and Steubenville 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance 
areas. EPA is also initiating the process to determine if the LMPs are 
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. As discussed in 
Section II.B, EPA may complete that process either in its final action 
on these LMPs or through a separate process provided for in the 
transportation conformity regulations. See 40 CFR 93.118(f).

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    To identify environmental burdens and potentially susceptible 
populations in Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville, EPA performed a 
screening-level analysis using EPA's environmental justice (EJ) 
screening and mapping tool (EJSCREEN).\16\ The results of EPA's 
screening analysis are being provided for informational and 
transparency purposes, and EPA did not rely on these findings in its 
action on Ohio's submissions. EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool to 
evaluate environmental and demographic indicators within each county 
contained in the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville maintenance areas 
including Stark County in Canton, Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, 
Portage, and Summit Counties in Cleveland, and Jefferson County in 
Steubenville. Each of the tool output reports are contained in the 
docket for this action. EPA's screening-level analysis indicates that 
communities affected by this action score below the national average 
for the EJSCREEN ``Demographic Index'', which is the average of an 
area's percent minority and percent low-income populations, i.e., the 
two demographic indicators explicitly named in Executive Order 12898, 
apart from Cuyahoga County in Cleveland, where the demographic index is 
two percent higher than the national average. Additionally, the results 
indicate that most of the counties in these areas score below the 80th 
percentile (in comparison to the nation as a whole) in the 12 EJ 
Indices established by EPA, which include a combination of 
environmental and demographic information. Cuyahoga, Lorain, Portage, 
and Summit counties are above the 80th percentile for the wastewater 
discharge EJ index, and Cuyahoga County is above the 80th percentile 
for the hazardous waste proximity index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed action would approve the second 10-year limited 
maintenance plans submitted by Ohio for the Canton, Steubenville, and 
Cleveland areas. We expect that this action, which would, among other 
things, find that the state has adequately provided for maintenance of 
the NAAQS and approve the state's contingency plan to address any 
potential violations of the NAAQS in the future, will be generally 
neutral or contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on 
all populations in the three areas, including people of color and low-
income populations. At a minimum, this action would not worsen any 
existing air quality and is expected to ensure the areas are meeting 
requirements to maintain the air quality standards. Further, there is 
no information in the record indicating that this action is expected to 
have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental 
effects on a particular group of people.

VI. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the 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 rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines 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.''
    OEPA did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittals; the CAA neither prohibits nor requires such an evaluation. 
Consistent with EPA's discretion under the CAA, EPA has evaluated the 
environmental justice considerations of this action, as is described 
above in the section title, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' 
Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is 
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the 
affected area. In addition, there is no information in the record 
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for 
people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

[[Page 42907]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 28, 2023.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2023-14103 Filed 7-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P