Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements, 47133-47144 [2016-17069]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
adopted consultation procedures for the
implementation of transportation
conformity which includes the
development of mobile inventories for
SIP development and the requirements
that link transportation planning and air
quality planning in nonattainment and
maintenance areas. These consultation
and participation procedures have been
approved in the Alabama SIP as the
non-regulatory provisions: ‘‘Alabama
Interagency Transportation Conformity
Memorandum of Agreement’’ and
‘‘Conformity SIP for Birmingham and
Jackson County.’’ These provisions were
approved on May 11, 2000, and March
26, 2009, respectively. See 65 FR 30362
and 74 FR 13118. Required partners
covered by Alabama’s consultation
procedures include federal, state and
local transportation and air quality
agency officials. The state and local
transportation agency officials are most
directly impacted by transportation
conformity requirements and are
required to provide public involvement
for their activities including the analysis
demonstrating how they meet
transportation conformity requirements.
Additionally, Alabama has consulted
with FLMs as a requirement of its
regional haze SIP. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that
Alabama’s SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate consultation with affected
local entities related to the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS when necessary.
V. Proposed Action
With the exception of interstate
transport provisions pertaining to
visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), and
the state board requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to
approve that certain elements in
Alabama’s April 23, 2013, and
December 9, 2015, SIP submissions for
the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS have met
the above-described infrastructure SIP
requirements. EPA is proposing to
disapprove section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of
Alabama’s infrastructure submissions
because the State’s implementation plan
does not contain provisions to comply
with section 128 of the Act, and thus
Alabama’s April 23, 2013, and
December 9, 2015, infrastructure SIP
submissions do not meet the
requirements of the Act. The interstate
transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) will be
addressed by EPA in a future action.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final
disapproval of a submittal (or portion
thereof) that addresses a requirement of
a CAA Part D Plan or is required in
response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy as described in CAA section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions
clock. The section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
provisions (the provisions being
proposed for disapproval in today’s
notice) were not submitted to meet
requirements for Part D or a SIP call,
and therefore, if EPA takes final action
to disapprove this submittal, no
sanctions will be triggered. However, if
this disapproval action is finalized, that
final action will trigger the requirement
under section 110(c) that EPA
promulgate a federal implementation
plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the
date of the disapproval unless the State
corrects the deficiency, and EPA
approves the plan or plan revision
before EPA promulgates such FIP.
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
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47133
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 8, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016–17053 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0720; FRL–9949–29–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts;
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
most elements of State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submissions from
Massachusetts regarding the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997
ozone, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 2010
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur
dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is
also proposing to conditionally approve
three aspects of the Commonwealth’s
submittals. In addition, we are also
proposing findings of failure to submit
pertaining to various aspects of the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
47134
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) requirements of infrastructure
SIPs. Lastly, we are proposing to remove
40 CFR 52.1160 as legally obsolete.
The infrastructure requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state’s air quality
management program are adequate to
meet the state’s responsibilities under
the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R01–OAR–2014–0720, at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs
Branch (Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109–
3912; (617) 918–1046;
mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. Additionally, the term ‘‘the
Commonwealth’’ refers to the state of
Massachusetts.
This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
II. What is the background of these SIP
submissions?
A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions
does this rulemaking address?
B. Why did the state make these SIP
submissions?
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate
these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of
these SIP submissions?
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits
and Other Control Measures
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring/Data System
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for
Enforcement of Control Measures and for
Construction or Modification of
Stationary Sources
i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP
Measures
ii. Sub-Element 2: Preconstruction Program
for Major Sources and Major
Modifications
iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction
Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor
Modifications
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate
Transport
i. Sub-Element 1: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere
With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong
2)
ii. Sub-Element 2: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3)
iii. Sub-Element 3: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
iv. Sub-Element 4: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution
Abatement
v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—
International Pollution Abatement
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate
Resources
i. Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel,
Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and
Related Issues
ii. Sub-Element 2: State Board
Requirements Under Section 128 of the
CAA
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source
Monitoring System
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency
Powers
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP
Revisions
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area
Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation With
Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With
Government Officials
ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
iv. Visibility Protection
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality
Modeling/Data
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/
Participation by Affected Local Entities
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date, and page number).
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask
you to respond to specific questions or
organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What is the background of these SIP
submissions?
A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions
does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses
submissions from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP). The Commonwealth
submitted its infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (ISIP) for the 1997
ozone NAAQS on December 14, 2007,
its ISIP for the 200b Pb NAAQS on
December 4, 2012, and its ISIPs for the
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS on June 6, 2014.
B. Why did the state make these SIP
submissions?
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
CAA, states are required to submit
infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their
SIPs provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS, including the 1997 ozone,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS. These submissions
must contain any revisions needed for
meeting the applicable SIP requirements
of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that
their existing SIPs for the NAAQS
already meet those requirements.
EPA highlighted this statutory
requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997
8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 (Fine Particle)
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ (2007 Memo). On September
25, 2009, EPA issued an additional
guidance document pertaining to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled ‘‘Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006
24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo), followed by
the October 14, 2011, ‘‘Guidance on
infrastructure SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2011
Memo). Most recently, EPA issued
‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2)’’ on September 13, 2013 (2013
Memo). The SIP submissions referenced
in this rulemaking pertain to the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(1) and (2) and address the 1997
ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
EPA is proposing approval of most
aspects of the SIP submissions from
Massachusetts that address the
infrastructure requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Additionally, we are proposing approval
of a statute submitted by Massachusetts
that supports the infrastructure SIP
submittals, proposing conditional
approval of certain aspects of the
Commonwealth’s submittals as
discussed below, and proposing
findings of failure to submit for a
number of ISIP provisions that pertain
to the State’s PSD program.
The requirement for states to make a
SIP submission of this type arises out of
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).
Pursuant to these sections, each state
must submit a SIP that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each primary or
secondary NAAQS. States must make
such SIP submission ‘‘within 3 years (or
such shorter period as the Administrator
may prescribe) after the promulgation
of’’ a new or revised NAAQS. This
requirement is triggered by the
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS and is not conditioned upon
EPA’s taking any other action. Section
110(a)(2) includes the specific elements
that ‘‘each such plan’’ must address.
EPA commonly refers to such SIP
submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of CAA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses
the term to distinguish this particular
type of SIP submission from
submissions that are intended to satisfy
other SIP requirements under the CAA,
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
address the planning requirements of
part D of title I of the CAA.
This rulemaking will not cover three
substantive areas that are not integral to
acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions during
periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction at sources (‘‘SSM’’
emissions) that may be contrary to the
CAA and EPA’s policies addressing
such excess emissions; (ii) existing
provisions related to ‘‘director’s
variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that
purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited
public process or without requiring
further approval by EPA, that may be
contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s
discretion’’); and, (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may
be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New
Source Review (NSR) Improvement
Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31,
2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June
13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Instead, EPA
has the authority to address each one of
these substantive areas separately. A
detailed history, interpretation, and
rationale for EPA’s approach to
infrastructure SIP requirements can be
found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, proposed
rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the
scope of this rulemaking?’’ (See 79 FR
27241; May 13, 2014).
III. What guidance is EPA using to
evaluate these SIP submissions?
EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the
applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
Historically, EPA has elected to use
non-binding guidance documents to
make recommendations for states’
development and EPA review of
infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on
newly arising issues and in some cases
conveying interpretations that have
already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for
particular elements. EPA guidance
applicable to these infrastructure SIP
submissions is embodied in several
documents. Specifically, attachment A
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47135
of the 2007 Memo (Required Section
110 SIP Elements) identifies the
statutory elements that states need to
submit in order to satisfy the
requirements for an infrastructure SIP
submission. The 2009 Memo provides
additional guidance for certain elements
regarding the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and
the 2011 Memo provides guidance
specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Lastly,
the 2013 Memo identifies and further
clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs
that are not NAAQS specific.
IV. What is the result of EPA’s review
of these SIP submissions?
Pursuant to section 110(a), and as
noted in the 2011 Memo and the 2013
Memo, states must provide reasonable
notice and opportunity for public
hearing for all infrastructure SIP
submissions. MassDEP held a public
hearing on the ISIP for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS on June 12, 2012, and held a
public hearing on the ISIPs for the 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS
on September 6, 2013.
EPA is soliciting comment on our
evaluation of the state’s infrastructure
SIP submissions in this notice of
proposed rulemaking. Massachusetts
provided detailed synopses of how
various components of its SIP meet each
of the requirements in section 110(a)(2)
for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS, as applicable. The following
review evaluates the state’s submissions
in light of section 110(a)(2)
requirements and relevant EPA
guidance.
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission
Limits and Other Control Measures
This section requires SIPs to include
enforceable emission limits and other
control measures, means or techniques,
schedules for compliance, and other
related matters. However, EPA has long
interpreted emission limits and control
measures for attaining the standards as
being due when nonattainment
planning requirements are due.1 In the
context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is
not evaluating the existing SIP
provisions for this purpose. Instead,
EPA is only evaluating whether the
state’s SIP has basic structural
provisions for the implementation of the
NAAQS.
Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.)
c.21A, § 8, Executive Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs Organization
of Departments; powers, duties and
functions, creates and sets forth the
1 See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964,
67034 (Nov. 12, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
47136
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
powers and duties of the Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
within the Executive Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs. In addition,
M.G.L. c.111, §§ 142A through 142N,
which, collectively, are referred to as
the Massachusetts Pollution Control
Laws, provide MassDEP with broad
authority to prevent pollution or
contamination of the atmosphere and to
prescribe and establish appropriate
regulations. Furthermore, M.G.L. c.21A,
§ 18, Permit applications and
compliance assurance fees; timeline
action schedules; regulations,
authorizes MassDEP to establish fees
applicable to the regulatory programs it
administers.
MassDEP has adopted numerous
regulations within the Code of
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) in
furtherance of the objectives set out by
these statutes, including 310 CMR 4.00:
Timely Action & Fee Schedule
Regulations, 310 CMR 6.00, Ambient Air
Quality Standards for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and
310 CMR 7.00: Air Pollution Control
Regulations. For example, many SIPapproved State air quality regulations
within 310 CMR 7.00 provide
enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means or
techniques, schedules for compliance,
and other related matters that satisfy the
requirements of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone, 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, including but not limited
to 7.18, Volatile and Halogenated
Organic Compounds, 7.19, Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
for Sources of NOX, and 7.29, Emission
Standards for Power Plants.
We note, however, that we are
conditionally approving this element
because the SIP-approved version of 310
CMR 7.00 uses the term ‘‘National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),’’ but does not contain a
definition for this term. Therefore, there
is uncertainty as to which versions of
the NAAQS the term incorporates. By
letter dated June 14, 2016,
Massachusetts committed to submitting
for inclusion in the SIP, by a date no
later than one year from conditional
approval of Massachusetts’
infrastructure submissions, a definition
for NAAQS in 310 CMR 7.00 that would
reflect the current versions of the
various NAAQS we are proposing to act
on in this rulemaking.
In recognition of the above, EPA
proposes that Massachusetts has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
exception of the issue related to a
definition of NAAQS in 310 CMR 7.00,
for which we are proposing a
conditional approval.
In addition to the above, we are
proposing to remove as legally obsolete
40 CFR 52.1160, which was
promulgated on January 24, 1995 (60 FR
4737). Section 52.1160 provides that
‘‘Massachusetts’ adopted LEV [Low
Emission Vehicle] program must be
revised to the extent necessary for the
state to comply with all aspects of the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.120,’’ a
provision that was promulgated in the
same action (60 FR 4736) and that
required certain states to adopt the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
LEV program or equivalent measures.
(The OTC LEV program is based on
California’s LEV program and requires
that only cleaner ‘‘LEV’’ cars be sold in
the states in which it has been adopted).
On March 11, 1997, however, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated the provisions
of 40 CFR 52.120. See Virginia v. EPA,
108 F.3d 1397. Nonetheless, the
Commonwealth has adopted a Low
Emission Vehicle Program based on
California’s LEV program (310 CMR
7.40), the latest version of which was
approved into the SIP on December 23,
2002 (67 FR 78181). Because of the
vacatur, EPA concludes that 40 CFR
52.1160 is obsolete and proposes to
remove it from the CFR.
As previously noted, EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions or rules related
to SSM or director’s discretion in the
context of section 110(a)(2)(A).
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring/Data System
This section requires SIPs to include
provisions to provide for establishing
and operating ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing
ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to EPA upon
request. Each year, states submit annual
air monitoring network plans to EPA for
review and approval. EPA’s review of
these annual monitoring plans includes
our evaluation of whether the state: (i)
Monitors air quality at appropriate
locations throughout the state using
EPA-approved Federal Reference
Methods or Federal Equivalent Method
monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA’s Air
Quality System (AQS) in a timely
manner; and, (iii) provides EPA
Regional Offices with prior notification
of any planned changes to monitoring
sites or the network plan.
Under MGL c.111, §§ 142B to 142D,
MassDEP operates an air monitoring
network. EPA approved the state’s most
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
recent Annual Air Monitoring Network
Plan for Pb, ozone, NO2, and SO2 on
November 13, 2015. Furthermore,
MassDEP populates AQS with air
quality monitoring data in a timely
manner, and provides EPA with prior
notification when considering a change
to its monitoring network or plan. EPA
proposes that MassDEP has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for
Enforcement of Control Measures and
for Construction or Modification of
Stationary Sources
States are required to include a
program providing for enforcement of
all SIP measures and the regulation of
construction of new or modified
stationary sources to meet NSR
requirements under PSD and
nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD,
while part D of the CAA (sections 171–
193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state’s
submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the
following: (i) Enforcement of SIP
measures; (ii) PSD program for major
sources and major modifications; and,
(iii) permitting program for minor
sources and minor modifications. A
discussion of greenhouse gas (GHG)
permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 2 is
included within our evaluation of the
PSD provisions of the Commonwealth’s
submittals.
i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP
Measures
MassDEP staffs and implements an
enforcement program pursuant to
authorities provided within the
following laws: M.G.L. c.111, § 2C,
Pollution violations; orders of
department of environmental
protection, which authorizes MassDEP
2 In EPA’s April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking
for several states’ infrastructure SIPs for the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, we stated that each state’s
PSD program must meet applicable requirements
for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in
PSD permits (See 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view
was reiterated in EPA’s August 2, 2012 proposed
rulemaking for several infrastructure SIPs for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In
other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to
adequately address Pb, NOX as a precursor to ozone,
PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables,
PM2.5 increments, or the Federal GHG permitting
thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C)
requiring a suitable PSD permitting program must
be considered not to be met irrespective of the
NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit an
infrastructure SIP, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
to issue orders enforcing pollution
control regulations generally; M.G.L.
c.111, §§ 142A through 142O,
Massachusetts Pollution Control Laws,
which, among other things, more
specifically authorize MassDEP to adopt
regulations to control air pollution,
enforce such regulations, and issue
penalties for non-compliance; and,
M.G.L. c.21A, § 16, Civil Administrative
Penalties, which provides additional
authorizations for MassDEP to assess
penalties for failure to comply with the
Commonwealth’s air pollution control
laws and regulations. Moreover, SIPapproved regulations, such as 310 CMR
7.02(12)(e) and (f), provide a program
for the enforcement of SIP measures.
Accordingly, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts has met this requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to
the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
ii. Sub-Element 2: Preconstruction
Program for Major Sources and Major
Modifications
Sub-element 2 of section 110(a)(2)(C)
requires that states provide for the
regulation of modification and
construction of any stationary source as
necessary to assure that the NAAQS are
achieved, including a program to meet
PSD and NNSR requirements. PSD
applies to new major sources or
modifications made to major sources for
pollutants where the area in which the
source is located is in attainment of, or
unclassifiable with regard to, the
relevant NAAQS, and NNSR requires
similar actions in nonattainment areas.
Massachusetts does not have an
approved state PSD program and has
made no submittals addressing the PSD
sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(C). The
Commonwealth has long been subject to
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP),
however, and has implemented and
enforced the federal PSD program
through a delegation agreement. See 76
FR 31241; May 31, 2011. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing a finding of failure to
submit with respect to the PSD-related
requirements of this sub-element for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.3 See
CAA section 110(c)(1). This finding,
however, does not trigger any additional
FIP obligation by the EPA under section
110(c)(1), because the deficiency is
addressed by the FIP already in place.
3 EPA has previously issued findings of failure to
submit infrastructure SIPs addressing the PSDrelated requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the
1997 ozone NAAQS, 73 FR 16205 (Mar. 27, 2008),
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 78 FR 2882 (Jan. 15, 2013),
and the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 78 FR 12961 (Feb. 26,
2013), and Massachusetts has made no additional
submissions to address the PSD-related
requirements for these NAAQS since those previous
findings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
47137
Moreover the state is not subject to
mandatory sanctions solely as a result of
this finding, because the SIP submittal
deficiencies are neither with respect to
a sub-element that is required under
part D nor in response to a SIP call
under section 110(k)(5) of the Act.
below, 2 of which are found within subelement 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are
found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of
the Act and include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126
of the Act relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction
Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor
Modifications
To address the pre-construction
regulation of the modification and
construction of minor stationary sources
and minor modifications of major
stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP
submission should identify the existing
EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or
include new provisions that govern the
minor source pre-construction program
that regulates emissions of the relevant
NAAQS pollutants. EPA’s most recent
approval of the Commonwealth’s minor
NSR program occurred on April 5, 1995
(60 FR 17226). Since this date,
Massachusetts and EPA have relied on
the existing minor NSR program to
ensure that new and modified sources
not captured by the major NSR
permitting programs do not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
In summary, we are proposing to find
that Massachusetts has met the
enforcement related aspects of Section
110(a)(2)(C) discussed above within subelement 1, and the preconstruction
permitting requirements for minor
sources discussed in sub-element 3, for
the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Also,
we are proposing, pursuant to section
110(c)(1), to find that the state has failed
to make required submissions related to
major source preconstruction permitting
for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS
for the reasons provided in sub-element
2 above.
i. Sub-Element 1: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere
With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong
2)
With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS,
the 2011 Memo notes that the physical
properties of Pb prevent it from
experiencing the same travel or
formation phenomena as PM2.5 or
ozone. Specifically, there is a sharp
decrease in Pb concentrations as the
distance from a Pb source increases.
Accordingly, although it may be
possible for a source in a state to emit
Pb at a location and in such quantities
that contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, EPA
anticipates that this would be a rare
situation (e.g., sources emitting large
quantities of Pb in close proximity to
state boundaries). The 2011 Memo
suggests that the applicable interstate
transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to Pb can
be met through a state’s assessment as
to whether or not emissions from Pb
sources located in close proximity to its
borders have emissions that impact a
neighboring state such that they
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in that state.
Massachusetts’ infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS
notes that there are no major sources of
Pb emissions located in close proximity
to any of the state’s borders with
neighboring states, or elsewhere in the
state. Our review of data within our
National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
database confirms this, and also
indicates that there is no group of
sources anywhere within the state likely
to emit enough Pb to cause ambient
concentrations to approach the Pb
NAAQS. Therefore, we propose that
Massachusetts has met this set of
requirements related to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.
Massachusetts’ infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
notes that Massachusetts sources do not
contribute to non-attainment or
maintenance in other states, given that
all surrounding states are designated as
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ This
statement is accurate, and indeed there
are no NO2 nonattainment areas
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate
Transport
This section contains a
comprehensive set of air quality
management elements pertaining to the
transport of air pollution that states
must address. It covers the following 5
topics, categorized as sub-elements:
Sub-element 1, Contribute to
nonattainment, and interfere with
maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element
2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility
protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate
pollution abatement; and Sub-element
5, International pollution abatement.
Sub-elements 1 through 3 above are
found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the Act, and these items are further
categorized into the 4 prongs discussed
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
47138
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
anywhere in the United States. 77 FR
9532 (Feb. 17, 2012). We examined the
design values from NO2 monitors in
Massachusetts and neighboring states
based on data collected between 2012
and 2014. In Massachusetts, the highest
design value was 49 parts per billion
(ppb)(versus the NO2 standard of 100
ppb) at a monitor in Boston. The highest
design value we found in a neighboring
state was 58 ppb in Queens, NY. We
believe that with the continued
implementation of Massachusetts PSD
FIP, and the Commonwealth’s NSR
regulations, the state’s low monitored
values of NO2 will continue. In other
words, the NO2 emissions from
Massachusetts are not expected to cause
or contribute to a violation of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS in another state, and these
emissions are not likely to interfere with
the maintenance of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS in another state. Therefore, we
propose that Massachusetts has met this
set of requirements related to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS.
In today’s rulemaking, we are not
proposing to approve or disapprove
Massachusetts’ compliance with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, or 2010 SO2
NAAQS, since the Commonwealth’s SIP
revisions upon which we are acting
today do not include a submittal with
respect to transport for sub-element 1,
prongs 1 and 2 for these pollutants.
Effective August 12, 2015, EPA found
that Massachusetts, among a number of
other states, had not made a complete
good neighbor SIP submittal for the
2008 ozone NAAQS to meet the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 80 FR 39961 (July
13, 2015).
ii. Sub-Element 2: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3)
One aspect of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to
include provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering
with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in
another state. A state’s infrastructure
SIP submittal cannot be considered
approvable for prong 3 unless EPA has
issued final approval of the state’s PSD
SIP, or alternatively, has issued final
approval of a SIP that EPA has
otherwise found adequate to prohibit
interference with other states’ measures
to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality.
As discussed under element C above,
Massachusetts is currently subject to a
PSD FIP. Therefore, we are proposing a
finding of failure to submit for prong 3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the
PSD requirement, in the same manner as
discussed under element C above.
However, this finding will not trigger
any sanctions or additional FIP
obligation.
Under prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
EPA also reviews the potential for instate sources not subject to PSD to
interfere with PSD in an attainment or
unclassifiable area of another state. EPA
guidance recommends that a ‘‘fully
approved nonattainment [new source
review (NNSR)] program with respect to
any previous NAAQS may generally be
considered by the EPA as adequate for
purposes of meeting this requirement of
prong 3 with respect to sources and
pollutants subject to such program.’’
2013 Guidance at 32. EPA last approved
the Commonwealth’s NNSR program on
October 27, 2000. 65 FR 64360. Because
Massachusetts is located within the
Ozone Transport Region, see CAA
§ 184(a), 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a), sources
emitting 50 tpy or more of NOX or VOCs
are subject to the requirements that
would be applicable to major stationary
sources if the area were classified as a
moderate nonattainment area, CAA
§§ 182(f)(1), 184(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7511a,
7511c. In other words, even if located in
an area designated attainment for ozone,
such sources are not subject to PSD, but
rather, are to be subject to NNSR.
Massachusetts’ SIP-approved NNSR
regulations, however, apply by their
terms only to nonattainment areas,4
meaning that sources of 50 tpy or more
of VOCs or NOX in much of
Massachusetts are not covered by either
the PSD FIP or the state’s EPA-approved
NNSR program and, thus, the state has
not shown that it has met this
requirement of prong 3. The
Commonwealth has promulgated and
implements NNSR regulations,
however, that make the state’s NNSR
program applicable to such sources
regardless of area designation. In a letter
dated June 14, 2016, the Commonwealth
committed to submitting for inclusion
in the SIP, by a date no later than one
year from conditional approval of
Massachusetts’ infrastructure
submissions, the necessary provisions
that would make its EPA-approved
NSSR program applicable to such
sources. Accordingly, we propose to
conditionally approve Massachusetts’
submittals for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb,
4 At the time EPA last approved Massachusetts’
NNSR regulations (October 27, 2000; 65 FR at
64361), the Western Massachusetts area was
nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, and
the Eastern Massachusetts area was attaining the
standard, but destined to become nonattainment as
of January 16, 2001, upon EPA’s reinstatement of
the one-hour ozone NAAQS for that area.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS for this aspect of prong 3.
iii. Sub-Element 3: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
With regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are
subject to visibility and regional haze
program requirements under part C of
the CAA (which includes sections 169A
and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011
Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these
requirements can be satisfied by an
approved SIP addressing reasonably
attributable visibility impairment, if
required, or an approved SIP addressing
regional haze.
The Commonwealth’s Regional Haze
SIP was approved by EPA on September
13, 2013. See 78 FR 57487. Accordingly,
EPA proposes that Massachusetts has
met the visibility protection
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
iv. Sub-Element 4: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution
Abatement
One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
requires each SIP to contain adequate
provisions requiring compliance with
the applicable requirements of section
126 relating to interstate pollution
abatement. Section 126(a) requires new
or modified sources to notify
neighboring states of potential impacts
from the source. The statute does not
specify the method by which the source
should provide the notification. As
mentioned elsewhere in this notice,
Massachusetts is currently subject to a
PSD FIP and it did not make submittals
addressing the PSD-related
requirements of section 126(a).
Therefore, we are proposing to make a
finding of failure to submit for section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding PSD-related
notice of interstate pollution with
respect to the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.5 This finding does not trigger
any additional FIP obligation by the
EPA under section 110(c)(1), because
the federal PSD rules address the
notification issue. See 40 CFR 52.21(q),
124.10(c)(vii); see also id. § 52.1165. Nor
does the finding trigger any sanctions.
Massachusetts has no obligations under
any other provision of section 126.
5 As discussed earlier, supra n.3, EPA has
previously issued findings of failure to submit for
Massachusetts for the PSD-related requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and
2008 Pb NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
v. Sub-Element 5: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International Pollution
Abatement
One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
requires each SIP to contain adequate
provisions requiring compliance with
the applicable requirements of section
115 relating to international pollution
abatement. Massachusetts does not have
any pending obligations under section
115 for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing
that the Commonwealth has met the
applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
related to section 115 of the CAA
(international pollution abatement) for
the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate
Resources
This section requires each state to
provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state
law to carry out its SIP, and related
issues. Additionally, section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to
comply with the requirements with
respect to state boards under section
128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)
requires that, where a state relies upon
local or regional governments or
agencies for the implementation of its
SIP provisions, the state retain
responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of SIP obligations with
respect to relevant NAAQS. This last
sub-element, however, is inapplicable to
this action, because Massachusetts does
not rely upon local or regional
governments or agencies for the
implementation of its SIP provisions.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel,
Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and
Related Issues
Massachusetts, through its
infrastructure SIP submittals, has
documented that its air agency has the
requisite authority and resources to
carry out its SIP obligations.
Massachusetts General Laws c. 111,
sections 142A to 142N, provide
MassDEP with the authority to carry out
the state’s implementation plan. The
Massachusetts SIP, as originally
submitted in 1971 and subsequently
amended, provides descriptions of the
staffing and funding necessary to carry
out the plan. In the submittals, MassDEP
provides assurances that it has adequate
personnel and funding to carry out the
SIP during the five years following
infrastructure SIP submission and in
future years. Additionally, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
Commonwealth receives CAA section
103 and 105 grant funds through
Performance Partnership agreements
and provides state matching funds,
which together enable Massachusetts to
carry out its SIP requirements. In light
of the foregoing, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: State Board
Requirements Under Section 128 of the
CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each
SIP to contain provisions that comply
with the state board requirements of
section 128(a) of the CAA. That
provision contains two explicit
requirements: (1) That any board or
body which approves permits or
enforcement orders under this chapter
shall have at least a majority of members
who represent the public interest and do
not derive any significant portion of
their income from persons subject to
permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (2) that any potential
conflicts of interest by members of such
board or body or the head of an
executive agency with similar powers be
adequately disclosed.
Massachusetts does not have a state
board that approves permits or
enforcement orders under the CAA.
Instead, permits and enforcement orders
are approved by the Commissioner of
MassDEP. Thus, Massachusetts is not
subject to the requirements of paragraph
(a)(1) of section 128. As to the conflict
of interest provisions of section
128(a)(2), Massachusetts has cited to
M.G.L. c. 268A, sections 6 and 6A of the
Commonwealth’s Conflict of Interest
law in its June 6, 2014 infrastructure SIP
submittal for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and requested
that these sections be included in the
SIP to satisfy this infrastructure SIP
requirement.6 Pursuant to these state
provisions, state employees in
Massachusetts, including the head of an
executive agency with authority to
approve air permits or enforcement
orders, are required to disclose potential
conflicts of interest to, among others,
the state ethics commission. We are
proposing to find that M.G.L. c. 268A,
sections 6 and 6A satisfy the
6 In its June 6, 2014 submittal, Massachusetts also
requested that M.G.L. c. 268A, section 7 be added
to the SIP. By letter dated June 14, 2016, however,
Massachusetts withdrew section 7 from
consideration for inclusion in the SIP. Section 7
contains state-specific penalties that are not needed
to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47139
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
of the Clean Air Act, to approve them
into the Massachusetts SIP, and,
consequently, to approve the
Commonwealth’s ISIP submittals for
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997
ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary
Source Monitoring System
States must establish a system to
monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions
reports. Each plan shall also require the
installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions
from such sources. The state plan shall
also require periodic reports on the
nature and amounts of emissions and
emissions-related data from such
sources, and correlation of such reports
by each state agency with any emission
limitations or standards established
pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the
reports shall be available at reasonable
times for public inspection.
Pursuant to M.G.L. c.111, sections
142A to 142D, MassDEP has the
necessary authority to maintain and
operate air monitoring stations, and
coordinates with EPA in determining
the types and locations of ambient air
monitors across the state. The
Commonwealth uses this authority to
collect information on air emissions
from sources in the state. Additionally,
Massachusetts statutes and regulations
provide that emissions data shall be
available for public inspection. See, e.g.,
M.G.L. c.111, section 142B; 310 CMR
sections 3.33(5), 7.12(4)(b); 7.14(1). The
following SIP-approved regulations
enable the accomplishment of the
Commonwealth’s emissions recording
and reporting objectives:
1. 310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration.
2. 310 CMR 7.13, Stack Testing.
3. 310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices
and Reports.
EPA recognizes that Massachusetts
routinely collects information on air
emissions from its industrial sources
and makes this information available to
the public. EPA, therefore, proposes that
the Commonwealth has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency
Powers
This section requires that a plan
provide for authority that is analogous
to what is provided in section 303 of the
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
47140
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
CAA, and adequate contingency plans
to implement such authority. Section
303 of the CAA provides authority to
the EPA Administrator to seek a court
order to restrain any source from
causing or contributing to emissions
that present an ‘‘imminent and
substantial endangerment to public
health or welfare, or the environment.’’
Section 303 further authorizes the
Administrator to issue ‘‘such orders as
may be necessary to protect public
health or welfare or the environment’’ in
the event that ‘‘it is not practicable to
assure prompt protection . . . by
commencement of such civil action.’’
We propose to find that the
Commonwealth’s ISIP submittals
demonstrate that certain state statutes
and regulations provide for authority
comparable to that in section 303.
Massachusetts’ submittals cite M.G.L.
c.111, section 2B, Air Pollution
Emergencies, which authorizes the
Commissioner of the MassDEP to
‘‘declare an air pollution emergency’’ if
the Commissioner ‘‘determines that the
condition or impending condition of the
atmosphere in the Commonwealth . . .
constitutes a present or reasonably
imminent danger to health.’’ During
such an air pollution emergency, the
Commissioner is authorized pursuant to
section 2B, to ‘‘take whatever action is
necessary to maintain and protect the
public health, including but not limited
to . . . prohibiting, restricting and
conditioning emissions of dangerous or
potentially dangerous air contaminants
from whatever source derived . . . .’’
Additionally, sections 2B and 2C
authorize the Commissioner to issue
emergency orders.
Moreover, M.G.L. c. 21A, section 8
provides that, ‘‘[i]n regulating . . . any
pollution prevention, control or
abatement plan [or] strategy . . .
through any . . . departmental action
affecting or prohibiting the emission
. . . of any hazardous substance to the
environment . . . the department may
consider the potential effects of such
plans [and] strategies . . . on public
health and safety and the environment
. . . and said department shall act to
minimize and prevent damage or threat
of damage to the environment.’’
These duties are implemented, in
part, under MassDEP regulations at 310
CMR 8.00, Prevention and Abatement of
Air Pollution Episodes and Air Pollution
Incident Emergencies, which EPA most
recently approved into the SIP on
October 4, 2002. See 67 FR 62184. These
regulations establish levels that would
constitute significant harm or imminent
and substantial endangerment to health
for ambient concentrations of pollutants
subject to a NAAQS, consistent with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
significant harm levels and procedures
for state emergency episode plans
established by EPA in 40 CFR 51.150
and 51.151.7 Finally, M.G.L. c.111,
section 2B authorizes the state to seek
injunctive relief in the superior court for
violation of an emergency order issued
by the MassDEP Commissioner. While
no single Massachusetts statute or
regulation mirrors the authorities of
CAA section 303, we propose to find
that the combination of state statutes
and regulations discussed herein
provide for comparable authority to
immediately bring suit to restrain, and
issue orders against, any person causing
or contributing to air pollution that
presents an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or
welfare, or the environment.8
Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that,
for any NAAQS, States have an
approved contingency plan for any Air
Quality Control Region (AQCR) within
the state that is classified as Priority I,
IA, or II. See 40 CFR 51.152(c). A
contingency plan is not required if the
entire state is classified as Priority III for
a particular pollutant. Id. The entire
state is classified as Priority III for
nitrogen dioxide, but contains priority
classifications of I or II for particulate
matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide,
and ozone. See 40 CFR 52.1121.
Consequently, as relevant to this
proposed rulemaking action,
Massachusetts’ SIP must contain an
emergency contingency plan meeting
the specific requirements of 40 CFR
51.151 and 51.152 with respect to SO2
and ozone.9
Although Massachusetts has adopted
310 CMR 8.00, The Prevention and/or
Abatement of Air Pollution Episode and
Air Pollution Incident Emergencies,
which is modeled on EPA’s example
regulations for emergency contingency
plans at 40 CFR part 51, appendix L, the
version of the regulation that is
currently in the SIP does not fully
satisfy 40 CFR 51.152. For instance, it
does not specify any ‘‘emission control
actions to be taken at each episode
stage,’’ as required by 40 CFR
51.152(a)(3). By letter dated June 14,
7 The Commonwealth’s Contaminant
Concentration Levels are found within Table 1 of
310 CMR 8.01, and match EPA’s levels from 40 CFR
part 51.151 with the exception of the averaging time
used for ozone. Massachusetts uses a 1-hour
averaging time, which is slightly more protective
that the 2-hour averaging time EPA provides for this
pollutant.
8 By letter dated June 14, 2016, MassDEP stated
that it likewise interprets M.G.L. c.111, section 2B
and M.G.L. c. 21A, section 8 as together providing
MassDEP with authority comparable to that granted
to the Administrator by CAA section 303.
9 Those regulations do not specifically address
Pb. See also 40 CFR 51.150.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2016, MassDEP has committed to
submitting for inclusion in the SIP, by
a date no later than one year from
conditional approval of Massachusetts’
infrastructure submissions, a regulation
satisfying the contingency plan
requirements of element G.
With respect to Pb, we note that Pb is
not explicitly included in the
contingency plan requirements of
subpart H. In addition, we note that
there are no large sources of Pb in
Massachusetts. Specifically, a review of
the National Emission Inventory shows
that there are no sources of Pb in
Massachusetts that exceed EPA’s
reporting threshold of 0.5 tons per year.
Although not expected, if that situation
were to change, Massachusetts does
have general authority (e.g., M.G.L. c.
21A, section 8 and c. 111, section 2B)
to restrain any source from causing
imminent and substantial
endangerment.
Consequently, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts has met the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the
2008 Pb NAAQS. Furthermore, because
all AQCRs in the state are classified as
Priority III for NO2, EPA also proposes
that the Commonwealth has met the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
For the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes to
approve Massachusetts’ submittals with
respect to the CAA section 303
comparable authority requirement of
element G, but to conditionally approve
with respect to the contingency plan
requirements of element G, based on
MassDEP’s commitment to submit a
regulation satisfying such requirements
within one year of final action on the
infrastructure submissions EPA is
evaluating in this notice.
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP
Revisions
This section requires that a state’s SIP
provide for revision from time to time
as may be necessary to take account of
changes in the NAAQS or availability of
improved methods for attaining the
NAAQS and whenever the EPA finds
that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
Massachusetts General Laws c. 111,
section 142D provides in relevant part
that, ‘‘From time to time the department
shall review the ambient air quality
standards and plans for implementation,
maintenance and attainment of such
standards adopted pursuant to this
section and, after public hearings, shall
amend such standards and
implementation plan so as to minimize
the economic cost of such standards and
plan for implementation, provided,
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
however, that such standards shall not
be less than the minimum federal
standards.’’
EPA proposes that Massachusetts has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect
to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment
Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part
D
The CAA requires that each plan or
plan revision for an area designated as
a nonattainment area meet the
applicable requirements of part D of the
CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment
areas. EPA has determined that section
110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the
infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA
takes action on part D attainment plans
through separate processes.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation
With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
The evaluation of the submissions
from Massachusetts with respect to the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
are described below.
i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With
Government Officials
Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to
provide a process for consultation with
local governments and Federal Land
Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements pursuant
to Section 121 relating to consultation.
Pursuant to EPA-approved
Massachusetts regulations at 310 CMR
7.02(12)(g)(2), MassDEP notifies the
public ‘‘by advertisement in a
newspaper having wide circulation’’ in
the area of the particular facility of the
opportunity to comment on certain
proposed permitting actions and sends
‘‘a copy of the notice of public comment
to the applicant, the EPA, and officials
and agencies having jurisdiction over
the community in which the facility is
located, including local air pollution
control agencies, chief executives of
said community, and any regional land
use planning agency.’’ Massachusetts
did not make a submittal, however, with
respect to the requirement to consult
with FLMs. As previously mentioned,
Massachusetts does not have an
approved state PSD program, but rather
is subject to a PSD FIP. The FIP includes
a provision requiring consultation with
FLMs. See 40 CFR 52.21(p).
Consequently, with respect to the 1997
ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes
that Massachusetts has met the
consultation with local governments
requirement of this portion of section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
110(a)(2)(J), but proposes a finding of
failure to submit with respect to the
FLM consultation requirement. Because
the federal PSD program, which
Massachusetts implements and
enforces, addresses the FLM
consultation requirement, a finding of
failure to submit will not result in
sanctions or new FIP obligations.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires
states to: Notify the public if NAAQS
are exceeded in an area; advise the
public of health hazards associated with
exceedances; and enhance public
awareness of measures that can be taken
to prevent exceedances and of ways in
which the public can participate in
regulatory and other efforts to improve
air quality.
Massachusetts regulations specify
criteria for air pollution episodes and
incidents and provide for notice to the
public via news media and other means
of communication. See 310 CMR 8.00.
The Commonwealth also provides a
daily air quality forecast to inform the
public about concentrations of fine
particles and, during the ozone season,
provides similar information for ozone.
Real time air quality data for NAAQS
pollutants are also available on the
MassDEP’s Web site, as are information
about health hazards associated with
NAAQS pollutants and ways in which
the public can participate in regulatory
efforts related to air quality. The
Commonwealth is also an active partner
in EPA’s AirNow and EnviroFlash air
quality alert programs, which notify the
public of air quality levels through
EPA’s Web site, alerts, and press
releases. In light of the above, we
propose to find that Massachusetts has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements
of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J)
with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
States must meet applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. The Commonwealth’s
PSD program in the context of
infrastructure SIPs has already been
discussed in the paragraphs addressing
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and our proposed
actions for those sections are consistent
with the proposed actions for this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(J).
Specifically, we propose a finding of
failure to submit with respect to the PSD
sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(J) for
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47141
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS,10
and note that such a finding will not
result in any sanctions or new FIP
obligations.
iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
With regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection,
states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements
under part C of the CAA (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). In
the event of the establishment of a new
NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements
under part C do not change. Thus, we
find that there is no new visibility
obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS
becomes effective. In other words, the
visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality
Modeling/Data
To satisfy element K, the state air
agency must demonstrate that it has the
authority to perform air quality
modeling to predict effects on air
quality of emissions of any NAAQS
pollutant and submit such data to EPA
upon request.
Pursuant to the authority granted by
M.G.L. c.111, sections 142B–142D, the
MassDEP has the authority to maintain
and operate air sampling stations and
devices, make or perform ‘‘such
examinations, inspections, observations,
determinations, laboratory analyses, and
surveys; maintain such records; and
perform such other acts as it deems
necessary to conduct an adequate air
pollution control program . . . .’’ The
agency is further authorized to require
sources to report monitoring and
emissions data. MassDEP accomplishes
these objectives via a number of
regulations, including the following:
310 CMR 7.02, Plan Approval and Emission
Limitations;
310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration;
310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices and
Reports; and,
310 CMR 7.00, Appendix A—Emissions
Offsets and Nonattainment Review.
The state also collaborates with the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC),
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association, and EPA in
order to perform large scale urban
airshed modeling. EPA proposes that
10 As discussed earlier, supra n.3, EPA has
previously issued findings of failure to submit for
Massachusetts for PSD-related infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and
2008 Pb NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
47142
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Massachusetts has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees
This section requires SIPs to mandate
that each major stationary source pay
permitting fees to cover the cost of
reviewing, approving, implementing,
and enforcing a permit.
Massachusetts implements and
operates the Title V permit program,
which EPA approved on September 28,
2001. See 66 FR 49541. In addition,
M.G.L. c. 21A, section 18 authorizes
MassDEP to promulgate regulations
establishing fees. To collect fees from
sources of air emissions, the MassDEP
promulgated and implements 310 CMR
4.00, Timely Action Schedule and Fee
Provisions. These regulations set permit
compliance fees, including fees for Title
V operating permits. EPA proposes that
the Commonwealth has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/
Participation by Affected Local Entities
To satisfy element M, states must
consult with, and allow participation
from, local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP. Pursuant to M.G.L.
c.111, section 142D, MassDEP must
hold public hearings prior to revising its
SIP. In addition, M.G.L. c. 30A,
Massachusetts Administrative
Procedures Act, requires MassDEP to
provide notice and the opportunity for
public comment and hearing prior to
adoption of any regulation. Moreover,
the Commonwealth’s Executive Order
No. 145 requires state agencies,
including MassDEP, to provide notice to
the Local Government Advisory
Committee to solicit input on the impact
of proposed regulations and other
administrative actions on local
governments. Therefore, EPA proposes
that Massachusetts has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve most
portions of the SIP submissions from
Massachusetts certifying that its current
SIP is sufficient to meet the required
infrastructure elements under sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 ozone,
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of
certain aspects relating to PSD which
we have either already made, or are
proposing, a finding of failure to submit.
Additionally, we are proposing to
conditionally approve several aspects of
the Commonwealth’s submittals. EPA’s
proposed action for each element for
each NAAQS is stated in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—PROPOSED ACTION ON MA INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS FOR VARIOUS NAAQS
Element
1997
Ozone
2008
Pb
2008
Ozone
2010
NO2
2010
SO2
(A): Emission limits and other control measures .........................................................
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system ..................................................
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures ..........................................................................
(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major modifications ...............................
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications .....................
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs
1 and 2) ....................................................................................................................
(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3) ...............................................................................................
(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4) ........................................................................
(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement .........................................................................
(D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement .....................................................................
(E)(i): Adequate resources ...........................................................................................
(E)(ii): State boards ......................................................................................................
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies ....................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system ....................................................................
(G): Emergency power .................................................................................................
(H): Future SIP revisions .............................................................................................
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D ......................................
(J)(i): Consultation with government officials ...............................................................
(J)(ii): Public notification ...............................................................................................
(J)(iii): PSD ...................................................................................................................
(J)(iv): Visibility protection ............................................................................................
(K): Air quality modeling and data ...............................................................................
(L): Permitting fees ......................................................................................................
(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities ......................................
CA
A
A
PF
A
CA
A
A
PF
A
CA
A
A
PF
A
CA
A
A
FS
A
CA
A
A
FS
A
NI
PF/CA
A
PF
A
A
A
NA
A
CA
A
+
FS
A
PF
+
A
A
A
A
PF/CA
A
PF
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
+
FS
A
PF
+
A
A
A
NS
PF/CA
A
PF
A
A
A
NA
A
CA
A
+
FS
A
PF
+
A
A
A
A
FS/CA
A
FS
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
+
FS
A
FS
+
A
A
A
NS
FS/CA
A
FS
A
A
A
NA
A
CA
A
+
FS
A
FS
+
A
A
A
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
In the above table, the key is as follows:
A—Approve.
CA—Conditional approval.
FS—Finding of failure to submit.
NA—Not applicable.
NI—Not included in submittal we are acting on in today’s action.
NS—No Submittal.
PF—Prior finding of failure to submit.
+—Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
In addition, we are proposing to
incorporate into the Massachusetts SIP
sections 6 and 6A of the state’s Conflict
of Interest law, which the
Commonwealth submitted on June 6,
2014, and are proposing to remove 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
CFR 52.1160 regarding Massachusetts
LEV in that it is legally obsolete.
As shown in Table 1, we are
proposing to issue a finding of failure to
submit for sub-element J(i) pertaining to
the requirement for consultation with
FLMs for all five of the cited NAAQS,
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and note that in light of the PSD FIP,
this finding will not result in sanctions
or new FIP obligations. Additionally, we
are also proposing to issue findings of
failure to submit with respect to the
PSD-related elements in sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As
noted above, Massachusetts is already
subject to a FIP for PSD, and so EPA
will have no additional FIP obligations
under section 110(c) of the Act if this
action is finalized as proposed.
Furthermore, the state will not be
subject to mandatory sanctions as a
result of these actions.
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve an aspect of the
Commonwealth’s submittal for element
110(a)(2)(A) pertaining to ambient air
quality standards because the current,
SIP-approved version of 310 CMR 7.00,
Air Pollution Control, does not reflect
the current version of the various
NAAQS we are proposing to act on in
this rulemaking. However, by letter
dated June 14, 2016, the Commonwealth
committed to add a definition of
NAAQS 310 CMR 7.00 that includes a
calendar date to address this issue. For
this reason, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve this SIP revision
provided that the Commonwealth
submits to EPA an updated version of
310 CMR 7.00. Additionally, we are
proposing to conditionally approve the
Commonwealth’s submittals for element
110(a)(2)(G) pertaining to contingency
plans for the 1997 and 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
pursuant to Massachusetts commitment
within their June 14, 2016 letter, to
submit a regulation meeting the
contingency plan requirement of
element 110(a)(2)(G) by a date no later
than one year from EPA’s final action on
these infrastructure SIPs. And last, we
are proposing to conditionally approve
the aspect of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS pertaining
to the Commonwealth’s NNSR program
pursuant to the state’s June 14, 2016
letter committing to submit portions of
310 CMR 7.00: Appendix A, to EPA as
a SIP revision request by one year from
our final action on these ISIPs.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act,
EPA may conditionally approve a plan
based on a commitment from the State
to adopt specific enforceable measures
by a date certain, but not later than one
year from the date of approval. If EPA
conditionally approves these
commitments in a final rulemaking
action, Massachusetts must meet its
commitments to: Submit an updated
version of 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution
Control, containing a calendar date to
clarify which NAAQS are being
referenced, to fully meet the
requirements of element 110(a)(2)(A);
submit revisions to its SIP-approved
nonattainment new source review
regulations to fully meet the
requirements of element
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II); and, submit a
regulation addressing the contingency
plan requirement of section 110(a)(2)(G).
If the State fails to do so, this action will
become a disapproval one year from the
date of final approval. EPA will notify
the State by letter that this action has
occurred. At that time, these
commitments will no longer be a part of
the approved Massachusetts SIP. EPA
subsequently will publish a document
in the Federal Register notifying the
public that the conditional approval(s)
automatically converted to a
disapproval(s). If the State meets its
commitments within the applicable
time frame, the conditionally approved
submissions will remain a part of the
SIP until EPA takes final action
approving or disapproving them. If EPA
disapproves the new submittals, the
conditionally approved regulations will
also be disapproved at that time. If EPA
approves the submittals, the regulations
will be fully approved in its entirety and
replace the conditionally approved
program in the SIP. If EPA determines
that it cannot issue a final conditional
approval or if the conditional approvals
are converted to disapprovals, such
action will trigger the Federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c).
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this proposal or
on other relevant matters. These
comments will be considered before
EPA takes final action. Interested parties
may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting
written comments to the EPA New
England Regional Office listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register, or by submitting comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier following the
directions in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, the EPA is
proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference into the
Massachusetts SIP M.G.L c. 268A,
sections 6 and 6A of the
Commonwealth’s Conflict of Interest
law submitted to EPA on June 6, 2014.
The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, this document generally
available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
for more information).
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47143
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
47144
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur Oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 5, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016–17069 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0599; FRL–9949–28–
Region 5]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Ohio;
Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of
the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the Clean
Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate the Ohio portion of the
Campbell-Clermont KY-OH sulfur
dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area from
nonattainment to attainment. The Ohio
portion of this area consists of Pierce
Township in Clermont County, Ohio.
EPA is also proposing to approve Ohio’s
maintenance plan submitted on August
11, 2015. The primary emission source
in the area has permanently closed, and
the air quality in the area is now
meeting the SO2 standard.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0599 at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
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:
Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954,
portanova.mary@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. Redesignation Requirements
III. Determination of Attainment
IV. Ohio’s Section 110(k) SIP
V. Permanent and Enforceable Emission
Reductions
VI. Requirements for the Area Under Section
110 and Part D
VII. Maintenance Plan
VIII. What action is EPA taking?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June
22, 2010), EPA established a revised
primary SO2 national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts
per billion (ppb), which is met at a
monitoring site when the three-year
average of the 99th percentile of daily
maximum one-hour concentrations does
not exceed 75 ppb. On August 5, 2013
(78 FR 47191), EPA published its initial
air quality designations for the SO2
NAAQS based upon air quality
monitoring data for calendar years
2009–2011. In that action, the CampbellClermont KY-OH area was designated
nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The
Campbell-Clermont KY-OH
nonattainment area is comprised of
Pierce Township in Clermont County,
Ohio, and five census tracts in Campbell
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
County, Kentucky. The Ohio portion of
the nonattainment area contains the
Walter C. Beckjord power plant
(Beckjord plant). The Kentucky portion
of the nonattainment area has less than
nine tons of total SO2 emissions per
year, but it contains the SO2 monitor
which had violated the SO2 standard as
of 2011.
By April 4, 2015, Ohio and Kentucky
were required to submit nonattainment
plan SIPs that meet the requirements of
sections 172(c) and 191–192 of the CAA,
and provide for attainment of the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than October 4, 2018. Ohio’s
analysis found the Beckjord plant to be
the main contributor to SO2 monitored
levels in the nonattainment area. In
2011, the Beckjord plant had reported
90,835 tons of SO2 emissions. However,
in late 2014, the Beckjord plant
permanently ceased operations. Its coalfired electricity generating units were
shut down as of September 2014, and its
oil-fired units ceased operations by the
end of 2014. Sulfur dioxide emissions at
the Beckjord plant totaled 32,603 tons in
2014, and zero tons in 2015. Currently,
the total point, area, and mobile source
SO2 emissions in the entire CampbellClermont KY-OH nonattainment area
are approximately 17 tons per year (tpy).
Because of the significant, permanent
and enforceable reduction in SO2
emissions affecting the nonattainment
area, and because the Campbell County
SO2 monitor’s three-year SO2 design
value 1 for 2012–2014 had fallen below
the SO2 NAAQS, Ohio chose to submit
a redesignation request in 2015, in lieu
of a nonattainment SIP. On August 11,
2015, the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)
submitted its request to EPA to
redesignate the Ohio portion of the
Campbell-Clermont KY-OH
nonattainment area to attainment. For
the reasons set forth in this document,
EPA is proposing to redesignate the area
to attainment.
II. Redesignation Requirements
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), there
are five criteria which must be met
before a nonattainment area may be
redesignated to attainment.
1. EPA has determined that the
relevant NAAQS has been attained in
the area.
1 The design value is a statistic computed
according to the data handling procedures of the
NAAQS (in 40 CFR part 50 appendix T) that, by
comparison to the level of the NAAQS, indicates
whether the area is violating the NAAQS. For SO2,
the design value is the three-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum
concentrations.
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47133-47144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17069]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0720; FRL-9949-29-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve most elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions
from Massachusetts regarding the infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008
ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is
also proposing to conditionally approve three aspects of the
Commonwealth's submittals. In addition, we are also proposing findings
of failure to submit pertaining to various aspects of the
[[Page 47134]]
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of
infrastructure SIPs. Lastly, we are proposing to remove 40 CFR 52.1160
as legally obsolete.
The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2014-0720, at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046;
mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Additionally, the term ``the
Commonwealth'' refers to the state of Massachusetts.
This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions does this rulemaking
address?
B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
ii. Sub-Element 2: Preconstruction Program for Major Sources and
Major Modifications
iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources
and Minor Modifications
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
i. Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility
Protection (Prong 4)
iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate
Pollution Abatement
v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International
Pollution Abatement
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
i. Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal
Authority Under State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
ii. Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of
the CAA
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials;
Public Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
iv. Visibility Protection
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses submissions from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). The Commonwealth
submitted its infrastructure State Implementation Plan (ISIP) for the
1997 ozone NAAQS on December 14, 2007, its ISIP for the 200b Pb NAAQS
on December 4, 2012, and its ISIPs for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS on June 6, 2014.
B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions
needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS
already meet those requirements.
EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ``Guidance
[[Page 47135]]
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997
8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 (Fine Particle) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an
additional guidance document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo), followed
by the October 14, 2011, ``Guidance on infrastructure SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo). Most
recently, EPA issued ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' on
September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions referenced in this
rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1)
and (2) and address the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
EPA is proposing approval of most aspects of the SIP submissions
from Massachusetts that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Additionally, we are proposing approval of a statute submitted by
Massachusetts that supports the infrastructure SIP submittals,
proposing conditional approval of certain aspects of the Commonwealth's
submittals as discussed below, and proposing findings of failure to
submit for a number of ISIP provisions that pertain to the State's PSD
program.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Pursuant to these
sections, each state must submit a SIP that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or
secondary NAAQS. States must make such SIP submission ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of'' a new or revised NAAQS. This requirement is triggered
by the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and is not conditioned
upon EPA's taking any other action. Section 110(a)(2) includes the
specific elements that ``each such plan'' must address.
EPA commonly refers to such SIP submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the planning
requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (``SSM'' emissions) that
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's
``Final New Source Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these
substantive areas separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and
rationale for EPA's approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be
found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure
SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is
the scope of this rulemaking?'' (See 79 FR 27241; May 13, 2014).
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with
the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as
appropriate. Historically, EPA has elected to use non-binding guidance
documents to make recommendations for states' development and EPA
review of infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed
interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying
interpretations that have already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for particular elements. EPA guidance
applicable to these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied in
several documents. Specifically, attachment A of the 2007 Memo
(Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements
that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an
infrastructure SIP submission. The 2009 Memo provides additional
guidance for certain elements regarding the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2011 Memo provides guidance specific to the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. Lastly, the 2013 Memo identifies and further clarifies aspects
of infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS specific.
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
Pursuant to section 110(a), and as noted in the 2011 Memo and the
2013 Memo, states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for
public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. MassDEP held a
public hearing on the ISIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on June 12, 2012, and
held a public hearing on the ISIPs for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS on September 6, 2013.
EPA is soliciting comment on our evaluation of the state's
infrastructure SIP submissions in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Massachusetts provided detailed synopses of how various components of
its SIP meet each of the requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 1997
ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, as applicable. The following review evaluates the
state's submissions in light of section 110(a)(2) requirements and
relevant EPA guidance.
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits
and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long
interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the
standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are
due.\1\ In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating
the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only
evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for
the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (Nov. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.) c.21A, Sec. 8, Executive Office
of Energy and Environmental Affairs Organization of Departments;
powers, duties and functions, creates and sets forth the
[[Page 47136]]
powers and duties of the Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) within the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs. In addition, M.G.L. c.111, Sec. Sec. 142A through 142N,
which, collectively, are referred to as the Massachusetts Pollution
Control Laws, provide MassDEP with broad authority to prevent pollution
or contamination of the atmosphere and to prescribe and establish
appropriate regulations. Furthermore, M.G.L. c.21A, Sec. 18, Permit
applications and compliance assurance fees; timeline action schedules;
regulations, authorizes MassDEP to establish fees applicable to the
regulatory programs it administers.
MassDEP has adopted numerous regulations within the Code of
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) in furtherance of the objectives set
out by these statutes, including 310 CMR 4.00: Timely Action & Fee
Schedule Regulations, 310 CMR 6.00, Ambient Air Quality Standards for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and 310 CMR 7.00: Air Pollution
Control Regulations. For example, many SIP-approved State air quality
regulations within 310 CMR 7.00 provide enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules
for compliance, and other related matters that satisfy the requirements
of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including
but not limited to 7.18, Volatile and Halogenated Organic Compounds,
7.19, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of
NOX, and 7.29, Emission Standards for Power Plants.
We note, however, that we are conditionally approving this element
because the SIP-approved version of 310 CMR 7.00 uses the term
``National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' but does not
contain a definition for this term. Therefore, there is uncertainty as
to which versions of the NAAQS the term incorporates. By letter dated
June 14, 2016, Massachusetts committed to submitting for inclusion in
the SIP, by a date no later than one year from conditional approval of
Massachusetts' infrastructure submissions, a definition for NAAQS in
310 CMR 7.00 that would reflect the current versions of the various
NAAQS we are proposing to act on in this rulemaking.
In recognition of the above, EPA proposes that Massachusetts has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the issue related
to a definition of NAAQS in 310 CMR 7.00, for which we are proposing a
conditional approval.
In addition to the above, we are proposing to remove as legally
obsolete 40 CFR 52.1160, which was promulgated on January 24, 1995 (60
FR 4737). Section 52.1160 provides that ``Massachusetts' adopted LEV
[Low Emission Vehicle] program must be revised to the extent necessary
for the state to comply with all aspects of the requirements of 40 CFR
51.120,'' a provision that was promulgated in the same action (60 FR
4736) and that required certain states to adopt the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) LEV program or equivalent measures. (The OTC LEV
program is based on California's LEV program and requires that only
cleaner ``LEV'' cars be sold in the states in which it has been
adopted). On March 11, 1997, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated the provisions of 40 CFR 52.120.
See Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397. Nonetheless, the Commonwealth has
adopted a Low Emission Vehicle Program based on California's LEV
program (310 CMR 7.40), the latest version of which was approved into
the SIP on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). Because of the vacatur, EPA
concludes that 40 CFR 52.1160 is obsolete and proposes to remove it
from the CFR.
As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove
any existing state provisions or rules related to SSM or director's
discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to
EPA upon request. Each year, states submit annual air monitoring
network plans to EPA for review and approval. EPA's review of these
annual monitoring plans includes our evaluation of whether the state:
(i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state
using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent
Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in
a timely manner; and, (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior
notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network
plan.
Under MGL c.111, Sec. Sec. 142B to 142D, MassDEP operates an air
monitoring network. EPA approved the state's most recent Annual Air
Monitoring Network Plan for Pb, ozone, NO2, and
SO2 on November 13, 2015. Furthermore, MassDEP populates AQS
with air quality monitoring data in a timely manner, and provides EPA
with prior notification when considering a change to its monitoring
network or plan. EPA proposes that MassDEP has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997
ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections
171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the
following: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for major
sources and major modifications; and, (iii) permitting program for
minor sources and minor modifications. A discussion of greenhouse gas
(GHG) permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule'' \2\ is included within our
evaluation of the PSD provisions of the Commonwealth's submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In EPA's April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking for several
states' infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable
requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD
permits (See 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in
EPA's August 2, 2012 proposed rulemaking for several infrastructure
SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 45992 at 45998).
In other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately
address Pb, NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5
precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables,
PM2.5 increments, or the Federal GHG permitting
thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a
suitable PSD permitting program must be considered not to be met
irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit
an infrastructure SIP, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
MassDEP staffs and implements an enforcement program pursuant to
authorities provided within the following laws: M.G.L. c.111, Sec. 2C,
Pollution violations; orders of department of environmental protection,
which authorizes MassDEP
[[Page 47137]]
to issue orders enforcing pollution control regulations generally;
M.G.L. c.111, Sec. Sec. 142A through 142O, Massachusetts Pollution
Control Laws, which, among other things, more specifically authorize
MassDEP to adopt regulations to control air pollution, enforce such
regulations, and issue penalties for non-compliance; and, M.G.L. c.21A,
Sec. 16, Civil Administrative Penalties, which provides additional
authorizations for MassDEP to assess penalties for failure to comply
with the Commonwealth's air pollution control laws and regulations.
Moreover, SIP-approved regulations, such as 310 CMR 7.02(12)(e) and
(f), provide a program for the enforcement of SIP measures.
Accordingly, EPA proposes that Massachusetts has met this requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Preconstruction Program for Major Sources and Major
Modifications
Sub-element 2 of section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that states provide
for the regulation of modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved, including a
program to meet PSD and NNSR requirements. PSD applies to new major
sources or modifications made to major sources for pollutants where the
area in which the source is located is in attainment of, or
unclassifiable with regard to, the relevant NAAQS, and NNSR requires
similar actions in nonattainment areas.
Massachusetts does not have an approved state PSD program and has
made no submittals addressing the PSD sub-element of section
110(a)(2)(C). The Commonwealth has long been subject to a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP), however, and has implemented and enforced
the federal PSD program through a delegation agreement. See 76 FR
31241; May 31, 2011. Accordingly, EPA is proposing a finding of failure
to submit with respect to the PSD-related requirements of this sub-
element for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\3\
See CAA section 110(c)(1). This finding, however, does not trigger any
additional FIP obligation by the EPA under section 110(c)(1), because
the deficiency is addressed by the FIP already in place. Moreover the
state is not subject to mandatory sanctions solely as a result of this
finding, because the SIP submittal deficiencies are neither with
respect to a sub-element that is required under part D nor in response
to a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA has previously issued findings of failure to submit
infrastructure SIPs addressing the PSD-related requirements of
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 73 FR 16205 (Mar. 27,
2008), the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 78 FR 2882 (Jan. 15, 2013), and the
2008 Pb NAAQS, 78 FR 12961 (Feb. 26, 2013), and Massachusetts has
made no additional submissions to address the PSD-related
requirements for these NAAQS since those previous findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources and
Minor Modifications
To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and
construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of
major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should
identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new
provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that
regulates emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA's most recent
approval of the Commonwealth's minor NSR program occurred on April 5,
1995 (60 FR 17226). Since this date, Massachusetts and EPA have relied
on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified
sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
In summary, we are proposing to find that Massachusetts has met the
enforcement related aspects of Section 110(a)(2)(C) discussed above
within sub-element 1, and the preconstruction permitting requirements
for minor sources discussed in sub-element 3, for the 1997 ozone, 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Also, we are proposing, pursuant to section 110(c)(1), to find that the
state has failed to make required submissions related to major source
preconstruction permitting for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS for the reasons provided in sub-element 2 above.
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
This section contains a comprehensive set of air quality management
elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution that states must
address. It covers the following 5 topics, categorized as sub-elements:
Sub-element 1, Contribute to nonattainment, and interfere with
maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility
protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution abatement; and Sub-
element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-elements 1 through 3
above are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, and these
items are further categorized into the 4 prongs discussed below, 2 of
which are found within sub-element 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are found
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act and include provisions
insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement.
i. Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the 2011 Memo notes that the
physical properties of Pb prevent it from experiencing the same travel
or formation phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone. Specifically,
there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, although it may be possible for a
source in a state to emit Pb at a location and in such quantities that
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, EPA anticipates that this would be a
rare situation (e.g., sources emitting large quantities of Pb in close
proximity to state boundaries). The 2011 Memo suggests that the
applicable interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to Pb can be met through a state's
assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in
close proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring
state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in that state.
Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS
notes that there are no major sources of Pb emissions located in close
proximity to any of the state's borders with neighboring states, or
elsewhere in the state. Our review of data within our National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) database confirms this, and also indicates
that there is no group of sources anywhere within the state likely to
emit enough Pb to cause ambient concentrations to approach the Pb
NAAQS. Therefore, we propose that Massachusetts has met this set of
requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.
Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS notes that Massachusetts sources do not contribute
to non-attainment or maintenance in other states, given that all
surrounding states are designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.''
This statement is accurate, and indeed there are no NO2
nonattainment areas
[[Page 47138]]
anywhere in the United States. 77 FR 9532 (Feb. 17, 2012). We examined
the design values from NO2 monitors in Massachusetts and
neighboring states based on data collected between 2012 and 2014. In
Massachusetts, the highest design value was 49 parts per billion
(ppb)(versus the NO2 standard of 100 ppb) at a monitor in
Boston. The highest design value we found in a neighboring state was 58
ppb in Queens, NY. We believe that with the continued implementation of
Massachusetts PSD FIP, and the Commonwealth's NSR regulations, the
state's low monitored values of NO2 will continue. In other
words, the NO2 emissions from Massachusetts are not expected
to cause or contribute to a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
in another state, and these emissions are not likely to interfere with
the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state.
Therefore, we propose that Massachusetts has met this set of
requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
In today's rulemaking, we are not proposing to approve or
disapprove Massachusetts' compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, or 2010 SO2
NAAQS, since the Commonwealth's SIP revisions upon which we are acting
today do not include a submittal with respect to transport for sub-
element 1, prongs 1 and 2 for these pollutants. Effective August 12,
2015, EPA found that Massachusetts, among a number of other states, had
not made a complete good neighbor SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 80 FR
39961 (July 13, 2015).
ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in another state. A state's
infrastructure SIP submittal cannot be considered approvable for prong
3 unless EPA has issued final approval of the state's PSD SIP, or
alternatively, has issued final approval of a SIP that EPA has
otherwise found adequate to prohibit interference with other states'
measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.
As discussed under element C above, Massachusetts is currently
subject to a PSD FIP. Therefore, we are proposing a finding of failure
to submit for prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the PSD
requirement, in the same manner as discussed under element C above.
However, this finding will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP
obligation.
Under prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA also reviews the
potential for in-state sources not subject to PSD to interfere with PSD
in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state. EPA guidance
recommends that a ``fully approved nonattainment [new source review
(NNSR)] program with respect to any previous NAAQS may generally be
considered by the EPA as adequate for purposes of meeting this
requirement of prong 3 with respect to sources and pollutants subject
to such program.'' 2013 Guidance at 32. EPA last approved the
Commonwealth's NNSR program on October 27, 2000. 65 FR 64360. Because
Massachusetts is located within the Ozone Transport Region, see CAA
Sec. 184(a), 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a), sources emitting 50 tpy or more of
NOX or VOCs are subject to the requirements that would be
applicable to major stationary sources if the area were classified as a
moderate nonattainment area, CAA Sec. Sec. 182(f)(1), 184(b)(2), 42
U.S.C. 7511a, 7511c. In other words, even if located in an area
designated attainment for ozone, such sources are not subject to PSD,
but rather, are to be subject to NNSR. Massachusetts' SIP-approved NNSR
regulations, however, apply by their terms only to nonattainment
areas,\4\ meaning that sources of 50 tpy or more of VOCs or
NOX in much of Massachusetts are not covered by either the
PSD FIP or the state's EPA-approved NNSR program and, thus, the state
has not shown that it has met this requirement of prong 3. The
Commonwealth has promulgated and implements NNSR regulations, however,
that make the state's NNSR program applicable to such sources
regardless of area designation. In a letter dated June 14, 2016, the
Commonwealth committed to submitting for inclusion in the SIP, by a
date no later than one year from conditional approval of Massachusetts'
infrastructure submissions, the necessary provisions that would make
its EPA-approved NSSR program applicable to such sources. Accordingly,
we propose to conditionally approve Massachusetts' submittals for the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS for this aspect of prong 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ At the time EPA last approved Massachusetts' NNSR
regulations (October 27, 2000; 65 FR at 64361), the Western
Massachusetts area was nonattainment for the one-hour ozone
standard, and the Eastern Massachusetts area was attaining the
standard, but destined to become nonattainment as of January 16,
2001, upon EPA's reinstatement of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for that
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011
Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these requirements can be satisfied by
an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze.
The Commonwealth's Regional Haze SIP was approved by EPA on
September 13, 2013. See 78 FR 57487. Accordingly, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts has met the visibility protection requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate Pollution
Abatement
One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain
adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable
requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement.
Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring
states of potential impacts from the source. The statute does not
specify the method by which the source should provide the notification.
As mentioned elsewhere in this notice, Massachusetts is currently
subject to a PSD FIP and it did not make submittals addressing the PSD-
related requirements of section 126(a). Therefore, we are proposing to
make a finding of failure to submit for section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
regarding PSD-related notice of interstate pollution with respect to
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\5\ This finding
does not trigger any additional FIP obligation by the EPA under section
110(c)(1), because the federal PSD rules address the notification
issue. See 40 CFR 52.21(q), 124.10(c)(vii); see also id. Sec. 52.1165.
Nor does the finding trigger any sanctions. Massachusetts has no
obligations under any other provision of section 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As discussed earlier, supra n.3, EPA has previously issued
findings of failure to submit for Massachusetts for the PSD-related
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and
2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47139]]
v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International Pollution
Abatement
One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to
contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable
requirements of section 115 relating to international pollution
abatement. Massachusetts does not have any pending obligations under
section 115 for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is
proposing that the Commonwealth has met the applicable infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 115 of
the CAA (international pollution abatement) for the 1997 ozone, 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and
related issues. Additionally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each
state to comply with the requirements with respect to state boards
under section 128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that,
where a state relies upon local or regional governments or agencies for
the implementation of its SIP provisions, the state retain
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of SIP obligations
with respect to relevant NAAQS. This last sub-element, however, is
inapplicable to this action, because Massachusetts does not rely upon
local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its
SIP provisions.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
Massachusetts, through its infrastructure SIP submittals, has
documented that its air agency has the requisite authority and
resources to carry out its SIP obligations. Massachusetts General Laws
c. 111, sections 142A to 142N, provide MassDEP with the authority to
carry out the state's implementation plan. The Massachusetts SIP, as
originally submitted in 1971 and subsequently amended, provides
descriptions of the staffing and funding necessary to carry out the
plan. In the submittals, MassDEP provides assurances that it has
adequate personnel and funding to carry out the SIP during the five
years following infrastructure SIP submission and in future years.
Additionally, the Commonwealth receives CAA section 103 and 105 grant
funds through Performance Partnership agreements and provides state
matching funds, which together enable Massachusetts to carry out its
SIP requirements. In light of the foregoing, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128(a) of the
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (1) That any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (2) that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
Massachusetts does not have a state board that approves permits or
enforcement orders under the CAA. Instead, permits and enforcement
orders are approved by the Commissioner of MassDEP. Thus, Massachusetts
is not subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of section 128.
As to the conflict of interest provisions of section 128(a)(2),
Massachusetts has cited to M.G.L. c. 268A, sections 6 and 6A of the
Commonwealth's Conflict of Interest law in its June 6, 2014
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and requested that these sections be
included in the SIP to satisfy this infrastructure SIP requirement.\6\
Pursuant to these state provisions, state employees in Massachusetts,
including the head of an executive agency with authority to approve air
permits or enforcement orders, are required to disclose potential
conflicts of interest to, among others, the state ethics commission. We
are proposing to find that M.G.L. c. 268A, sections 6 and 6A satisfy
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, to
approve them into the Massachusetts SIP, and, consequently, to approve
the Commonwealth's ISIP submittals for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In its June 6, 2014 submittal, Massachusetts also requested
that M.G.L. c. 268A, section 7 be added to the SIP. By letter dated
June 14, 2016, however, Massachusetts withdrew section 7 from
consideration for inclusion in the SIP. Section 7 contains state-
specific penalties that are not needed to satisfy CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
Pursuant to M.G.L. c.111, sections 142A to 142D, MassDEP has the
necessary authority to maintain and operate air monitoring stations,
and coordinates with EPA in determining the types and locations of
ambient air monitors across the state. The Commonwealth uses this
authority to collect information on air emissions from sources in the
state. Additionally, Massachusetts statutes and regulations provide
that emissions data shall be available for public inspection. See,
e.g., M.G.L. c.111, section 142B; 310 CMR sections 3.33(5), 7.12(4)(b);
7.14(1). The following SIP-approved regulations enable the
accomplishment of the Commonwealth's emissions recording and reporting
objectives:
1. 310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration.
2. 310 CMR 7.13, Stack Testing.
3. 310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices and Reports.
EPA recognizes that Massachusetts routinely collects information on
air emissions from its industrial sources and makes this information
available to the public. EPA, therefore, proposes that the Commonwealth
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F)
with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the
[[Page 47140]]
CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to
seek a court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing
to emissions that present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' Section 303 further
authorizes the Administrator to issue ``such orders as may be necessary
to protect public health or welfare or the environment'' in the event
that ``it is not practicable to assure prompt protection . . . by
commencement of such civil action.''
We propose to find that the Commonwealth's ISIP submittals
demonstrate that certain state statutes and regulations provide for
authority comparable to that in section 303. Massachusetts' submittals
cite M.G.L. c.111, section 2B, Air Pollution Emergencies, which
authorizes the Commissioner of the MassDEP to ``declare an air
pollution emergency'' if the Commissioner ``determines that the
condition or impending condition of the atmosphere in the Commonwealth
. . . constitutes a present or reasonably imminent danger to health.''
During such an air pollution emergency, the Commissioner is authorized
pursuant to section 2B, to ``take whatever action is necessary to
maintain and protect the public health, including but not limited to .
. . prohibiting, restricting and conditioning emissions of dangerous or
potentially dangerous air contaminants from whatever source derived . .
. .'' Additionally, sections 2B and 2C authorize the Commissioner to
issue emergency orders.
Moreover, M.G.L. c. 21A, section 8 provides that, ``[i]n regulating
. . . any pollution prevention, control or abatement plan [or] strategy
. . . through any . . . departmental action affecting or prohibiting
the emission . . . of any hazardous substance to the environment . . .
the department may consider the potential effects of such plans [and]
strategies . . . on public health and safety and the environment . . .
and said department shall act to minimize and prevent damage or threat
of damage to the environment.''
These duties are implemented, in part, under MassDEP regulations at
310 CMR 8.00, Prevention and Abatement of Air Pollution Episodes and
Air Pollution Incident Emergencies, which EPA most recently approved
into the SIP on October 4, 2002. See 67 FR 62184. These regulations
establish levels that would constitute significant harm or imminent and
substantial endangerment to health for ambient concentrations of
pollutants subject to a NAAQS, consistent with the significant harm
levels and procedures for state emergency episode plans established by
EPA in 40 CFR 51.150 and 51.151.\7\ Finally, M.G.L. c.111, section 2B
authorizes the state to seek injunctive relief in the superior court
for violation of an emergency order issued by the MassDEP Commissioner.
While no single Massachusetts statute or regulation mirrors the
authorities of CAA section 303, we propose to find that the combination
of state statutes and regulations discussed herein provide for
comparable authority to immediately bring suit to restrain, and issue
orders against, any person causing or contributing to air pollution
that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health
or welfare, or the environment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Commonwealth's Contaminant Concentration Levels are
found within Table 1 of 310 CMR 8.01, and match EPA's levels from 40
CFR part 51.151 with the exception of the averaging time used for
ozone. Massachusetts uses a 1-hour averaging time, which is slightly
more protective that the 2-hour averaging time EPA provides for this
pollutant.
\8\ By letter dated June 14, 2016, MassDEP stated that it
likewise interprets M.G.L. c.111, section 2B and M.G.L. c. 21A,
section 8 as together providing MassDEP with authority comparable to
that granted to the Administrator by CAA section 303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, for any NAAQS, States have
an approved contingency plan for any Air Quality Control Region (AQCR)
within the state that is classified as Priority I, IA, or II. See 40
CFR 51.152(c). A contingency plan is not required if the entire state
is classified as Priority III for a particular pollutant. Id. The
entire state is classified as Priority III for nitrogen dioxide, but
contains priority classifications of I or II for particulate matter,
sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and ozone. See 40 CFR 52.1121.
Consequently, as relevant to this proposed rulemaking action,
Massachusetts' SIP must contain an emergency contingency plan meeting
the specific requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152 with respect to
SO2 and ozone.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Those regulations do not specifically address Pb. See also
40 CFR 51.150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Massachusetts has adopted 310 CMR 8.00, The Prevention
and/or Abatement of Air Pollution Episode and Air Pollution Incident
Emergencies, which is modeled on EPA's example regulations for
emergency contingency plans at 40 CFR part 51, appendix L, the version
of the regulation that is currently in the SIP does not fully satisfy
40 CFR 51.152. For instance, it does not specify any ``emission control
actions to be taken at each episode stage,'' as required by 40 CFR
51.152(a)(3). By letter dated June 14, 2016, MassDEP has committed to
submitting for inclusion in the SIP, by a date no later than one year
from conditional approval of Massachusetts' infrastructure submissions,
a regulation satisfying the contingency plan requirements of element G.
With respect to Pb, we note that Pb is not explicitly included in
the contingency plan requirements of subpart H. In addition, we note
that there are no large sources of Pb in Massachusetts. Specifically, a
review of the National Emission Inventory shows that there are no
sources of Pb in Massachusetts that exceed EPA's reporting threshold of
0.5 tons per year. Although not expected, if that situation were to
change, Massachusetts does have general authority (e.g., M.G.L. c. 21A,
section 8 and c. 111, section 2B) to restrain any source from causing
imminent and substantial endangerment.
Consequently, EPA proposes that Massachusetts has met the
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with
respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Furthermore, because all AQCRs in the
state are classified as Priority III for NO2, EPA also
proposes that the Commonwealth has met the applicable requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. For the 1997
ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes to
approve Massachusetts' submittals with respect to the CAA section 303
comparable authority requirement of element G, but to conditionally
approve with respect to the contingency plan requirements of element G,
based on MassDEP's commitment to submit a regulation satisfying such
requirements within one year of final action on the infrastructure
submissions EPA is evaluating in this notice.
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
This section requires that a state's SIP provide for revision from
time to time as may be necessary to take account of changes in the
NAAQS or availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS and
whenever the EPA finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
Massachusetts General Laws c. 111, section 142D provides in relevant
part that, ``From time to time the department shall review the ambient
air quality standards and plans for implementation, maintenance and
attainment of such standards adopted pursuant to this section and,
after public hearings, shall amend such standards and implementation
plan so as to minimize the economic cost of such standards and plan for
implementation, provided,
[[Page 47141]]
however, that such standards shall not be less than the minimum federal
standards.''
EPA proposes that Massachusetts has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 1997
ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D
The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has
determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the
infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
The evaluation of the submissions from Massachusetts with respect
to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to Section 121
relating to consultation.
Pursuant to EPA-approved Massachusetts regulations at 310 CMR
7.02(12)(g)(2), MassDEP notifies the public ``by advertisement in a
newspaper having wide circulation'' in the area of the particular
facility of the opportunity to comment on certain proposed permitting
actions and sends ``a copy of the notice of public comment to the
applicant, the EPA, and officials and agencies having jurisdiction over
the community in which the facility is located, including local air
pollution control agencies, chief executives of said community, and any
regional land use planning agency.'' Massachusetts did not make a
submittal, however, with respect to the requirement to consult with
FLMs. As previously mentioned, Massachusetts does not have an approved
state PSD program, but rather is subject to a PSD FIP. The FIP includes
a provision requiring consultation with FLMs. See 40 CFR 52.21(p).
Consequently, with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts has met the consultation with local governments
requirement of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J), but proposes a
finding of failure to submit with respect to the FLM consultation
requirement. Because the federal PSD program, which Massachusetts
implements and enforces, addresses the FLM consultation requirement, a
finding of failure to submit will not result in sanctions or new FIP
obligations.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to: Notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area; advise the public of health hazards
associated with exceedances; and enhance public awareness of measures
that can be taken to prevent exceedances and of ways in which the
public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air
quality.
Massachusetts regulations specify criteria for air pollution
episodes and incidents and provide for notice to the public via news
media and other means of communication. See 310 CMR 8.00. The
Commonwealth also provides a daily air quality forecast to inform the
public about concentrations of fine particles and, during the ozone
season, provides similar information for ozone. Real time air quality
data for NAAQS pollutants are also available on the MassDEP's Web site,
as are information about health hazards associated with NAAQS
pollutants and ways in which the public can participate in regulatory
efforts related to air quality. The Commonwealth is also an active
partner in EPA's AirNow and EnviroFlash air quality alert programs,
which notify the public of air quality levels through EPA's Web site,
alerts, and press releases. In light of the above, we propose to find
that Massachusetts has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. The Commonwealth's PSD program in the context of
infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs
addressing sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and our proposed actions for those sections are
consistent with the proposed actions for this portion of section
110(a)(2)(J). Specifically, we propose a finding of failure to submit
with respect to the PSD sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS,\10\ and note that
such a finding will not result in any sanctions or new FIP obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As discussed earlier, supra n.3, EPA has previously issued
findings of failure to submit for Massachusetts for PSD-related
infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2008
Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not
change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation
``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
To satisfy element K, the state air agency must demonstrate that it
has the authority to perform air quality modeling to predict effects on
air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and submit such data to
EPA upon request.
Pursuant to the authority granted by M.G.L. c.111, sections 142B-
142D, the MassDEP has the authority to maintain and operate air
sampling stations and devices, make or perform ``such examinations,
inspections, observations, determinations, laboratory analyses, and
surveys; maintain such records; and perform such other acts as it deems
necessary to conduct an adequate air pollution control program . . .
.'' The agency is further authorized to require sources to report
monitoring and emissions data. MassDEP accomplishes these objectives
via a number of regulations, including the following:
310 CMR 7.02, Plan Approval and Emission Limitations;
310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration;
310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices and Reports; and,
310 CMR 7.00, Appendix A--Emissions Offsets and Nonattainment
Review.
The state also collaborates with the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC), the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, and EPA in
order to perform large scale urban airshed modeling. EPA proposes that
[[Page 47142]]
Massachusetts has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary
source pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
Massachusetts implements and operates the Title V permit program,
which EPA approved on September 28, 2001. See 66 FR 49541. In addition,
M.G.L. c. 21A, section 18 authorizes MassDEP to promulgate regulations
establishing fees. To collect fees from sources of air emissions, the
MassDEP promulgated and implements 310 CMR 4.00, Timely Action Schedule
and Fee Provisions. These regulations set permit compliance fees,
including fees for Title V operating permits. EPA proposes that the
Commonwealth has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities
To satisfy element M, states must consult with, and allow
participation from, local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
Pursuant to M.G.L. c.111, section 142D, MassDEP must hold public
hearings prior to revising its SIP. In addition, M.G.L. c. 30A,
Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act, requires MassDEP to
provide notice and the opportunity for public comment and hearing prior
to adoption of any regulation. Moreover, the Commonwealth's Executive
Order No. 145 requires state agencies, including MassDEP, to provide
notice to the Local Government Advisory Committee to solicit input on
the impact of proposed regulations and other administrative actions on
local governments. Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts has met
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve most portions of the SIP submissions
from Massachusetts certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to
meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of certain aspects
relating to PSD which we have either already made, or are proposing, a
finding of failure to submit. Additionally, we are proposing to
conditionally approve several aspects of the Commonwealth's submittals.
EPA's proposed action for each element for each NAAQS is stated in
Table 1 below.
Table 1--Proposed Action on MA Infrastructure SIP Submittals for Various NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Element 1997 Ozone 2008 Pb 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control measures..... CA CA CA CA CA
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system. A A A A A
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures................. A A A A A
(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major PF PF PF FS FS
modifications......................................
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and A A A A A
minor modifications................................
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere NI A NS A NS
with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1 and 2).........
(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3)........................... PF/CA PF/CA PF/CA FS/CA FS/CA
(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4)......... A A A A A
(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement............. PF PF PF FS FS
(D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement.......... A A A A A
(E)(i): Adequate resources.......................... A A A A A
(E)(ii): State boards............................... A A A A A
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local NA NA NA NA NA
agencies...........................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system............ A A A A A
(G): Emergency power................................ CA A CA A CA
(H): Future SIP revisions........................... A A A A A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under + + + + +
part D.............................................
(J)(i): Consultation with government officials...... FS FS FS FS FS
(J)(ii): Public notification........................ A A A A A
(J)(iii): PSD....................................... PF PF PF FS FS
(J)(iv): Visibility protection...................... + + + + +
(K): Air quality modeling and data.................. A A A A A
(L): Permitting fees................................ A A A A A
(M): Consultation and participation by affected A A A A A
local entities.....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
A--Approve.
CA--Conditional approval.
FS--Finding of failure to submit.
NA--Not applicable.
NI--Not included in submittal we are acting on in today's action.
NS--No Submittal.
PF--Prior finding of failure to submit.
+--Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
In addition, we are proposing to incorporate into the Massachusetts
SIP sections 6 and 6A of the state's Conflict of Interest law, which
the Commonwealth submitted on June 6, 2014, and are proposing to remove
40 CFR 52.1160 regarding Massachusetts LEV in that it is legally
obsolete.
As shown in Table 1, we are proposing to issue a finding of failure
to submit for sub-element J(i) pertaining to the requirement for
consultation with FLMs for all five of the cited NAAQS, and note that
in light of the PSD FIP, this finding will not result in sanctions or
new FIP obligations. Additionally, we are also proposing to issue
findings of failure to submit with respect to the PSD-related elements
in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for
[[Page 47143]]
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As noted above,
Massachusetts is already subject to a FIP for PSD, and so EPA will have
no additional FIP obligations under section 110(c) of the Act if this
action is finalized as proposed. Furthermore, the state will not be
subject to mandatory sanctions as a result of these actions.
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve an aspect of the
Commonwealth's submittal for element 110(a)(2)(A) pertaining to ambient
air quality standards because the current, SIP-approved version of 310
CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control, does not reflect the current version
of the various NAAQS we are proposing to act on in this rulemaking.
However, by letter dated June 14, 2016, the Commonwealth committed to
add a definition of NAAQS 310 CMR 7.00 that includes a calendar date to
address this issue. For this reason, EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve this SIP revision provided that the Commonwealth submits to EPA
an updated version of 310 CMR 7.00. Additionally, we are proposing to
conditionally approve the Commonwealth's submittals for element
110(a)(2)(G) pertaining to contingency plans for the 1997 and 2008
ozone NAAQS, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, pursuant to Massachusetts
commitment within their June 14, 2016 letter, to submit a regulation
meeting the contingency plan requirement of element 110(a)(2)(G) by a
date no later than one year from EPA's final action on these
infrastructure SIPs. And last, we are proposing to conditionally
approve the aspect of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS
pertaining to the Commonwealth's NNSR program pursuant to the state's
June 14, 2016 letter committing to submit portions of 310 CMR 7.00:
Appendix A, to EPA as a SIP revision request by one year from our final
action on these ISIPs.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a
plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain, but not later than one year from the date
of approval. If EPA conditionally approves these commitments in a final
rulemaking action, Massachusetts must meet its commitments to: Submit
an updated version of 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control, containing a
calendar date to clarify which NAAQS are being referenced, to fully
meet the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(A); submit revisions to its
SIP-approved nonattainment new source review regulations to fully meet
the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II); and, submit a
regulation addressing the contingency plan requirement of section
110(a)(2)(G). If the State fails to do so, this action will become a
disapproval one year from the date of final approval. EPA will notify
the State by letter that this action has occurred. At that time, these
commitments will no longer be a part of the approved Massachusetts SIP.
EPA subsequently will publish a document in the Federal Register
notifying the public that the conditional approval(s) automatically
converted to a disapproval(s). If the State meets its commitments
within the applicable time frame, the conditionally approved
submissions will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action
approving or disapproving them. If EPA disapproves the new submittals,
the conditionally approved regulations will also be disapproved at that
time. If EPA approves the submittals, the regulations will be fully
approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally approved program
in the SIP. If EPA determines that it cannot issue a final conditional
approval or if the conditional approvals are converted to disapprovals,
such action will trigger the Federal implementation plan (FIP)
requirement under section 110(c).
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register, or by submitting comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier following the
directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference into the Massachusetts SIP M.G.L c. 268A,
sections 6 and 6A of the Commonwealth's Conflict of Interest law
submitted to EPA on June 6, 2014. The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, this document generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have
[[Page 47144]]
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur Oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 5, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-17069 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
