[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 186 (Monday, September 27, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51943-51949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25043]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA-25-7197c; A-1-FRL-6444-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Massachusetts; Rate-of-Progress Emission Reduction Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the

[[Page 51944]]

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision establishes 15 percent and 
post-1996 rate-of-progress plans for the Springfield Massachusetts 
serious ozone nonattainment area. The intended effect of this action is 
to propose approval of this SIP revision as meeting the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.)

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 27, 1999. 
Public comments on this document are requested and will be considered 
before taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, 
Boston, MA 02114-2023. Copies of the documents relevant to this action 
are available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, 
MA, and at the Division of Air Quality Control, Department of 
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 
02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McConnell, (617) 918-1046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking today?
B. Why was Massachusetts required to reduce its emissions of ozone 
forming pollutants?
C. Which specific air pollutants are targeted by the Commonwealth's 
plan?
D. What are the sources of these pollutants?
E. What harmful effects can these pollutants produce?
F. Should I be concerned if I live near an industry that emits a 
significant amount of these pollutants?
G. To what degree do the Commonwealth's plans reduce emissions?
H. Why didn't EPA approve the Commonwealth's prior versions of these 
plans?
I. How will the Commonwealth achieve these emission reductions?
J. The Commonwealth was supposed to achieve a portion of these 
emission reductions by 1996, and the remainder by 1999. Has that 
happened?
K. Why is EPA approving a plan that only covers the western part of 
the State?
L. Have these emission reductions improved air quality in 
Massachusetts?
M. Massachusetts is downwind of many large metropolitan areas. Do 
pollutants emitted in other states affect air quality in 
Massachusetts?
N. EPA recently required 22 eastern states, including Massachusetts, 
to develop plans that will significantly reduce nitrogen oxide 
emissions. Given that requirement, why is approval of these plans 
needed?
O. Has Massachusetts met its contingency measure obligation?
P. Are conformity budgets contained in these plans?

A. What Action is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is proposing approval of rate-of-progress (ROP) emission 
reduction plans submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the 
Springfield serious ozone nonattainment area as revisions to the 
Commonwealth's SIP. The ROP plans document how Massachusetts complied 
with the provisions of sections 182 (b)(1) and (c)(2) of the Federal 
Clean Air Act (the Act). These sections of the Act require states 
containing certain ozone nonattainment areas to develop strategies to 
reduce emissions of the pollutants that react to form ground level 
ozone.

B. Why Was Massachusetts Required To Reduce Its Emissions of Ozone 
Forming Pollutants?

    Massachusetts was required to develop plans to reduce ozone 
precursor emissions because it contains a serious ozone nonattainment 
area. A final rule published by EPA on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) 
designated four counties in the western part of the State a serious 
ozone nonattainment area. The four counties included are Berkshire, 
Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties, and the area is referred to 
as the Springfield, Massachusetts serious ozone nonattainment area. 
Sections 182 (b)(1) and (c)(2) of the Act require that serious ozone 
nonattainment areas develop ROP plans to reduce ozone forming pollutant 
emissions in the nonattainment area.
    As stated above, two provisions of the Act make achieving these 
emission reductions necessary. Under section 182(b)(1), Massachusetts 
needed to develop a plan to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions by 15 percent by 1996. These plans are referred to as ``15 
percent ROP'' plans. Requirements in section 182(c)(2) of the Act 
instruct Massachusetts to achieve additional emission reductions. These 
additional reductions must lower ozone precursor emissions (VOC or 
nitrogen oxides) by 9 percent by 1999. These plans are referred to as 
``post 1996 ROP'' plans.

C. Which Specific Air Pollutants Are Targeted by the Commonwealth's 
Plan?

    The Commonwealth's plans are geared toward reducing emissions of 
VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These compounds react in the 
presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone, which is a primary 
ingredient of smog.

D. What Are the Sources of These Pollutants?

    VOCs are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor 
vehicles, a variety of consumer and commercial products such as paints 
and solvents, chemical plants, gasoline stations, and other industrial 
sources. NOX is emitted from motor vehicles, power plants, 
and other sources that burn fossil fuels.

E. What Harmful Effects Can These Pollutants Produce?

    VOCs and NOX react in the atmosphere to form ozone, the 
prime ingredient of smog in our cities and many rural areas of the 
country. Though it occurs naturally at elevated levels in our 
atmosphere, at ground level it is the prime ingredient of smog. When 
inhaled, even at very low levels, ozone can:

Cause acute respiratory problems;
Aggravate asthma;
Cause significant temporary decreases in lung capacity in some healthy 
adults;
Cause inflammation of lung tissue;
Lead to hospital admissions and emergency room visits; and
Impair the body's immune system defenses.

F. Should I Be Concerned if I Live Near an Industry That Emits a 
Significant Amount of These Pollutants?

    Industrial facilities that emit large amounts of these pollutants 
are monitored by the Commonwealth's environmental agency, the 
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Many facilities are 
required to emit air pollutants through tall stacks to ensure that high 
concentrations of pollutants do not exist at ground level. Permits 
issued to these facilities include information on which pollutants are 
being released, how much may be released, and what steps the source's 
owner or operator is taking to reduce pollution. The Massachusetts DEP 
makes permit applications and permits readily available to the public 
for review. You can contact the Massachusetts DEP for more information 
about air pollution emitted by industrial facilities in your 
neighborhood.

G. To What Degree Do the Commonwealth's Plans Reduce Emissions?

    By 1999, the Commonwealth's plans will reduce VOC emissions in the 
Springfield area by 20 percent and NOX emissions by 8 
percent compared to 1990 emission levels.

[[Page 51945]]

H. Why Didn't EPA Approve the Commonwealth's Prior Versions of 
These Plans?

    EPA proposed to approve a prior version of the Massachusetts 15 
percent plan submitted to EPA in 1997 (see July 14, 1997 Federal 
Register, 62 FR 37527). EPA did not grant final approval because the 
Commonwealth did not meet the conditions EPA listed in that proposal. 
Specifically, the Commonwealth did not meet its commitment to begin an 
automobile emission ``inspection and maintenance'' (I/M) program. EPA 
did not propose action on the Commonwealth's post 1996 ROP plan in the 
July 14, 1999 document.
    On April 1, 1999, June 25, 1999, and September 9, 1999, 
Massachusetts submitted revisions to its 15 percent and post 1996 ROP 
plans (the ``revised ROP plans''.) These revisions contain a new start-
up date for the Commonwealth's automobile I/M program, and revised 
emission reduction estimates for this program.

I. How Will the Commonwealth Achieve These Emission Reductions?

    The Commonwealth will achieve emission reductions using essentially 
the same control strategy outlined in a previous submittal that was 
dated March 31, 1997. EPA's July 14, 1997 proposed approval of that 
version of the Massachusetts 15 percent plan noted that EPA had not 
approved the Commonwealth's VOC reasonably available control technology 
(RACT) rules , but would by the time final approval was granted to the 
15 percent plan. EPA approved the referenced Massachusetts VOC RACT 
rules in a document published in the Federal Register on September 3, 
1999 (64 FR 48297).
    One notable difference between the Commonwealth's prior 15 percent 
ROP plan and the revised ROP plans is the amount of emission reductions 
claimed from the I/M program. Massachusetts still assumes emission 
reductions from its I/M program, but over a much shorter time-frame due 
to the anticipated October 1, 1999 start date. The 15 percent plan 
submitted by the Commonwealth in 1997 had assumed that the I/M program 
would begin no later than January 1, 1998.
    EPA is also proposing approval of the Massachusetts I/M program in 
the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register. EPA notes that 
there are minor differences between the characteristics of the I/M 
program submitted by the Commonwealth and the parameters of the I/M 
program that Massachusetts used to determine emission reduction credit 
for its ROP plans. The primary difference is that the State's I/M SIP 
includes provisions for a remote sensing program. This characteristic 
was not accounted for when the State determined emission reductions 
from I/M for use in its ROP plans. Inclusion of the new remote sensing 
program in the Commonwealth's I/M strategy slightly lowers the amount 
of emission reductions that I/M will achieve. However, the DEP has 
supplied documentation that illustrates this impact is minimal, 
particularly in light of the small amount of emission reduction credit 
claimed due to the October 1, 1999 projected start date. EPA agrees 
with Massachusetts' assessment that the remote sensing program will not 
hinder the Commonwealth's ability to meet its ROP emission targets.
    As mentioned above, the Massachusetts ROP plans contain a 
demonstration that the amount of emission reductions required of 15 
percent and post-96 plans can be achieved despite lessening the 
emission reductions attributable to the I/M program. The Commonwealth 
accomplished this primarily by changing the way that emission increases 
due to growth were determined, and by considering November 15, 1999 the 
evaluation date for achievement of the overall required reduction. The 
Commonwealth's revised growth estimates are based upon 1996 emission 
estimates, calculated using the same emission estimation procedures as 
the base year emissions, projected to 1999. This methodology should 
yield a more accurate projection of 1999 emission levels than the prior 
estimates, which were projected from the 1990 base year.
    EPA's July 14, 1997 proposed approval of the Massachusetts 15 
percent ROP plan outlines the control strategy used by the Commonwealth 
to generate emission reductions for that plan. Since the EPA's July 14, 
1997 document only dealt with the Massachusetts 15 percent plan, that 
notice does not describe measures included in the Commonwealth's post-
1996 plan. The Massachusetts post-1996 plan is described below.
    Massachusetts used the appropriate EPA guidance to calculate the 
1999 VOC and NOX emission target levels, and the amount of 
reductions needed to achieve its emission target levels. Table 1 
illustrates the steps used by Massachusetts to derive its 1999 emission 
target levels for VOC and NOX. The ROP plans indicate that 
1999 projected, controlled emissions are below the target levels for 
the Springfield nonattainment area.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Target level calculations Springfield,   VOC  Emissions  NOX  Emissions
          MA nonattainment area                (tpsd)          (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year Inventory................             436             115
Rate-of Progress Inventory (biogenics                153             115
 and non-reactives subtracted)..........
non-creditable reductions \1\...........              13              10
Calculate required reduction (State will        2%*153=3        7%*115=8
 use 2% VOC and 7% NOX for 1996 to 1999
 ROP)...................................
Calculate Total Expected Reductions (sum               6              18
 of FMVCP and required 9% reduction.)
 \2\....................................
Set Target Level for 1999 \3\...........             115              97
Incorporate growth and controls to                   115              97
 determine 1999 emission levels.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor
  Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (new car emission standards)
  promulgated prior to 1990 or for reductions resulting from
  requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline
  promulgated prior to 1990.
\2\ For VOC, 10 of the 13 tpsd non-creditable FMVCP reduction occurs
  between 1990 and 1996, and is accounted for in the determination of
  the State's 1996 emission target level.
\3\ The 1999 VOC target level is obtained by subtracting FMVCP
  reductions that accrue between 1996 to 1999 (3 tpsd) and the
  reductions need for ROP (also 3 tpsd), from the 1996 target.

    The Commonwealth's post-1996 control strategy matches the control 
strategy described in the EPA's July 14, 1997 proposed approval of the 
Massachusetts 15 percent plan, and also includes emission reductions 
from the

[[Page 51946]]

Commonwealth's NOX RACT rule, and emission reductions from 
federal measures limiting emissions from non-road engines promulgated 
between 1996 and 1999. Reductions from the NOX RACT rule and 
from the federal non-road standards are described further below.

NOX RACT

    Massachusetts has adopted a NOX RACT regulation, the 
citation for which is 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 7.19. The 
regulation applies to facilities with potential emissions of 50 tons 
per year or greater. Facilities covered by the rule needed to comply by 
May 31, 1995. Massachusetts submitted the rule to EPA on July 15, 1994, 
as a revision to the Commonwealth's SIP. EPA approved the 
Commonwealth's NOX RACT rule on September 2, 1999 (64 FR 
48095). The rule will reduce NOX emissions from point 
sources by 6 tons per day in the Springfield area.

Federal Non-Road Standards

    In the July 3, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34581), EPA promulgated 
the first phase of the regulations to control emissions from new non-
road spark-ignition engines. The regulation is found at 40 CFR part 90, 
and is titled, ``Control of Emissions From Non-road Spark-Ignition 
Engines.'' EPA has determined that the first phase of the new non-road 
standards will cause a reduction of VOC emissions of 23.9 percent by 
1999. Massachusetts applied this reduction percentage to its non-road 
inventory. The sale of reformulated gasoline in Massachusetts also 
reduces non-road emissions in the Commonwealth. The combined effect of 
reformulated gasoline and the new non-road standards will lower non-
road VOC emissions by 7 tpsd in the Springfield area.
    Table 2 summarizes the emission reductions contained within the 
Massachusetts ROP plans.

  Table 2.--Summary of Emission Reductions: Springfield, Massachusetts
                    Serious Ozone Nonattainment area
                               [tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               VOC reduction
       Control measure            (tpsd)         NOX reduction  (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source RACT...........               5  6
Auto Refinishing............               2  0
Commercial and Consumer                    1  0
 Products.
Architectural Coatings......               1  0
On-road Control Measures:                 23  16
 Reformulated gas, I/M, Tier
 1, CA-LEV, Stage II.
Non-road Control Measures:                 7  (2 tpsd increase)
 Reformulated gas, federal
 non-road engine standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Massachusetts ROP plans demonstrate that the VOC and NOX 
emission reductions from the control strategy will achieve sufficient 
emission reductions to lower 1999 emission levels below the target 
levels calculated for each pollutant.
    EPA believes that the Commonwealth's analysis of the reductions 
that its adopted control measures will achieve is generally valid. Some 
uncertainty exists in the amount of emission reductions that are 
occurring from the Massachusetts stage II gasoline vapor recovery 
regulation.4 But any shortfall in emissions reductions from 
that program that might occur due to poor rule effectiveness will be 
more than compensated for by excess emissions reductions from the 
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. EPA's survey of the actual content 
of RFG in the Commonwealth indicates that the program is consistently 
achieving greater VOC emissions reductions than required under the RFG 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\  There is evidence that suggests Massachusetts stage II rule 
may not be as effective as DEP has assumed. Recent DEP and EPA 
inspections have revealed substantial noncompliance at service 
stations across the Commonwealth. In its July 27, 1998 one hour 
ozone attainment demonstration submittal, Massachusetts committed to 
address this poor compliance rate for its Stage II program by 
modifying the regulation to enhance the compliance assurance 
mechanisms designed into the rule. When EPA acts on the attainment 
demonstration, we will evaluate whether Massachusetts has adequately 
addressed these compliance issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. The Commonwealth Was Supposed To Achieve a Portion of These 
Emission Reductions by 1996, and the Remainder by 1999. Has That 
Happened?

    Although Massachusetts did not reduce its hydrocarbon emissions by 
15 percent by November 15, 1996, the Commonwealth has shown that all of 
the emission reductions required of 15 percent plans by 1996, and post-
1996 plans by 1999, will occur by November 15, 1999. EPA believes it 
can approve both of these plans for the reasons provided below.
    It is not possible for Massachusetts to demonstrate a 15 percent 
emission reduction by November 15, 1996, as that date has passed. Once 
a statutory deadline has passed and has not been replaced by a later 
one, the deadline then becomes ``as soon as possible.'' Delaney v. EPA, 
898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted this requirement 
to be ``as soon as practicable.''
    The EPA examined other potentially available SIP measures to 
determine if they were practicable for the Springfield nonattainment 
area, and if they would meaningfully accelerate the date by which the 
area achieves emission reductions. EPA believes that the Commonwealth's 
SIP submittal contains the appropriate measures. The rationale for this 
determination is that although several area source measures exist which 
the Commonwealth could implement, these measures would not achieve the 
same level of emission reductions expected from the Commonwealth's I/M 
program, and additionally, would not meaningfully accelerate the 
achievement of the required reductions, as the Commonwealth would have 
to go through its rule adoption process to implement these measures. 
Therefore, EPA believes that the ROP plans for the Springfield area as 
resubmitted to EPA on April 1, 1999, June 25, 1999, and September 9, 
1999, meet the as soon as practicable requirement.
    EPA has determined that it will approve Massachusetts' ROP plans if 
these plans demonstrate that by November 15, 1999, ozone precursor 
emissions are lowered by 24 percent. A 24 percent emission reduction 
represents the combined total emission reduction that the 15 percent 
and post-96 ROP plans must achieve by November 15, 1999. Under section 
182(c)(2)(C) of the act, NOX emission reductions can only be 
used after November 15, 1996, and therefore can only represent 9 
percent of the 24 percent reduction required by November 15, 1999. EPA 
believes it is appropriate to approve the plans

[[Page 51947]]

because although the 15 percent plan portion of the emission reduction 
did not occur on time, the Massachusetts' plan accomplishes the 
required amount of emission reductions as soon as is practicable. 
Ultimately the overall environmental benefit required of sections 
182(b) and (c)(2) of the Act will be achieved if ozone precursor 
emissions are 24 percent lower than baseline levels by November 15, 
1999.

K. Why Is EPA Approving a Plan That Only Covers the Western Part of 
the State?

    A plan is not needed for the Eastern Massachusetts serious area 
because that area recently met the one-hour National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This determination is based upon 
three years of complete, quality assured ambient air monitoring data 
for the years 1996-98 that demonstrate that the one hour ozone NAAQS 
has been attained in this area. On the basis of this determination, EPA 
is also determining that certain ROP and attainment demonstration 
requirements, along with certain other related requirements, of part D 
of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act are not applicable to this area for so 
long as the area continues to attain the one hour ozone NAAQS. The 
Springfield nonattainment area in western Massachusetts continues to 
monitor violations of the one hour ozone standard, and therefore 
continues to be subject to ROP requirements.

L. Have These Emission Reductions Improved Air Quality in 
Massachusetts?

    Ozone levels have decreased in the Springfield area during the 
1990's, due in part to emission reductions achieved by the 
Commonwealth's plans. Pollution control measures implemented by States 
upwind of Massachusetts have also helped ozone levels decline in this 
area of the State.

M. Massachusetts Is Downwind of Many Large Metropolitan Areas. Do 
Pollutants Emitted in Other States Affect Air Quality in 
Massachusetts?

    The pollutants that form ground level ozone can be transported 
hundreds of miles, and so pollutants emitted in other States can 
adversely impact air quality in Massachusetts. Air pollution emitted 
from sources in Massachusetts contributes to the Commonwealth's air 
quality problems, and can also negatively impact air quality in areas 
downwind of Massachusetts. Air quality modeling performed by the New 
England States and by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) 
indicates that ozone levels in Massachusetts are highest when winds are 
from the south-west, which supports the conclusion that air quality in 
the Commonwealth is negatively impacted by the large metropolitan areas 
downwind of the state.

N. EPA Recently Required 22 Eastern States, Including 
Massachusetts, To Develop Plans That Will Significantly reduce 
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions. Given That Requirement, Why Is Approval 
of These Plans Needed?

    The rate-of-progress plans prepared by Massachusetts and other 
states with ozone nonattainment areas have helped lower ozone levels. 
Approval of these plans by EPA, and the pollution control measures 
associated with them, will ensure that improvements made in air quality 
are maintained. Additionally, approval of the regulations associated 
with them make the rules enforceable by EPA.
    Despite the emission reductions achieved through implementation of 
rate-of-progress plans, many areas of the country still do not meet the 
one hour ozone standard. The modeling done by the OTAG for the eastern 
half of the United States indicates that the long distance transport of 
nitrogen oxides across state borders will prevent many areas from 
attaining this standard by relying solely on emission reductions from 
within their borders. The NOX SIP call, which was published 
as a final rule on October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), will require large 
NOX emission reductions across the eastern half of the 
United States. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia ordered on May 26, 1999 that the EPA suspend implementation of 
the NOX SIP call pending consideration of a lawsuit that has 
challenged its requirements. In any case, these ROP plans are required 
by the CAA. Combined with the NOX emission reductions EPA 
hopes to achieve in up-wind states, these ROP plans should assure 
progress toward attaining the one hour ozone standard.

O. Has Massachusetts Met its Contingency Measure Obligation?

    Ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or above must 
submit to the EPA, pursuant to sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the 
Act, contingency measures to be implemented if an area misses an ozone 
SIP milestone or does not attain the national ambient air quality 
standard by the applicable date.
    On September 9, 1999, the Commonwealth submitted an amendment to 
its ROP plan for Western Massachusetts. The amendment included revised 
1999 NOX emission estimates that were higher than the 
Commonwealth's prior submittal, and is essence erased the 
NOX emission reduction surplus the State had previously 
forecast. Since Massachusetts had intended to use the surplus 
NOX reductions to meet its contingency obligation, the 
September 9, 1999 amended submittal from Massachusetts no longer 
contains a contingency plan. The Commonwealth's September 9, 1999 
submittal contains a commitment to submit a revised contingency plan 
shortly, and indicates that phase II of the reformulated gasoline 
program is likely to be cited as the control measure that will achieve 
the necessary reductions. EPA agrees that this control measure is 
likely to provide the necessary reductions, and will take action on the 
Commonwealth's contingency plan after it is revised and submitted as a 
SIP revision.

P. Are Conformity Budgets Contained in These Plans?

    Section 176(c) of the Act, and 40 CFR 51.452(b) of the Federal 
transportation conformity rule require states to establish motor 
vehicle emissions budgets in any control strategy SIP that is submitted 
for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Massachusetts will use 
these budgets to determine whether proposed projects that attract 
traffic will ``conform'' to the emissions assumptions in the SIP.
    The Commonwealth's revised ROP plans contain motor vehicle emission 
budgets for the year 1999. However, the Massachusetts DEP submitted an 
ozone attainment demonstration plan to EPA in 1998 that contains mobile 
source emission budgets for Western Massachusetts for 2003. Since the 
year 2003 budgets are more restrictive, cover a time frame later than 
the ROP plans (which include the current transportation analyses 
milestone years), and are based on the attainment plan, these 2003 VOC 
and NOX budgets take precedence over motor vehicle emission 
budgets for earlier years. The specific 2003 budgets for the 
Springfield area are 23.770 tpsd for VOC, and 49.110 tpsd for 
NOX.
    EPA's review of this material indicates that the Commonwealth has 
met the ROP requirements of the Act. EPA is proposing to approve the 
ROP plans that Massachusetts submitted as a SIP revision on April 1, 
1999 and June 25, 1999. 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 the EPA Regional

[[Page 51948]]

office listed in the Addresses section of this document.

II. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the rate-of-progress SIP revision 
submitted by Massachusetts on April 1, 1999 and June 25, 1999 as a 
revision to the SIP.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be 
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of 
this action.
    EPA is proposing approval of the Massachusetts I/M program 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. EPA intends to publish final 
rules for the ROP and I/M SIPs simultaneously at the completion of the 
public comment period, unless persuaded by comments that final approval 
of either of these actions is inappropriate.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any new enforceable duties on 
these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 
12875 do not apply to this rule.
    On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order 
on federalism, Executive Order 13132, (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)), 
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current 
Executive Order 12612, (52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)), on federalism 
still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 12612. 
The rule affects only Massachusetts, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power established in the Clean Air 
Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 
``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and it 
implements a previously promulgated health or safety-based Federal 
standard.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because approvals of SIP 
submittals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air 
Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements 
that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. 
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

[[Page 51949]]

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 17, 1999.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 99-25043 Filed 9-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P