Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 1021-1025 [2019-00657]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
PM2.5 Condensables Correction Rule as
promulgated on October 25, 2012 (77 FR
65107). As explained in Section II.A.2,
the Federal rule corrected an
inadvertent error in the definition of
‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50). In the Condensable
Correction Rule, EPA explained that
requiring inclusion of condensable PM
in measurements of ‘‘particulate matter
emissions’’ would have little (if any)
effect on preventing significant air
quality deterioration or on efforts to
attain the primary and secondary PM
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA has
preliminarily concluded that this
change to Jefferson County’s portion of
the Kentucky SIP is consistent with the
current Federal rule, will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the
PM NAAQS, any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA, and is
proposing to approve these revisions
into the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, 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, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
Jefferson County’s Regulation 2.05,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
of Air Quality, version 13, which is
intended to make the Jefferson County
PSD permitting regulation consistent
with the federal requirements and is
state effective January 17, 2018. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve changes
to the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP that were provided to EPA
through two letters dated August 25,
2017, and March 15, 2018, to update the
IBR date for the Federal requirements of
the PSD program found at 40 CFR 52.21.
This SIP revision is intended to make
Jefferson County’s PSD permitting rule
consistent with the Federal
requirements, as promulgated by EPA.
The August 25, 2017, SIP revision
updates the IBR date at Jefferson
County’s Regulation 2.05—Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,
to July 15, 2016, for the federal PSD
permitting regulations at 40 CFR 52.21.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Jan 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
Subsequently, the March 15, 2018, SIP
revision updates the IBR date at
Jefferson County’s Regulation 2.05 to
July 15, 2017.
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. This action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1021
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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 17, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–00781 Filed 1–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2018–0791; FRL–9988–43–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts;
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress
Report State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the Massachusetts regional haze
progress report submitted as a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision on
February 9, 2018. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean
Air Act and its implementing
regulations that states submit periodic
reports describing progress toward
reasonable progress goals established for
regional haze and a determination of
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze SIP. Massachusetts’ progress report
notes that Massachusetts has
implemented the measures in the
regional haze SIP due to be in place by
the date of the progress report and that
visibility in the federal Class I areas
affected by emissions from
Massachusetts is improving and has
already met the applicable reasonable
progress goals for 2018. The EPA is
proposing approval of Massachusetts’
determination that the Commonwealth’s
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
1022
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
regional haze SIP is adequate to meet
these reasonable progress goals for the
first implementation period, which
extends through 2018, and requires no
substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 4, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2018–0791 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
mcwilliams.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://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston,
MA 02109—3912, tel. (617) 918–1697,
email mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Jan 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Massachusetts’ SIP
Revision
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing
Regional Haze Plan
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
States are required to submit a
progress report in the form of a SIP
revision that evaluates progress towards
the reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for
each mandatory Class I federal area 1
(Class I area) within the state and in
each Class I area outside the state which
may be affected by emissions from
within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g).
In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(h) require states to submit, at the
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g)
progress report, a determination of
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze SIP. The progress report SIP for the
first planning period is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional
haze SIP. On December 30, 2011, the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
submitted the Commonwealth’s first
regional haze SIP in accordance with 40
CFR 51.308.2 On February 9, 2018,
MassDEP submitted, as a revision to its
SIP, its progress report which detailed
the progress made in the first planning
period toward the implementation of
the Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined
in the 2011 regional haze submittal, the
visibility improvement measured at
Class I areas affected by emissions from
Massachusetts, and a determination of
the adequacy of the Commonwealth’s
existing regional haze SIP. The EPA is
proposing to approve Massachusetts’
February 9, 2018 SIP submittal.
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Massachusetts’
SIP Revision
MassDEP’s report on progress made in
the first implementation period toward
reasonable progress goals for all Class I
areas affected by emission from sources
in Massachusetts (also known as a
regional haze five-year progress report)
was submitted to the EPA as a SIP
revision. This progress report SIP
submittal also included a determination
that the Commonwealth’s existing
regional haze SIP requires no
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6, 000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
2 On September 19, 2013, EPA approved the
Massachusetts regional haze SIP submittal. See 78
FR 57487.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
substantive revision to achieve the
established regional haze visibility
improvement and emission reduction
goals for 2018. Massachusetts is a
member of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE–VU).3 The
MANE–VU area contains seven Class I
areas in four States: Moosehorn
Wilderness Area, Acadia National Park,
and Roosevelt Campobello International
Park in Maine; Presidential Range/Dry
River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf
Wilderness Area in New Hampshire;
Brigantine Wilderness Area in New
Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area
in Vermont. There are no Class I areas
in Massachusetts. Through source
apportionment modeling, MANE–VU
assisted states in determining their
contribution to the visibility impairment
of each Class I area in the MANE–VU
region and nearby Class I areas outside
of MANE–VU. Massachusetts emissions
were found to contribute to visibility
impairment at each of the MANE–VU
Class I areas, with the exception of
Brigantine Wilderness Area in New
Jersey. See 77 FR 30932 (May 24, 2012).
Through the consultation process,
Massachusetts agreed to reduce
emissions by at least the amount
obtained by the measures in the
coordinated course of action agreed to
by MANE–VU to assure reasonable
progress toward preventing any future,
and remedying and existing,
impairment of visibility in the
mandatory Class I areas within the
MANE–VU region. These strategies are
commonly referred to as the MANE–VU
‘‘ask.’’ The MANE–VU ‘‘ask’’ includes:
A timely implementation of best
available retrofit technology (BART)
requirements, 90 percent or more
reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2) at 167
electrical generating units (EGUs)
‘‘stacks’’ identified by MANE–VU (or
comparable alternative measures), lower
sulfur fuel oil (with limits specified for
each state) and continued evaluation of
other control measures.4 In summary,
Massachusetts is on track to fulfill the
3 MANE–VU is a collaborative effort of State
governments, Tribal governments, and various
federal agencies established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility and other
air quality issues in the Northeastern United States.
Member State and Tribal governments include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot
Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk
Tribe and Vermont.
4 The MANE–VU ‘‘ask’’ was structured around
the finding that SO2 emissions were the dominate
visibility impairing pollutant at Northeastern Class
I areas and electrical generating units comprised the
largest SO2 emission sector. See ‘‘Regional Haze and
Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,’’
January 31, 2001.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
1023
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
MANE–VU ‘‘ask’’ by adopting and
implementing an alternative to the
BART,5 reducing SO2 emissions at
identified stacks, and implementing the
low sulfur in fuel strategy.
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes the EPA’s
analysis of MassDEP’s progress report
SIP submittal and an explanation of the
basis of our proposed approval.
The 2011 Massachusetts regional haze
SIP included the following key
measures: BART determinations for two
municipal waste combustors, an EGU
alternative to BART strategy, SO2
emission reductions from ten targeted
EGU stacks, and an adopted regulation
which reduces the sulfur content of #2
distillate oil and #4/#6 residual oil.
EPA’s analysis of the Massachusetts
regional haze SIP for the first planning
period can be found at 77 FR 30932
(May 24, 2012) and will not be restated
here.
Table 3.1 of the Massachusetts
progress report details the status of units
subject to BART and the alternative to
BART. All units have either been retired
or have adopted permit revisions to
implement BART or Alternative to
BART. Table 3.2 of the Massachusetts
progress report shows that the actual
2017 SO2 and NOX reductions are 99%
and 97%, respectively, of the 2018
alternative to BART reduction target.
Similarly, Table 3.3 shows a 99%
reduction in SO2 from the targeted
EGUs, far surpassing the expected 90%
reduction.
Massachusetts also adopted the
MANE–VU low sulfur strategy. EPA
approved the Massachusetts low sulfur
in fuel regulation concurrent with EPA’s
approval of the Massachusetts regional
haze SIP. See 78 FR 57487 (September
19, 2013).
EPA is proposing to find that
MassDEP has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) with the demonstrated
implementation of measures within
Massachusetts, including implementing
the alternative to BART.
During the development of the
regional haze SIP for the first planning
period, MANE–VU and MassDEP
determined that SO2 was the greatest
contributor to anthropogenic visibility
impairment at nearby Class I areas.
Therefore, the bulk of the visibility
improvement achieved in the first
planning period was expected to be
from reductions in SO2 emissions. Table
4.1 of the 2018 progress report presents
data from statewide Massachusetts
emission inventories developed for the
years 2002, 2011, 2014, and projected
inventories for 2018 for SO2, nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and fine particulates with
diameters that are generally less than
2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). From 2002
through 2014, the Commonwealth’s
overall SO2 emission were reduced from
134,824 tons to 19,882 tons of SO2,
below the 2018 projection of 60,061 tons
SO2. For NOX, from 2002 to 2014, the
Commonwealth achieved an overall
54% reduction in NOX from 266,098
tons to 120,054 tons. The 2018 NOX
projection for 2018 was 126,510 tons.
Finally, from 2002 to 2014, PM2.5
emissions were reduced from 53,000
tons to 39,000 tons, once again
surpassing the 40,956 tons PM2.5
projection for 2018.
EPA finds that Massachusetts has
adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g).
MassDEP compared the most recently
updated emissions inventory data
available at the time of development of
the progress report with the baseline
emissions inventory data from its
regional haze SIP. The progress report
appropriately details the 2014 SO2,
NOX, and PM2.5 reductions achieved, by
sector, thus far in the regional haze
planning period.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) also require that states with
Class I areas within their borders to
provide information on current
visibility conditions and the difference
between current visibility conditions
and baseline visibility conditions
expressed in terms of five-year averages
of these annual values. Massachusetts
has no Class I areas, but the Class I areas
affected by emissions from
Massachusetts have visibility conditions
better than baseline conditions and
conditions predicted for 2018. The
Interagency Visual Environmental
monitoring program (IMPROVE)
provides data on the air pollutants that
constitute regional haze. The MassDEP
progress report includes data from the
IMPROVE sites at Class I areas affected
by emissions from Massachusetts.
Tables 1 and 2 below show the progress
from the baseline 2000–2004 five-year
average visibility through the most
recent 2012–2016 five-year period for
the 20% haziest days and 20% cleanest
days.
TABLE 1—20% HAZIEST DAYS BASELINE, REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS, AND OBSERVED VISIBILITY IN DECIVIEWS (dv)
Baseline
(2000–2004)
Class I Area IMPROVE * site
Acadia National Park (ME) ......................................................................................
Great Gulf Wilderness (NH) ....................................................................................
Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness (NH) ......................................................
Lye Brook Wilderness (VT) .....................................................................................
Moosehorn Wilderness (ME) ...................................................................................
Roosevelt Campobello International Park (ME) ......................................................
Reasonable
progress goal
(2018)
5-Year
average
observed
(2012–2016)
Met the
2018
progress
goal?
22.9
22.8
19.4
19.1
17.4
16.4
Yes.
Yes.
24.4
21.7
........................
20.9
19.0
........................
18.0
16.3
........................
Yes.
Yes.
TABLE 2—20% CLEANEST DAYS BASELINE, REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS, AND OBSERVED VISIBILITY IN DECIVIEWS
(dv)
Baseline
(2000–2004)
Class I Area IMPROVE* site
Acadia National Park (ME) ......................................................................................
Great Gulf Wilderness (NH) ....................................................................................
5 The Massachusetts alternative to BART strategy
is comprised of a combination of source
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Jan 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
8.78
7.7
retirements, emission limits for various EGUs, and
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Reasonable
progress goal
(2018)
8.3
7.2
5-Year
average
observed
(2012–2016)
6.6
6.7
Met the
2018
progress
goal?
Yes.
Yes.
sulfur in fuel requirements. For more details see 77
FR 30932 (May 24, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
1024
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—20% CLEANEST DAYS BASELINE, REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS, AND OBSERVED VISIBILITY IN DECIVIEWS
(dv)—Continued
Class I Area IMPROVE* site
Baseline
(2000–2004)
Reasonable
progress goal
(2018)
5-Year
average
observed
(2012–2016)
Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness (NH) ......................................................
Lye Brook Wilderness (VT) .....................................................................................
Moosehorn Wilderness (ME) ...................................................................................
Roosevelt Campobello International Park (ME) ......................................................
........................
6.4
9.2
........................
........................
5.5
8.6
........................
........................
5.1
6.7
........................
Met the
2018
progress
goal?
Yes.
Yes.
*Data from Tracking Visibility Progress 2004–2016, as posted at https://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/MVTSC/RH_METRICS_TRENDS/ on January
30, 2018.
EPA notes the substantial
improvement in visibility at Class I
Areas impacted by Massachusetts
emissions. These Class I areas have met
the RPGs for the first regional haze
planning period.
EPA proposes to find Massachusetts
provided the required information
regarding visibility conditions to meet
the applicable requirements under 40
CFR 51.308(g), specifically providing
baseline visibility conditions (2000–
2004) and current conditions based on
IMPROVE monitoring data (2012–2016),
and an assessment of the change in
visibility impairment at nearby Class I
areas.
In its progress report SIP, MassDEP
presents data from statewide emissions
inventories developed for the years
2002, 2011, and 2014 with projected
inventories for 2018 for SO2, NOX, and
PM2.5. Massachusetts’ emission
categories include the following source
categories: EGU point, non-EGU point,
point, area, on-road mobile, and nonroad mobile. The 2014 emissions for all
pollutants of concern and all source
sectors were below the projections for
2018 contained in the regional haze SIP.
Reductions achieved by 2014 are 54%
for NOX, 85% for SO2, and 25% for
PM2.5.
EPA is proposing to find that
MassDEP adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g). The
progress report compared the most
recent updated emission inventory data
available at the time of the development
of the progress report with baseline
emissions used in the modeling for the
regional haze SIP.
In its progress report SIP,
Massachusetts did not find any
significant changes in emissions of SO2,
NOX, and PM2.5 which might impede or
limit progress during the first planning
period. As noted earlier, haze at Class I
areas affected by Massachusetts
emissions has improved to levels to
meet or exceed the RPG. EPA therefore
proposes to approve MassDEP’s 2018
SIP submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Jan 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
In its progress report SIP,
Massachusetts concludes the elements
and strategies relied on in its original
regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable
Massachusetts and neighboring states to
meet all established RPGs. As shown in
Table 1 above, visibility on the most
impaired days from 2000 through 2016
has improved at all Class I areas affected
by emissions from Massachusetts (and
all RPGs have already been met.)
EPA proposes to agree with
MassDEP’s conclusion that
Massachusetts has adequately addressed
the provisions for the first planning
period progress report. EPA views this
requirement as an assessment that
should evaluate emissions and visibility
trends and other readily available
information. In its progress report,
MassDEP described the improving
visibility trends using data from the
IMPROVE network and the downward
emission trends in key pollutants in the
Commonwealth. MassDEP determined
its regional haze SIP is sufficient to meet
the RPGs for the Class I areas impacted
by the Commonwealth’s emissions.
Massachusetts does not have any
Class I areas and is not required to
monitor for visibility-impairing
pollutants. The Massachusetts visibility
monitoring strategy relies upon Class I
area participation in the IMPROVE
network. EPA proposes to find that
Massachusetts has adequately addressed
the requirements for a monitoring
strategy for regional haze and proposes
to determine no further modifications to
the monitoring program are necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of
Existing Regional Haze Plan
In its progress report, MassDEP
submitted a negative declaration to EPA
regarding the need for additional actions
or emission reductions in Massachusetts
beyond those already in place and those
to be implemented by 2018 according to
the Massachusetts regional haze plan.
In the 2018 SIP submittal, MassDEP
determined the existing regional haze
SIP requires no further substantive
revision at this time to achieve the RPGs
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for the Class I areas affected by the
Commonwealth’s sources. The basis for
the Commonwealth’s negative
declaration is the finding that visibility
has improved at all Class I areas in the
MANE–VU region. In addition, SO2 and
PM2.5 emissions for the latest emission
inventory for Massachusetts have
decreased to levels below projections for
2018.
EPA proposes to conclude that
MassDEP has adequately addressed the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h)
because visibility and emission trends
indicate that Class I areas impacted by
Massachusetts sources are meeting or
exceeding the RPGs for 2018.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve
Massachusetts’ regional haze progress
report as meeting the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) and (h). EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this notice or on other
relevant matters. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to this
proposed rulemaking by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• This action is not expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant
under Executive Order 12866;
• 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
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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Jan 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
Dated: December 21, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019–00657 Filed 1–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0443; FRL–9988–28Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island;
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
most elements of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
from Rhode Island that addresses the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). We are also
proposing to conditionally approve
certain elements of this submittal that
relate to requirements for the state’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program. In addition, EPA is
proposing to disapprove the submission
with respect to future SIP revisions.
However, a federal implementation plan
has been in place for this requirement
since 1973. 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 with respect to this
NAAQS under the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 4, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2017–0443 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
simcox.alison@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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1025
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://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Unit, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code
OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109—3912,
tel. (617) 918–1684; simcox.alison@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
A. What Rhode Island SIP submission does
this rulemaking address?
B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate
this SIP submission?
III. EPA’s Review
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
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate
Transport
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate
Resources
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
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1021-1025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00657]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0791; FRL-9988-43-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Regional Haze Five-Year
Progress Report State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Massachusetts regional haze progress report submitted as a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision on February 9, 2018. This
revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act and its
implementing regulations that states submit periodic reports describing
progress toward reasonable progress goals established for regional haze
and a determination of adequacy of the state's existing regional haze
SIP. Massachusetts' progress report notes that Massachusetts has
implemented the measures in the regional haze SIP due to be in place by
the date of the progress report and that visibility in the federal
Class I areas affected by emissions from Massachusetts is improving and
has already met the applicable reasonable progress goals for 2018. The
EPA is proposing approval of Massachusetts' determination that the
Commonwealth's
[[Page 1022]]
regional haze SIP is adequate to meet these reasonable progress goals
for the first implementation period, which extends through 2018, and
requires no substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 4, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2018-0791 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
mcwilliams.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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, tel.
(617) 918-1697, email mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revision
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the reasonable progress
goals (RPGs) for each mandatory Class I federal area \1\ (Class I area)
within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may
be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g).
In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to
submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a
determination of adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP.
The progress report SIP for the first planning period is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On December 30, 2011,
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
submitted the Commonwealth's first regional haze SIP in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308.\2\ On February 9, 2018, MassDEP submitted, as a revision
to its SIP, its progress report which detailed the progress made in the
first planning period toward the implementation of the Long Term
Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 2011 regional haze submittal, the
visibility improvement measured at Class I areas affected by emissions
from Massachusetts, and a determination of the adequacy of the
Commonwealth's existing regional haze SIP. The EPA is proposing to
approve Massachusetts' February 9, 2018 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6, 000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\2\ On September 19, 2013, EPA approved the Massachusetts
regional haze SIP submittal. See 78 FR 57487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revision
MassDEP's report on progress made in the first implementation
period toward reasonable progress goals for all Class I areas affected
by emission from sources in Massachusetts (also known as a regional
haze five-year progress report) was submitted to the EPA as a SIP
revision. This progress report SIP submittal also included a
determination that the Commonwealth's existing regional haze SIP
requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional
haze visibility improvement and emission reduction goals for 2018.
Massachusetts is a member of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE-VU).\3\ The MANE-VU area contains seven Class I areas in
four States: Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Acadia National Park, and
Roosevelt Campobello International Park in Maine; Presidential Range/
Dry River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf Wilderness Area in New
Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey; and Lye Brook
Wilderness Area in Vermont. There are no Class I areas in
Massachusetts. Through source apportionment modeling, MANE-VU assisted
states in determining their contribution to the visibility impairment
of each Class I area in the MANE-VU region and nearby Class I areas
outside of MANE-VU. Massachusetts emissions were found to contribute to
visibility impairment at each of the MANE-VU Class I areas, with the
exception of Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey. See 77 FR 30932
(May 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ MANE-VU is a collaborative effort of State governments,
Tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
Northeastern United States. Member State and Tribal governments
include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis
Mohawk Tribe and Vermont.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the consultation process, Massachusetts agreed to reduce
emissions by at least the amount obtained by the measures in the
coordinated course of action agreed to by MANE-VU to assure reasonable
progress toward preventing any future, and remedying and existing,
impairment of visibility in the mandatory Class I areas within the
MANE-VU region. These strategies are commonly referred to as the MANE-
VU ``ask.'' The MANE-VU ``ask'' includes: A timely implementation of
best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements, 90 percent or
more reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2) at 167 electrical
generating units (EGUs) ``stacks'' identified by MANE-VU (or comparable
alternative measures), lower sulfur fuel oil (with limits specified for
each state) and continued evaluation of other control measures.\4\ In
summary, Massachusetts is on track to fulfill the
[[Page 1023]]
MANE-VU ``ask'' by adopting and implementing an alternative to the
BART,\5\ reducing SO2 emissions at identified stacks, and
implementing the low sulfur in fuel strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The MANE-VU ``ask'' was structured around the finding that
SO2 emissions were the dominate visibility impairing
pollutant at Northeastern Class I areas and electrical generating
units comprised the largest SO2 emission sector. See
``Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
States,'' January 31, 2001.
\5\ The Massachusetts alternative to BART strategy is comprised
of a combination of source retirements, emission limits for various
EGUs, and sulfur in fuel requirements. For more details see 77 FR
30932 (May 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes the EPA's analysis of MassDEP's progress
report SIP submittal and an explanation of the basis of our proposed
approval.
The 2011 Massachusetts regional haze SIP included the following key
measures: BART determinations for two municipal waste combustors, an
EGU alternative to BART strategy, SO2 emission reductions
from ten targeted EGU stacks, and an adopted regulation which reduces
the sulfur content of #2 distillate oil and #4/#6 residual oil. EPA's
analysis of the Massachusetts regional haze SIP for the first planning
period can be found at 77 FR 30932 (May 24, 2012) and will not be
restated here.
Table 3.1 of the Massachusetts progress report details the status
of units subject to BART and the alternative to BART. All units have
either been retired or have adopted permit revisions to implement BART
or Alternative to BART. Table 3.2 of the Massachusetts progress report
shows that the actual 2017 SO2 and NOX reductions
are 99% and 97%, respectively, of the 2018 alternative to BART
reduction target. Similarly, Table 3.3 shows a 99% reduction in
SO2 from the targeted EGUs, far surpassing the expected 90%
reduction.
Massachusetts also adopted the MANE-VU low sulfur strategy. EPA
approved the Massachusetts low sulfur in fuel regulation concurrent
with EPA's approval of the Massachusetts regional haze SIP. See 78 FR
57487 (September 19, 2013).
EPA is proposing to find that MassDEP has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) with the demonstrated
implementation of measures within Massachusetts, including implementing
the alternative to BART.
During the development of the regional haze SIP for the first
planning period, MANE-VU and MassDEP determined that SO2 was
the greatest contributor to anthropogenic visibility impairment at
nearby Class I areas. Therefore, the bulk of the visibility improvement
achieved in the first planning period was expected to be from
reductions in SO2 emissions. Table 4.1 of the 2018 progress
report presents data from statewide Massachusetts emission inventories
developed for the years 2002, 2011, 2014, and projected inventories for
2018 for SO2, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and fine
particulates with diameters that are generally less than 2.5
micrometers (PM2.5). From 2002 through 2014, the
Commonwealth's overall SO2 emission were reduced from
134,824 tons to 19,882 tons of SO2, below the 2018
projection of 60,061 tons SO2. For NOX, from 2002
to 2014, the Commonwealth achieved an overall 54% reduction in
NOX from 266,098 tons to 120,054 tons. The 2018
NOX projection for 2018 was 126,510 tons. Finally, from 2002
to 2014, PM2.5 emissions were reduced from 53,000 tons to
39,000 tons, once again surpassing the 40,956 tons PM2.5
projection for 2018.
EPA finds that Massachusetts has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). MassDEP compared the most
recently updated emissions inventory data available at the time of
development of the progress report with the baseline emissions
inventory data from its regional haze SIP. The progress report
appropriately details the 2014 SO2, NOX, and
PM2.5 reductions achieved, by sector, thus far in the
regional haze planning period.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require that states with
Class I areas within their borders to provide information on current
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of
five-year averages of these annual values. Massachusetts has no Class I
areas, but the Class I areas affected by emissions from Massachusetts
have visibility conditions better than baseline conditions and
conditions predicted for 2018. The Interagency Visual Environmental
monitoring program (IMPROVE) provides data on the air pollutants that
constitute regional haze. The MassDEP progress report includes data
from the IMPROVE sites at Class I areas affected by emissions from
Massachusetts. Tables 1 and 2 below show the progress from the baseline
2000-2004 five-year average visibility through the most recent 2012-
2016 five-year period for the 20% haziest days and 20% cleanest days.
Table 1--20% Haziest Days Baseline, Reasonable Progress Goals, and Observed Visibility in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasonable 5-Year average
Class I Area IMPROVE * site Baseline (2000- progress goal observed (2012- Met the 2018 progress
2004) (2018) 2016) goal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park (ME).............. 22.9 19.4 17.4 Yes.
Great Gulf Wilderness (NH)............. 22.8 19.1 16.4 Yes.
Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness .............. .............. ..............
(NH).
Lye Brook Wilderness (VT).............. 24.4 20.9 18.0 Yes.
Moosehorn Wilderness (ME).............. 21.7 19.0 16.3 Yes.
Roosevelt Campobello International Park .............. .............. ..............
(ME).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--20% Cleanest Days Baseline, Reasonable Progress Goals, and Observed Visibility in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasonable 5-Year average
Class I Area IMPROVE* site Baseline (2000- progress goal observed (2012- Met the 2018 progress
2004) (2018) 2016) goal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park (ME).............. 8.78 8.3 6.6 Yes.
Great Gulf Wilderness (NH)............. 7.7 7.2 6.7 Yes.
[[Page 1024]]
Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness .............. .............. ..............
(NH).
Lye Brook Wilderness (VT).............. 6.4 5.5 5.1 Yes.
Moosehorn Wilderness (ME).............. 9.2 8.6 6.7 Yes.
Roosevelt Campobello International Park .............. .............. ..............
(ME).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Data from Tracking Visibility Progress 2004-2016, as posted at https://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/MVTSC/RH_METRICS_TRENDS/ on January 30, 2018.
EPA notes the substantial improvement in visibility at Class I
Areas impacted by Massachusetts emissions. These Class I areas have met
the RPGs for the first regional haze planning period.
EPA proposes to find Massachusetts provided the required
information regarding visibility conditions to meet the applicable
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g), specifically providing baseline
visibility conditions (2000-2004) and current conditions based on
IMPROVE monitoring data (2012-2016), and an assessment of the change in
visibility impairment at nearby Class I areas.
In its progress report SIP, MassDEP presents data from statewide
emissions inventories developed for the years 2002, 2011, and 2014 with
projected inventories for 2018 for SO2, NOX, and
PM2.5. Massachusetts' emission categories include the
following source categories: EGU point, non-EGU point, point, area, on-
road mobile, and non-road mobile. The 2014 emissions for all pollutants
of concern and all source sectors were below the projections for 2018
contained in the regional haze SIP. Reductions achieved by 2014 are 54%
for NOX, 85% for SO2, and 25% for
PM2.5.
EPA is proposing to find that MassDEP adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g). The progress report compared the most
recent updated emission inventory data available at the time of the
development of the progress report with baseline emissions used in the
modeling for the regional haze SIP.
In its progress report SIP, Massachusetts did not find any
significant changes in emissions of SO2, NOX, and
PM2.5 which might impede or limit progress during the first
planning period. As noted earlier, haze at Class I areas affected by
Massachusetts emissions has improved to levels to meet or exceed the
RPG. EPA therefore proposes to approve MassDEP's 2018 SIP submission.
In its progress report SIP, Massachusetts concludes the elements
and strategies relied on in its original regional haze SIP are
sufficient to enable Massachusetts and neighboring states to meet all
established RPGs. As shown in Table 1 above, visibility on the most
impaired days from 2000 through 2016 has improved at all Class I areas
affected by emissions from Massachusetts (and all RPGs have already
been met.)
EPA proposes to agree with MassDEP's conclusion that Massachusetts
has adequately addressed the provisions for the first planning period
progress report. EPA views this requirement as an assessment that
should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily
available information. In its progress report, MassDEP described the
improving visibility trends using data from the IMPROVE network and the
downward emission trends in key pollutants in the Commonwealth. MassDEP
determined its regional haze SIP is sufficient to meet the RPGs for the
Class I areas impacted by the Commonwealth's emissions.
Massachusetts does not have any Class I areas and is not required
to monitor for visibility-impairing pollutants. The Massachusetts
visibility monitoring strategy relies upon Class I area participation
in the IMPROVE network. EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts has
adequately addressed the requirements for a monitoring strategy for
regional haze and proposes to determine no further modifications to the
monitoring program are necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
In its progress report, MassDEP submitted a negative declaration to
EPA regarding the need for additional actions or emission reductions in
Massachusetts beyond those already in place and those to be implemented
by 2018 according to the Massachusetts regional haze plan.
In the 2018 SIP submittal, MassDEP determined the existing regional
haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time to
achieve the RPGs for the Class I areas affected by the Commonwealth's
sources. The basis for the Commonwealth's negative declaration is the
finding that visibility has improved at all Class I areas in the MANE-
VU region. In addition, SO2 and PM2.5 emissions
for the latest emission inventory for Massachusetts have decreased to
levels below projections for 2018.
EPA proposes to conclude that MassDEP has adequately addressed the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because visibility and emission
trends indicate that Class I areas impacted by Massachusetts sources
are meeting or exceeding the RPGs for 2018.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts' regional haze progress
report as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rulemaking by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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
[[Page 1025]]
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011);
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
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 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 21, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-00657 Filed 1-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P