Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone Standard, 8693-8697 [2021-02536]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8693
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
*
*
1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Second Maintenance
Plan for the Johnstown Area.
*
*
*
*
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2019–0695; FRL–10018–
99–Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts;
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Except as noted below,
this submission satisfies the
16:18 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
*
*
Johnstown Area ................
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by April 12, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action
pertaining to Pennsylvania’s limited
maintenance plan for the Johnstown
Area may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
Applicable geographic area
[FR Doc. 2021–02559 Filed 2–8–21; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY:
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
State
submittal
date
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph
(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for
‘‘1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard Second
Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown
Area’’ at the end of the table to read as
follows:
■
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
EPA approval date
2/27/2020
Sfmt 4700
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
§ 52.2020
*
*
2/9/2021, [insert Federal
Register citation].
infrastructure requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). 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. We are
issuing a finding of failure to submit
pertaining to the various aspects of
infrastructure SIPs relating to the
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD). The Commonwealth has long
been subject to a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) regarding
PSD, thus the finding of failure to
submit will result in no sanctions or
further FIP requirements. In this action
we do not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements regarding
interstate transport, because we
previously approved the
Commonwealth’s submission
addressing these requirements for the
2015 ozone standard. This action is
PO 00000
Dated: February 3, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
*
*
Additional explanation
*
being taken in accordance with the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on March
11, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–
2019–0695. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://
www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
8694
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
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 and
facility closures due to COVID–19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code
05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, tel.
617–918–1628, email rackauskas.eric@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Table of Contents
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On March 13, 2020, EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
(85 FR 14605) proposing to approve and
a direct final rule (DFR) (85 FR 14578)
approving a SIP submission from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to
address the infrastructure requirements
of the Clean Air Act for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. When EPA promulgates a new
or revised NAAQS, each state must
submit a SIP submission, known as an
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’, in order to ensure
that the state’s SIP provides for
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS. The Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
submitted the infrastructure SIP
submission to EPA as a formal SIP
submission on September 27, 2018. In
the DFR, EPA stated that, if it received
an adverse comment on the direct final
proposal by April 13, 2020, then the
agency would withdraw that direct final
and issue a final rule based on the
NPRM. EPA received one adverse
comment prior to the close of the
comment period. Therefore, EPA
withdrew the DFR on May 12, 2020 (85
FR 27927). This action is a final rule
based on the NPRM.
A detailed discussion of the
Massachusetts September 27, 2018,
infrastructure SIP submission, and
EPA’s rationale for proposing approval
of the SIP submission appear in the DFR
and we will not restate that here, except
to the extent relevant to our response to
the public comment on the proposal.
EPA also received two requests to
extend the public comment period for
the NPRM until after the COVID–19
pandemic is over. EPA is denying these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
extension requests, and the reasons for
this denial can be found in the docket
for this rulemaking.
II. Response to Comment
EPA received one adverse comment
on the March 13, 2020, notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Comment: ‘‘EPA is also approving the
state’s SIP as having adequate resources,
how was EPA able to identify whether
the state had adequate resources before
the COVID–19 outbreak and how can
the outbreak not affect the state’s ability
to continue having adequate resources?
And how is EPA sure the state has
adequate enforcement abilities to carry
out its mission to protect environmental
and human health after Trump’s EPA
issued a BLANKET waiver to all
environmental rules??? EPA can’t
possibly think a state is able to enforce
the state’s rules in addition to EPA’s
rules that Trump has declined to
persecute [sic]. EPA can’t approve the
state’s ability to have adequate resources
or adequate funding or adequate
enforcement if EPA’s review is
predicated on the belief of pre-COVID–
19 conditions will continue now.’’
Response: The comment provides
little detail, but it appears to raise three
general issues. First, it asks how EPA
was ‘‘able to identify whether the state
had adequate resources’’ before the
COVID–19 pandemic. Second, it
questions any conclusion that
Massachusetts has ‘‘adequate resources’’
and ‘‘adequate enforcement abilities’’ in
light of the pandemic. And third, it asks
how EPA can be sure that Massachusetts
has ‘‘adequate enforcement abilities’’ in
light of what the comment refers to as
an EPA-issued ‘‘BLANKET waiver to all
environmental rules.’’ On the third
issue, the comment does not specifically
identify an EPA ‘‘waiver,’’ but EPA
assumes the commenter refers to EPA’s
March 26, 2020, memorandum entitled
‘‘COVID–19 Implications for EPA’s
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Program’’ (hereinafter, ‘‘March 2020
memorandum’’ or ‘‘EPA Enforcement
Memo’’). The comment does not
identify a particular section (or sections)
of the Clean Air Act that it believes
Massachusetts failed to satisfy but it is
reasonable to assume that the
commenter is referring to the
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C)
(pertaining to enforcement) and section
110(a)(2)(E) (pertaining to state
resources).
As an initial matter, the purpose of an
infrastructure SIP submission is to
demonstrate that the state’s SIP contains
the basic program elements needed to
implement, maintain, and enforce the
particular NAAQS at issue, in this case,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. If the current
SIP fails to satisfy these basic program
elements then the state should revise
the existing SIP so that EPA may
evaluate these elements and approve
them into the SIP, as appropriate. A SIP
is generally comprised of state
regulations, statutes and other
documents used by the state that the
EPA has approved as meeting applicable
CAA requirements. In the context of
acting on infrastructure SIP
submissions, EPA evaluates the state’s
SIP submission to determine whether
the submission meets the applicable
statutory requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) and the
appropriate regulatory requirements.
EPA is not evaluating the state’s
implementation of its SIP in this action.
See Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas,
902 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2018). EPA has
other authority to address issues
concerning a state’s implementation of
the rules, regulations, consent orders,
etc. that comprise its SIP.
EPA disagrees that it should
disapprove the infrastructure SIP
submission for the ‘‘enforcement’’ subelement of CAA section110(a)(2)(C), the
‘‘adequate resources’’ requirement in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), or both.
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act
requires each SIP to provide ‘‘necessary
assurances that the State . . . will have
adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under State . . . law to carry
out such implementation plan.’’ Thus,
under this section, EPA evaluates a
state’s infrastructure SIP submission for
evidence that the state has provided
necessary assurances that it has
adequate resources to carry out the SIP.
Element E does not require the EPA to
conduct an audit of state resources or
personnel. Nevertheless, upon receiving
this comment, EPA requested
supplemental information from
MassDEP to provide more detail about
Department staff and resources. In this
supplemental document, MassDEP
states, ‘‘MassDEP resources to
implement the SIP include staff and
managers in the Bureau of Air and
Waste (BAW), including the Division of
Air and Climate Programs in MassDEP’s
Boston office (approximately 29 staff),
the Air Assessment Branch based in
MassDEP’s Wall Experiment Station
laboratory in Lawrence (approximately
23 staff), and the permitting and
compliance and enforcement (C&E)
units in each of the four MassDEP
regional offices (approximately 55
staff).’’ MassDEP further notes that these
numbers do not include additional staff
in the separate legal, research, and
information technology units that also
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
support the Commonwealth’s efforts
carrying out the SIP.
MassDEP staff and operations are
funded by the Commonwealth and
through EPA grants, including annual
funding through CAA sections 103 and
105 to assist with the costs of
implementing programs for the
prevention and control of air pollution
or implementation of national primary
and secondary ambient air quality
standards. Massachusetts also has an
EPA-approved fee program under CAA
title V which is used to support title V
program elements such as permitting,
monitoring, testing, inspections, and
enforcement. MassDEP’s budget has
been consistent over the past number of
years and over these years
Massachusetts has been able to meet its
statutory commitments under the Act.1
MassDEP also reports that ‘‘There are no
plans that would significantly alter
these resources in the 5-year period
following submission of the
Certification or beyond and therefore
MassDEP expects to have adequate
resources to implement the SIP in the
future.’’ The full supplemental
submission from MassDEP can be found
in the docket for this rulemaking.
EPA explained in the DFR that
Massachusetts’ infrastructure SIP
submission documented that its air
agency, MassDEP, has the requisite
authority and resources to carry out its
SIP obligations. In particular,
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 original and
supplemental submissions MassDEP has
provided an adequate description of its
resources to allow EPA to assess that
MassDEP has adequate personnel and
funding to carry out the SIP during the
five years following infrastructure SIP
submission and in future years. Thus,
with respect to the first issue raised by
the comment, EPA finds that MassDEP
has provided an adequate description of
its staffing resources and that this
information, when considered together
with the budget information, is
sufficient for EPA to conclude that the
Commonwealth has adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under State law
to meet its SIP obligations sufficient to
justify approval of the SIP submittal for
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
With respect to the second issue, the
commenter expresses concern that the
impacts of the ongoing COVID 19
pandemic can only result in the
Commonwealth having inadequate
resources to meet its SIP obligations. As
explained above, MassDEP provides
assurances in the infrastructure SIP
submission and supplemental document
that it has adequate personnel and
funding to carry out the SIP during the
five years following the submission and
in future years. We also note that the
Massachusetts’ Governor’s 2021 budget
recommendation proposes a similar
level of funding for MassDEP as it has
received in recent years.2 Moreover, the
Commonwealth receives federal grants
under CAA sections 103 and 105 to
assist it in carrying out the SIP, and
other funding sources include permit
fees and title V fees collected by
MassDEP. If the Commonwealth’s
implementation of its SIP is
substantially affected in the future by
the pandemic, EPA has the statutory
authority under the CAA to address
such issues through means other than
disapproving the infrastructure SIP
submission at this time. Based on the
original SIP submission and
supplemental information, EPA finds
that MassDEP has provided necessary
information for EPA to conclude that
MassDEP has and will continue to have
adequate personnel and funding to carry
out the SIP. For these reasons, EPA does
not agree that it must disapprove the
infrastructure SIP submission for
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) in light of the
pandemic.
Also, with respect to the second issue
raised, the comment also expresses
concern that the Commonwealth will
not have ‘‘adequate enforcement
abilities’’ in light of the pandemic.
While the commenter does not identify
any particular infrastructure SIP
requirement with this claim, it is
possible that the commenter may be
objecting to EPA’s approval of the ISIP
submittal for the enforcement subelement of section 110(a)(2)(C). This
sub-element requires that each state’s
SIP ‘‘include a program to provide for
the enforcement of’’ the emission limits
and control measures that the state air
agency identified in its submission for
purposes of satisfying 110(a)(2)(A). In
the DFR, EPA explained that the
Massachusetts SIP includes such a
program. In particular, EPA noted
specific provisions of state law that
authorize MassDEP to adopt regulations
to control air pollution, to enforce such
1 https://budget.digital.mass.gov/summary/fy20/
enacted/energy-and-environmental-affairs/
environmental-protection/?tab=historical-spending.
2 https://budget.digital.mass.gov/govbudget/fy21/
appropriations/energy-and-environmental-affairs/
environmental-protection?tab=budget-summary.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8695
regulations and to assess penalties for
non-compliance. EPA also highlighted
state regulations currently in the SIP.
Thus, EPA explained that the SIP
includes a program to provide for the
enforcement of SIP measures. EPA
acknowledges the COVID–19 pandemic
has the potential to impact the resources
available to the state to maintain its
program; however, proposed level
funding for FY2021 indicates that
MADEP will maintain their current
program capability. EPA also notes that
The Commonwealth has been a leader
among all states in being proactive to
address air quality concerns.
Nevertheless, if an actual resources
problem were to develop, EPA has the
statutory authority to address such
issues through means other than
disapproving the infrastructure SIP
submission at this time.
Finally, the commenter expresses
concern that Massachusetts does not
have ‘‘adequate enforcement abilities’’
in light of what the commenter
characterizes as a ‘‘blanket waiver’’ by
EPA of environmental rules. EPA does
not agree that the March 2020
memorandum is a ‘‘blanket waiver,’’ 3
but in any event the memorandum
applies to EPA’s own enforcement
activities, not a state’s. See EPA
Enforcement Memo at 1–2 (‘‘Authorized
states or tribes may take a different
approach under their own authorities.’’).
Therefore, it does not affect whether
Massachusetts has ‘‘adequate
enforcement abilities’’ and does not
affect Massachusetts’ ‘‘program to
provide for the enforcement of’’ SIP
measures. Furthermore, on August 31,
2020, EPA terminated the temporary
policy described in the March 2020
memorandum. See COVID–19
Implications for EPA’s Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Program:
Addendum on Termination, EPA (June
29, 2020). For these reasons, the March
2020 memorandum is not a reason to
disapprove the Massachusetts’ ISIP
submittal for the enforcement subelement in section 110(a)(2)(C).
For the above reasons, EPA concludes
that the comment does not justify
disapproving the Commonwealth’s
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2015
ozone NAAQS for compliance with the
requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C) or (E)(i).
3 For instance, the memorandum does not apply
to criminal violations, imports, or activities that are
carried out under Superfund and RCRA Corrective
Action enforcement instruments. EPA Enforcement
Memo at 2. Moreover, the enforcement discretion
set forth in the memorandum is temporary and is
conditioned on regulated entities making every
effort to comply with their environmental
compliance obligations. Id.
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
8696
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
III. Final Action
EPA is approving most portions of the
Massachusetts infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
We are also issuing a finding of failure
to submit pertaining to the various
infrastructure SIP requirements that
pertain to the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program, i.e.,
section 110(a)(2)(C) sub-element 2, the
PSD portion of Sub-Element 2: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3),
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect to
the PSD-related notice of interstate
pollution, section 110(a)(2)(J) subelement 1 with respect to the FLM
consultation requirement for PSD
permitting, and section 110(a)(2)(J) subelement 3 (PSD). The Commonwealth
has long been subject to a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) regarding
PSD, thus the finding of failure to
submit will result in no mandatory
sanctions or further FIP requirements.
This rulemaking also does not include
any action on the interstate transport
portion of the Commonwealth’s
infrastructure SIP submission for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS, i.e., section
110(a)(2)(D). This action is being taken
in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
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 action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 12, 2021.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: February 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 1.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W—Massachusetts
2. In § 52.1120(e), amend the table by
adding an entry for ‘‘Infrastructure SIP
submittal for 2015 Ozone NAAQS’’ at
the end of the table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1120
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
8697
MASSACHUSETTS NON REGULATORY
Name of non regulatory SIP
provision
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
*
Infrastructure SIP submittal for
2015 Ozone NAAQS.
*
Statewide ...................
3 To
*
September 27, 2018
*
EPA approved date 3
Explanations
*
February 9, 2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].
*
*
Approved with respect to requirements for CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) with the exception of the PSD-related requirements of (C),
(D), and (J).
determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
[FR Doc. 2021–02536 Filed 2–8–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0332; FRL–10017–
26–Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) Second
Maintenance Plan for the Altoona (Blair
County) Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to
the Commonwealth’s plan, submitted by
the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) (referred to as the ‘‘1997
ozone NAAQS’’) in the Altoona, Blair
County, Pennsylvania area (Altoona
Area). EPA is approving these revisions
to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on
March 11, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0332. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
SUMMARY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
State submittal date/
effective date
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Feb 08, 2021
Jkt 253001
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. The telephone number is (215)
814–2117. Mr. Talley can also be
reached via electronic mail at
talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On September 3, 2020 (85 FR 54947),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed approval of
Pennsylvania’s plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS in the Altoona Area
through August 1, 2027, in accordance
with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP
revision was submitted by PADEP on
February 27, 2020.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
On August 1, 2007 (72 FR 41906
effective August 1, 2007), EPA approved
a redesignation request (and
maintenance plan) from PADEP for the
Altoona Area. In accordance with
section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth
year after the effective date of the
redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years, and
in South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA,1 the D.C. Circuit held
that this requirement cannot be waived
for areas, like Charleston, that had been
redesignated to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to
revocation and that were designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In
addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides
1 882
PO 00000
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
further insight on the content of an
approvable maintenance plan,
explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An
attainment emissions inventory; (2) a
maintenance demonstration; (3) a
commitment for continued air quality
monitoring; (4) a process for verification
of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan.2 PADEP’s February
27, 2020 submittal fulfills
Pennsylvania’s obligation to submit a
second maintenance plan and addresses
each of the five necessary elements.
As discussed in the September 3,
2020 NPRM, EPA allows the submittal
of a less rigorous, limited maintenance
plan (LMP) to meet the CAA section
175A requirements by demonstrating
that the area’s design value 3 is well
below the NAAQS and that the
historical stability of the area’s air
quality levels shows that the area is
unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the
future. EPA evaluated PADEP’s
February 27, 2020 submittal for
consistency with all applicable EPA
guidance and CAA requirements. EPA
found that the submittal met CAA
section 175A and all CAA requirements,
and proposed approval of the LMP for
the Altoona Area as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP. The effect of this
action makes certain commitments
related to the maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS Federally enforceable as
part of the Pennsylvania SIP.
Subsequent to the publication of the
September 3, 2020 NPRM, EPA
discovered a minor computational error
in the data presented in Table 1:
‘‘Typical Summer Day NOX and VOC
Emissions for the Altoona Area.’’ While
the data are correct, the total volatile
organic compounds (VOC) emissions
were summed incorrectly in Table 1.
2 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni
Memo).
3 The ozone design value for a monitoring site is
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations.
The design value for an ozone nonattainment area
is the highest design value of any monitoring site
in the area.
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8693-8697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0695; FRL-10018-99-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Except as noted below, this submission satisfies the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2015
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 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. We are issuing a
finding of failure to submit pertaining to the various aspects of
infrastructure SIPs relating to the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD). The Commonwealth has long been subject to a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) regarding PSD, thus the finding of
failure to submit will result in no sanctions or further FIP
requirements. In this action we do not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements regarding interstate transport, because
we previously approved the Commonwealth's submission addressing these
requirements for the 2015 ozone standard. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 11, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0695. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR
[[Page 8694]]
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 and facility closures
due to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, tel. 617-918-1628, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On March 13, 2020, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) (85 FR 14605) proposing to approve and a direct final rule (DFR)
(85 FR 14578) approving a SIP submission from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to address the infrastructure requirements of the Clean
Air Act for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. When EPA promulgates a new or revised
NAAQS, each state must submit a SIP submission, known as an
``infrastructure SIP'', in order to ensure that the state's SIP
provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or
revised NAAQS. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) submitted the infrastructure SIP submission to EPA as a
formal SIP submission on September 27, 2018. In the DFR, EPA stated
that, if it received an adverse comment on the direct final proposal by
April 13, 2020, then the agency would withdraw that direct final and
issue a final rule based on the NPRM. EPA received one adverse comment
prior to the close of the comment period. Therefore, EPA withdrew the
DFR on May 12, 2020 (85 FR 27927). This action is a final rule based on
the NPRM.
A detailed discussion of the Massachusetts September 27, 2018,
infrastructure SIP submission, and EPA's rationale for proposing
approval of the SIP submission appear in the DFR and we will not
restate that here, except to the extent relevant to our response to the
public comment on the proposal. EPA also received two requests to
extend the public comment period for the NPRM until after the COVID-19
pandemic is over. EPA is denying these extension requests, and the
reasons for this denial can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
II. Response to Comment
EPA received one adverse comment on the March 13, 2020, notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Comment: ``EPA is also approving the state's SIP as having adequate
resources, how was EPA able to identify whether the state had adequate
resources before the COVID-19 outbreak and how can the outbreak not
affect the state's ability to continue having adequate resources? And
how is EPA sure the state has adequate enforcement abilities to carry
out its mission to protect environmental and human health after Trump's
EPA issued a BLANKET waiver to all environmental rules??? EPA can't
possibly think a state is able to enforce the state's rules in addition
to EPA's rules that Trump has declined to persecute [sic]. EPA can't
approve the state's ability to have adequate resources or adequate
funding or adequate enforcement if EPA's review is predicated on the
belief of pre-COVID-19 conditions will continue now.''
Response: The comment provides little detail, but it appears to
raise three general issues. First, it asks how EPA was ``able to
identify whether the state had adequate resources'' before the COVID-19
pandemic. Second, it questions any conclusion that Massachusetts has
``adequate resources'' and ``adequate enforcement abilities'' in light
of the pandemic. And third, it asks how EPA can be sure that
Massachusetts has ``adequate enforcement abilities'' in light of what
the comment refers to as an EPA-issued ``BLANKET waiver to all
environmental rules.'' On the third issue, the comment does not
specifically identify an EPA ``waiver,'' but EPA assumes the commenter
refers to EPA's March 26, 2020, memorandum entitled ``COVID-19
Implications for EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program''
(hereinafter, ``March 2020 memorandum'' or ``EPA Enforcement Memo'').
The comment does not identify a particular section (or sections) of the
Clean Air Act that it believes Massachusetts failed to satisfy but it
is reasonable to assume that the commenter is referring to the
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C) (pertaining to enforcement) and
section 110(a)(2)(E) (pertaining to state resources).
As an initial matter, the purpose of an infrastructure SIP
submission is to demonstrate that the state's SIP contains the basic
program elements needed to implement, maintain, and enforce the
particular NAAQS at issue, in this case, the 2015 ozone NAAQS. If the
current SIP fails to satisfy these basic program elements then the
state should revise the existing SIP so that EPA may evaluate these
elements and approve them into the SIP, as appropriate. A SIP is
generally comprised of state regulations, statutes and other documents
used by the state that the EPA has approved as meeting applicable CAA
requirements. In the context of acting on infrastructure SIP
submissions, EPA evaluates the state's SIP submission to determine
whether the submission meets the applicable statutory requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) and the appropriate regulatory
requirements. EPA is not evaluating the state's implementation of its
SIP in this action. See Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas, 902 F.3d
971 (9th Cir. 2018). EPA has other authority to address issues
concerning a state's implementation of the rules, regulations, consent
orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
EPA disagrees that it should disapprove the infrastructure SIP
submission for the ``enforcement'' sub-element of CAA
section110(a)(2)(C), the ``adequate resources'' requirement in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), or both. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act
requires each SIP to provide ``necessary assurances that the State . .
. will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State . .
. law to carry out such implementation plan.'' Thus, under this
section, EPA evaluates a state's infrastructure SIP submission for
evidence that the state has provided necessary assurances that it has
adequate resources to carry out the SIP. Element E does not require the
EPA to conduct an audit of state resources or personnel. Nevertheless,
upon receiving this comment, EPA requested supplemental information
from MassDEP to provide more detail about Department staff and
resources. In this supplemental document, MassDEP states, ``MassDEP
resources to implement the SIP include staff and managers in the Bureau
of Air and Waste (BAW), including the Division of Air and Climate
Programs in MassDEP's Boston office (approximately 29 staff), the Air
Assessment Branch based in MassDEP's Wall Experiment Station laboratory
in Lawrence (approximately 23 staff), and the permitting and compliance
and enforcement (C&E) units in each of the four MassDEP regional
offices (approximately 55 staff).'' MassDEP further notes that these
numbers do not include additional staff in the separate legal,
research, and information technology units that also
[[Page 8695]]
support the Commonwealth's efforts carrying out the SIP.
MassDEP staff and operations are funded by the Commonwealth and
through EPA grants, including annual funding through CAA sections 103
and 105 to assist with the costs of implementing programs for the
prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. Massachusetts also
has an EPA-approved fee program under CAA title V which is used to
support title V program elements such as permitting, monitoring,
testing, inspections, and enforcement. MassDEP's budget has been
consistent over the past number of years and over these years
Massachusetts has been able to meet its statutory commitments under the
Act.\1\ MassDEP also reports that ``There are no plans that would
significantly alter these resources in the 5-year period following
submission of the Certification or beyond and therefore MassDEP expects
to have adequate resources to implement the SIP in the future.'' The
full supplemental submission from MassDEP can be found in the docket
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://budget.digital.mass.gov/summary/fy20/enacted/energy-and-environmental-affairs/environmental-protection/?tab=historical-spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA explained in the DFR that Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP
submission documented that its air agency, MassDEP, has the requisite
authority and resources to carry out its SIP obligations. In
particular, 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 original and
supplemental submissions MassDEP has provided an adequate description
of its resources to allow EPA to assess that MassDEP has adequate
personnel and funding to carry out the SIP during the five years
following infrastructure SIP submission and in future years. Thus, with
respect to the first issue raised by the comment, EPA finds that
MassDEP has provided an adequate description of its staffing resources
and that this information, when considered together with the budget
information, is sufficient for EPA to conclude that the Commonwealth
has adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State law to meet
its SIP obligations sufficient to justify approval of the SIP submittal
for section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
With respect to the second issue, the commenter expresses concern
that the impacts of the ongoing COVID 19 pandemic can only result in
the Commonwealth having inadequate resources to meet its SIP
obligations. As explained above, MassDEP provides assurances in the
infrastructure SIP submission and supplemental document that it has
adequate personnel and funding to carry out the SIP during the five
years following the submission and in future years. We also note that
the Massachusetts' Governor's 2021 budget recommendation proposes a
similar level of funding for MassDEP as it has received in recent
years.\2\ Moreover, the Commonwealth receives federal grants under CAA
sections 103 and 105 to assist it in carrying out the SIP, and other
funding sources include permit fees and title V fees collected by
MassDEP. If the Commonwealth's implementation of its SIP is
substantially affected in the future by the pandemic, EPA has the
statutory authority under the CAA to address such issues through means
other than disapproving the infrastructure SIP submission at this time.
Based on the original SIP submission and supplemental information, EPA
finds that MassDEP has provided necessary information for EPA to
conclude that MassDEP has and will continue to have adequate personnel
and funding to carry out the SIP. For these reasons, EPA does not agree
that it must disapprove the infrastructure SIP submission for section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) in light of the pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://budget.digital.mass.gov/govbudget/fy21/appropriations/energy-and-environmental-affairs/environmental-protection?tab=budget-summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, with respect to the second issue raised, the comment also
expresses concern that the Commonwealth will not have ``adequate
enforcement abilities'' in light of the pandemic. While the commenter
does not identify any particular infrastructure SIP requirement with
this claim, it is possible that the commenter may be objecting to EPA's
approval of the ISIP submittal for the enforcement sub-element of
section 110(a)(2)(C). This sub-element requires that each state's SIP
``include a program to provide for the enforcement of'' the emission
limits and control measures that the state air agency identified in its
submission for purposes of satisfying 110(a)(2)(A). In the DFR, EPA
explained that the Massachusetts SIP includes such a program. In
particular, EPA noted specific provisions of state law that authorize
MassDEP to adopt regulations to control air pollution, to enforce such
regulations and to assess penalties for non-compliance. EPA also
highlighted state regulations currently in the SIP. Thus, EPA explained
that the SIP includes a program to provide for the enforcement of SIP
measures. EPA acknowledges the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to
impact the resources available to the state to maintain its program;
however, proposed level funding for FY2021 indicates that MADEP will
maintain their current program capability. EPA also notes that The
Commonwealth has been a leader among all states in being proactive to
address air quality concerns. Nevertheless, if an actual resources
problem were to develop, EPA has the statutory authority to address
such issues through means other than disapproving the infrastructure
SIP submission at this time.
Finally, the commenter expresses concern that Massachusetts does
not have ``adequate enforcement abilities'' in light of what the
commenter characterizes as a ``blanket waiver'' by EPA of environmental
rules. EPA does not agree that the March 2020 memorandum is a ``blanket
waiver,'' \3\ but in any event the memorandum applies to EPA's own
enforcement activities, not a state's. See EPA Enforcement Memo at 1-2
(``Authorized states or tribes may take a different approach under
their own authorities.''). Therefore, it does not affect whether
Massachusetts has ``adequate enforcement abilities'' and does not
affect Massachusetts' ``program to provide for the enforcement of'' SIP
measures. Furthermore, on August 31, 2020, EPA terminated the temporary
policy described in the March 2020 memorandum. See COVID-19
Implications for EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program:
Addendum on Termination, EPA (June 29, 2020). For these reasons, the
March 2020 memorandum is not a reason to disapprove the Massachusetts'
ISIP submittal for the enforcement sub-element in section 110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For instance, the memorandum does not apply to criminal
violations, imports, or activities that are carried out under
Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action enforcement instruments. EPA
Enforcement Memo at 2. Moreover, the enforcement discretion set
forth in the memorandum is temporary and is conditioned on regulated
entities making every effort to comply with their environmental
compliance obligations. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the above reasons, EPA concludes that the comment does not
justify disapproving the Commonwealth's infrastructure SIP submittal
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for compliance with the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C) or (E)(i).
[[Page 8696]]
III. Final Action
EPA is approving most portions of the Massachusetts infrastructure
SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We are also issuing a finding
of failure to submit pertaining to the various infrastructure SIP
requirements that pertain to the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program, i.e., section 110(a)(2)(C) sub-element 2,
the PSD portion of Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD
(Prong 3), section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect to the PSD-related
notice of interstate pollution, section 110(a)(2)(J) sub-element 1 with
respect to the FLM consultation requirement for PSD permitting, and
section 110(a)(2)(J) sub-element 3 (PSD). The Commonwealth has long
been subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) regarding PSD, thus
the finding of failure to submit will result in no mandatory sanctions
or further FIP requirements. This rulemaking also does not include any
action on the interstate transport portion of the Commonwealth's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, i.e., section
110(a)(2)(D). This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean
Air Act.
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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 12, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W--Massachusetts
0
2. In Sec. 52.1120(e), amend the table by adding an entry for
``Infrastructure SIP submittal for 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 8697]]
Massachusetts Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State submittal
Name of non regulatory SIP geographic or date/effective EPA approved date Explanations
provision nonattainment area date \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Infrastructure SIP submittal for Statewide......... September 27, 2018 February 9, 2021, Approved with
2015 Ozone NAAQS. [Insert Federal respect to
Register requirements for
citation]. CAA section
110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C), (D),
(E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M) with
the exception of
the PSD-related
requirements of
(C), (D), and
(J).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal
Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
[FR Doc. 2021-02536 Filed 2-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
