[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7272-7279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-3758]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MA084-7214a; A-1-FRL-7143-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans and 
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts; Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request, Maintenance 
Plan, and Emissions Inventory for the Cities of Lowell, Springfield, 
Waltham, and Worcester

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

[[Page 7273]]

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts containing a redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 
emissions inventory for the carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas of 
Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester. Under the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990 (the CAA), air quality designations can be revised if 
sufficient data is available to warrant such revisions and the 
redesignation request meets all of the requirements of section 
107(d)(E)(3) of the CAA. EPA is approving the Massachusetts 
redesignation request and maintenance plan because they meet the 
applicable requirements and will ensure that the four cities remain in 
attainment. The approved maintenance plan will become a federally 
enforceable part of the Massachusetts SIP. In this action, EPA is also 
approving the Massachusetts 1996 baseline emission inventory for CO.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 22, 2002, unless 
EPA receives relevant adverse comments by March 21, 2002. If we receive 
relevant adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the 
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air 
Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England, One Congress Street, 
Suite 1100, 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 Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England, One Congress Street, 
11th floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room M-1500, 401 M 
Street, (Mail Code 6102), SW., Washington, DC; and Division of Air 
Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter 
Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey S. Butensky, Environmental 
Planner, Air Quality Planning Unit of the Office of Ecosystem 
Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New 
England office, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-
1665 or at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  

I. Summary of SIP Revisions
    A. Why is EPA taking this action?
    B. Why are we concerned about carbon monoxide?
    C. How did EPA establish the cities of Lowell, Springfield, 
Waltham, and Worcester as nonattainment for carbon monoxide?
    D. What are the related Clean Air Act requirements, and how does 
Massachusetts meet them?

A. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    On May 25, 2001, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts submitted a 
formal CO redesignation request to designate the cities of Lowell, 
Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester as attainment for CO. This 
submittal also included a maintenance plan to assure that these areas 
will maintain attainment and a 1996 emissions inventory for CO. On 
August 14, 2001, EPA New England determined that the information 
received from Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
(MADEP) constitutes a complete redesignation request under the general 
completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, sections 2.1 and 
2.2.
    EPA is approving the request to redesignate, maintenance plan, and 
emission inventory in today's action. Please note that if EPA receives 
relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this 
rule, and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the 
rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not 
the subject of an adverse comment.

B. Why Are We Concerned About Carbon Monoxide?

    Inhaling high levels of CO inhibits the blood's capacity to carry 
oxygen to organs and tissues. Persons with heart disease, children, and 
individuals with respiratory diseases are particularly sensitive to CO. 
Effects of CO on healthy adults include impaired exercise capacity, 
visual perception, manual dexterity, learning functions, and ability to 
perform complex tasks. As a result of these potential health impacts, 
EPA developed a primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 
for CO which is the level at which CO concentrations in the ambient air 
become unhealthful.\1\ In response to the NAAQS and pursuant to CAA 
requirements, states have developed programs to reduce CO to levels 
that are below the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA defines the CO NAAQS as nine parts per million averaged 
over an eight-hour period, and this threshold cannot be exceeded 
more than once a year or an area would be violating the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How Did EPA Establish the Cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, 
and Worcester as Nonattainment for Carbon Monoxide?

    The cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester were 
designated nonattainment for CO on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 9003). On 
November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. 
Public Law No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q. Pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, the cities of 
Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester retained their designations 
of nonattainment for CO by operation of law. The cities of Lowell, 
Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester were designated nonattainment on 
November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). Simultaneously, EPA designated these 
areas as ``not classified'' since ambient monitoring data showed that 
these areas were attaining the CO NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Waltham did not have a monitor in place in 1991. As 
explained later in this notice, EPA is relying on a conservative 
surrogate CO monitor as part of our basis for concluding that 
Waltham is attaining the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since these areas were not classified under the CAA amendments of 
1990, section 172 of the CAA sets forth the applicable requirements for 
these nonattainment areas. The 1990 CAA requires such areas to achieve 
the standard by November 15, 1995, and Massachusetts fulfilled this 
requirement in the cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and 
Worcester.
    On May 25, 2001, Massachusetts sent EPA a CO redesignation request 
for these cities, including a maintenance plan and emissions inventory. 
EPA is approving all of these components today, and we discuss them in 
detail in this document. Massachusetts submitted evidence that the 
MADEP held public hearings on November 15 and 16, 2000 for the CO 
redesignation request and related components.

D. What Are the Related Clean Air Act Requirements, and How Does 
Massachusetts Meet Them?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments provides 
five specific requirements that an area must meet to be redesignated 
from nonattainment to attainment.
    1. The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS;
    2. The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of 
CAA;
    3. The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable;

[[Page 7274]]

    4. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
section 175A of the CAA;
    5. The area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 
and Part D of the CAA.
    The Massachusetts redesignation request meets the five requirements 
of section 107(d)(3)(E) as explained below.
1. Attainment of the CO NAAQS
    Massachusetts has CO air monitoring data showing that each area has 
met the CO NAAQS. To attain the CO NAAQS, an area must have complete 
quality-assured data showing no more than one exceedance of the NAAQS 
over at least two consecutive years. The ambient air CO monitoring data 
relied upon by Massachusetts in its redesignation request shows no 
violations of the CO NAAQS since 1984 in Lowell and Worcester, and 
since 1987 in Springfield.
    In the city of Waltham, the monitoring station for CO ceased 
operations in 1978. EPA believes, however, that there is ample evidence 
supporting MADEP's conclusion that CO levels in Waltham are well below 
the NAAQS. That belief is based on CO monitoring data just outside of 
Waltham, in the Kenmore Square area of Boston.\3\ The Kenmore Square 
area is more developed and contains higher traffic volumes than the 
Waltham area, and has not recorded a violation of the CO NAAQS since 
1983. However, the design value is used to gauge attainment. According 
to EPA guidance,\4\ the design value is defined by observing two 
consecutive years of carbon monoxide data and extracting the highest 
second highest value. The current design value for the CO monitor in 
Kenmore Square based on 2000 and 2001 is 2.3 parts per million, well 
below the CO NAAQS. In addition, EPA did a detailed comparison of 
monitoring data from the Kenmore Square and Waltham monitors during the 
period of time they both were in operation. EPA compared literally 
thousands of matched readings for CO measurements in both locations. 
That analysis provides convincing evidence that Waltham consistently 
monitored CO values lower than Kenmore Square. That analysis is 
available as part of the Technical Support Document for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Kenmore Square Monitor is located approximately 10 miles 
east of the former monitoring site in Waltham.
    \4\ Memo from William G. Laxton, ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 
Design Value Calculations,'' June 18, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, MADEP submitted an extensive CO modeling analysis 
modeling CO levels for a specific area in Waltham in 1998.\5\ The 
analysis found that under the worst case scenario (e.g. congested 
traffic in winter), the CO NAAQS would not be exceeded in Waltham.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The CO modeling analysis was conducted in 1998 by Vanasse 
Hagen Brustlin, Inc. for MADEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts also has committed to continue to monitor CO in 
Lowell, Springfield and Worcester, and as required in the approved 
maintenance plan for the Boston CO area, MADEP continues to monitor in 
Kenmore Square in Boston, which is nearby the city of Waltham. When 
Massachusetts develops a second 10-year maintenance plan for the Boston 
CO area, EPA will ensure that MADEP commits to monitor in an area that 
continues to be representative of CO air quality in Waltham for the 
duration of the maintenance plan period for Waltham.
2. Fully Approved SIP
    EPA has approved the Massachusetts CO SIP as meeting all the 
requirements of Section 110 of the Act, including the requirement in 
Section 110(a)(2)(I) to meet all the applicable requirements of Part D 
(relating to nonattainment), which were due prior to the date of 
Massachusetts' redesignation request. EPA approved the Massachusetts 
1982 CO SIP on November 9, 1983 (48 FR 51480). The Federal Motor 
Vehicle Control Program and the implementation of an Inspection and 
Maintenance program for vehicles were the measures that brought the CO 
levels into attainment in the cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, 
and Worcester.
    Before EPA may redesignate the Massachusetts areas to attainment, 
the SIP must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D. 
Under part D, an area's classification indicates the requirements to 
which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic 
nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas, 
classified as well as not classifiable. Therefore, to be redesignated 
to attainment, the State must meet the applicable requirements of 
subpart 1 of part D, specifically sections 172(c) and 176. 
Additionally, the 1990 CAA requires CO nonattainment areas such as the 
cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester to achieve other 
specific requirements. We discuss each of these requirements in greater 
detail below.
    Reasonably Available Control Measures: The General Preamble for the 
implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)) explains that section 172(c)(1) requires the 
plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of 
all Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as 
practicable. EPA interprets this requirement to impose a duty on all 
nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures and to 
adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for 
implementation in the area as components of the area's attainment 
demonstration. The 1982 CO SIP evaluated many programs as potential 
RACM and identified the inspection and maintenance program as a CO RACM 
measure. Because each city has reached attainment, no additional 
measures are needed to provide for attainment.
    Emission Inventory: Under the Clean Air Act as amended, states have 
the responsibility to inventory emissions contributing to NAAQS 
nonattainment, to track these emissions over time, and to ensure that 
control strategies are being implemented that reduce emissions and move 
areas toward attainment. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that 
nonattainment plan provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, and 
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of relevant 
pollutants in the nonattainment area. Massachusetts included the 
requisite inventory in the May 25, 2001 submittal and is using 1996 as 
the base year for the inventory. MADEP included stationary point 
sources, stationary area sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road 
mobile sources of CO in the inventory. The inventory is designed to 
address actual CO emissions for the area during the peak CO season, 
which is during the winter months. Available guidance for preparing 
emission inventories is provided in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498 
(April 16, 1992)). In today's action, EPA is approving the 
Massachusetts statewide CO emissions inventory which includes the 
emission inventories for the cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, 
and Worcester.
    New Source Review: In an October 14, 1994 memorandum from Mary D. 
Nichols entitled ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements 
for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' EPA established a 
new policy under which the Agency may redesignate nonattainment areas 
to attainment notwithstanding the lack of a fully-approved part D NSR 
program, provided the SIP does not rely on the program for maintenance. 
Consistent with this policy, EPA is not requiring as a prerequisite to 
redesignation that the Waltham, Lowell, Worcester, and Springfield CO 
nonattainment areas have a fully approved part D NSR program that meets 
the CAA. In making

[[Page 7275]]

this decision, EPA found that Massachusetts has not relied on its 
current SIP approved NSR program for CO sources to maintain attainment.
    Although not required for redesignation, on October 27, 2000, EPA 
published a direct final rule approving revisions that make the 
Massachusetts NSR SIP consistent with the CAA.\6\ In addition, the 
federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under 40 
CFR 52.21 will apply in the Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester 
CO areas once redesignated to prevent emission increases from new major 
new sources or major modifications in these areas from causing or 
contributing to a violation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This direct final rule became effective on December 26, 
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conformity: Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to submit 
revisions to their SIPs that include criteria and procedures to ensure 
that federal actions conform to the air quality planning goals in the 
applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies to 
transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded, or 
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act 
(``transportation conformity''), as well as all other federal actions 
(``general conformity''). Congress provided for the state revisions to 
be submitted one year after the date of promulgation of final EPA 
conformity regulations. EPA promulgated revised final transportation 
conformity regulations on August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780) and final 
general conformity regulations on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214).
    These conformity rules require that the states adopt both 
transportation and general conformity provisions in the SIP for areas 
designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance plan approved 
under CAA section 175A. Section 51.390 of the transportation conformity 
rule (40 CFR 51.390) requires Massachusetts to submit a SIP revision by 
August 15, 1998 containing transportation conformity criteria and 
procedures consistent with those established in the federal rule. 
Similarly, section 51.851 of the general conformity rule requires 
Massachusetts to submit a SIP revision by December 1, 1994 containing 
general conformity criteria and procedures consistent with those 
established in the federal rule.
    Massachusetts has a state transportation conformity regulation in 
place that became effective on December 30, 1994.\7\ This rule, 
however, was not approved into the SIP for two reasons: (1) To allow 
for flexibility in interpreting the state rule; and (2) to allow the 
state to take advantage of any flexibility created by changes to the 
federal transportation conformity rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ State rule 310 CMR 60.00 (Section 60.03), ``Conformity to 
the State Implementation Plan of Transportation Plans, Programs, and 
Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the 
Federal Transit Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Massachusetts does not yet have a transportation 
conformity rule EPA has approved, the Agency may nevertheless approve 
this redesignation request. EPA interprets the requirement of a fully 
approved SIP in section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that, for a 
redesignation request to be approved, the state must have met all 
requirements that become applicable to the subject area before or at 
the time of the submission of the redesignation request. A delay in 
approving state rules does not relieve an area from the obligation to 
implement conformity requirements. Areas are subject to the conformity 
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment 
and must implement conformity under all circumstances, therefore, it is 
reasonable to view these requirements as not being applicable 
requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. 
Furthermore, Massachusetts has continually fulfilled all of the 
requirements of the state and federal transportation conformity rules 
and the general conformity rule. Therefore, it is not necessary that 
the state have its transportation conformity rule approved in the SIP 
before redesignation to insure that Massachusetts meets the substance 
of the conformity requirements.
    On January 30, 1996, EPA modified its national policy regarding the 
interpretation of the provisions of section 107(d)(3)(E) concerning the 
applicable requirements for purposes of reviewing a CO redesignation 
request (61 FR 2918 (January 30, 1996)). Under this new policy, for the 
reasons discussed, EPA believes that the CO redesignation request may 
be approved notwithstanding the lack of approved state transportation 
conformity and general conformity rules.
3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable Measures
    In 1983 EPA fully approved the Massachusetts 1982 CO SIP pertaining 
to the cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester as meeting 
the CO SIP requirements in effect under the CAA at that time. 48 FR 
57480 (November 9, 1983). EPA approved the Massachusetts CO SIP under 
the CAA as amended through 1977. Emission reductions achieved through 
the implementation of control measures contained in that SIP are 
enforceable. Massachusetts has data from its monitors in the cities of 
Lowell, Springfield, and Worcester indicating that the state had 
measured no exceedances or violations of the CO standard since 1987. 
The attainment in these areas so soon after Massachusetts started to 
implement its 1982 CO SIP indicated that the air quality improvements 
are due to the permanent and enforceable measures contained in the 1982 
CO SIP. In addition, CO levels at the Kenmore site, MADEP's surrogate 
for Waltham, declined over time, roughly parallel to the declines seen 
elsewhere. EPA finds that the combination of certain existing EPA 
approved SIP and federal measures contributes to the permanence and 
enforceability of reductions in ambient CO levels that have allowed the 
area to attain the NAAQS.
4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS 
for at least ten years after the Agency approves a redesignation to 
attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit 
a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the ten 
years following the initial ten-year period.\8\ To provide for the 
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must 
contain contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation 
adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality problems. In 
this notice, EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the cities of 
Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester because EPA finds that the 
Massachusetts submittal meets the requirements of section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On August 23, 2001 the MADEP sent a letter to EPA New 
England confirming that the State is aware of this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Attainment Emission Inventory
    MADEP submitted a comprehensive inventory of CO emissions. The 
inventory includes emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources 
using 1996 as the base year for calculations. The 1996 inventory is 
considered representative of attainment conditions because EPA has 
concluded that none of the areas violated during 1996. MADEP prepared 
the inventory in accordance with EPA guidance and Massachusetts 
established statewide CO emissions for

[[Page 7276]]

1996 as well as forecasts to the year 2012. These estimates were 
derived from MADEP's 1996 emissions inventory. MADEP's submittals 
contains the following information:

  Comparison of 1996 and 2012 Carbon Monoxide Emission in Massachusetts
                          [Tons per winter day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1996            2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point........................            40.0            44.3
Stationary Area.........................           696.6           708.9
On-Road Mobile..........................         2,256.7         1,428.1
Off-Road Mobile.........................           633.6           813.0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................         3,626.9         2,994.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Massachusetts has submitted a detailed inventory that 
allocated CO emissions to each of the cities of Lowell, Springfield, 
Waltham, and Worcester based on their population. This is summarized 
below.

                                                Carbon Monoxide Emission Summary, 1996 and 2012 Emissions
                                                                  [Tons per winter day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Waltham              Worcester              Lowell              Springfield
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     1996       2012       1996       2012       1996       2012       1996       2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point................................................          6          6         20         20         11         11         18         18
Stationary Area.................................................          0          0          1          1          1          1          1          1
On-Road Mobile..................................................         21          5         64         17         37         10         57         15
Off-Road Mobile.................................................          6          6         17         19         10         11         15         16
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         33         17        102         57         59         33         91         50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In today's action, EPA is approving the 1996 emission inventory for 
Massachusetts submitted on May 25, 2001, as part of the CO 
redesignation request for the cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, 
and Worcester.
b. Demonstration of Maintenance-Projected Inventories
    MADEP projected total CO emissions from a 1996 base year out to 
2012. These projected inventories were prepared in accordance with EPA 
guidance, and as shown in the table immediately above, EPA and MADEP 
anticipate that the areas will have CO emissions levels that will keep 
ambient air quality levels below the NAAQS.
    Under the EPA guidance titled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment areas,'' dated October 6, 1995, areas 
with monitored data less 85% of the NAAQS for the two-year period 
leading up to redesignation qualify for the limited maintenance plan 
option. EPA believes that it is justifiable and appropriate to apply a 
reduced set of maintenance plan requirements on areas with data below 
85% of the NAAQS, thereby allowing areas to implement the limited plan 
option. This includes not requiring the area to forecast future 
emissions or to develop transportation conformity budgets for use in 
conformity determinations in future Transportation Improvement 
Programs. EPA has concluded that emission budgets should not be 
required in limited maintenance plan areas because it is unreasonable 
to assume that these areas will experience so much growth in the 20 
year maintenance period so that an exceedance or violation of the CO 
NAAQS would result. In other words, EPA believes that emissions do not 
need to be capped for the area to maintain CO levels below the NAAQS. 
EPA believes that measures currently being implemented should provide 
adequate assurance of maintenance in these areas and keep CO 
concentrations well below the NAAQS. Furthermore, in the case of these 
areas, MADEP has projected CO emissions out to 2012, and they are well 
below the levels of the 1996 inventory, which is when these areas were 
in attainment. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume EPA will not need 
to cap CO emissions in these areas.
c. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS depends, in part, on the 
Commonwealth's efforts toward tracking indicators of continued 
attainment during the maintenance period. Therefore, Massachusetts will 
continue to monitor CO levels as described above.
d. Contingency Plan
    The level of CO emissions in the cities of Lowell, Springfield, 
Waltham, and Worcester will largely determine its ability to stay in 
compliance with the CO NAAQS in the future. Despite Massachusetts' best 
efforts to demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS, the ambient 
air pollutant concentrations may exceed or violate the NAAQS, although 
highly unlikely. Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that the 
contingency provisions include a requirement that the state implement 
all measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation, and 
Massachusetts has fulfilled this requirement. In addition, 
Massachusetts provided contingency measures in the event of a future CO 
air quality problem.
    Massachusetts has developed a three stage contingency plan to be 
implemented if an exceedance of the CO NAAQS occurs in any of the four 
nonattainment areas.\9\ The first stage is to investigate the traffic 
and other local conditions near the exceedance and to develop a local 
remedy. If this is found to be infeasible or ineffective, Massachusetts 
will implement the second stage. Stage two consists of the 
acknowledgment of the enhanced inspection and maintenance program 
implemented in October 1998.\10\ However, stage two will only be 
applicable in 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Since there is no monitor in Waltham, EPA will consider 
contingency measures triggered for this area if an exceedance is 
measured at the Kenmore Square monitor, the monitor that MADEP 
considers to be representative of Waltham air quality.
    \10\ Massachusets did not take credit for enhanced I/M in 
achieving attainment but has taken credit for the program in future 
CO projections. Therefore, this program will be used at a 
contingency measure only through calendar year 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the year 2001, the third stage contingency measure will be 
acknowledged, which is the California

[[Page 7277]]

low emission vehicle program \11\ (CALEV 1) implemented for model year 
1994. In addition, CALEV 2 will achieve further reductions beginning in 
2004. This contingency measure will become effective if stage one is 
ineffective and if it is after 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CALEV approval was published on February 1, 1995, at 60 FR 
6027. Massachusetts did not credit for CALEV in future CO 
projections. Therefore, this proram will be used as a contingency 
measure after calendar year 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Massachusetts is implementing these programs as measures 
to achieve the NAAQS for ground level ozone, they are not required in 
nonclassified CO nonattainment areas under the CAA and can therefore be 
used as contingency measures. In order to be adequate, the maintenance 
plan should include at least one contingency measure that will go into 
effect with a triggering event. Massachusetts is relying on contingency 
measures that will go into effect under MADEP's approved ozone SIP. 
Massachusetts has not taken credit for any of these programs under the 
CO SIP. Therefore, EPA is prepared to accept these programs as 
contingency measures under the CO SIP, even though MADEP has already 
implemented them for purposes of ozone control.
e. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, the state must 
implement two ten year maintenance plans, and Massachusetts must submit 
to EPA eight years from today an acknowledgment that its maintenance 
plan will remain in effect for a second ten year period. On August 23, 
2001, MADEP sent a letter to EPA acknowledging this requirement.
5. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D
    In this notice, EPA has set forth the basis for its conclusion that 
Massachusetts has a fully approved SIP that meets the applicable 
requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the CAA.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving this SIP revision consisting of a CO redesignation 
to attainment, maintenance plan, and emissions inventory for the cities 
of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester, and incorporating it 
into the Massachusetts SIP. The EPA is publishing this action without 
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial 
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed 
rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a 
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP 
revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be 
effective April 22, 2002 without further notice unless the Agency 
receives relevant adverse comments by March 21, 2002. If the EPA 
receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing 
the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take 
effect. EPA will then address all public comments received in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting 
should do so at this time. If EPA receives no such comments, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on April 22, 2002 and the 
Agency will take no further action on the proposed rule.

III. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct 
effects on the 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 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
    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 rule 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 22, 2002. Interested 
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than 
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the 
comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule 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

[[Page 7278]]

be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: January 29, 2002.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart W--Massachusetts

    2. Section 52.1127 is amended by revising the table to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1127  Attainment dates for national standards.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pollutant
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Air quality control region               SO2
                             ----------------------------     PM10           NO2           CO            O3
                                 Primary      Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQCR 42: Hartford-New Haven-  (a)           (b)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (d)
 Springfield Interstate Area
 (See 40 CFR 81.26).
AQCR 117: Berkshire           (a)           (b)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (d)
 Intrastate Area (See 40 CFR
 81.141).
AQCR 118: Central Mass        (a)           (b)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (c)
 Intrastate Area (See 40 CFR
 81.142).
AQCR 119: Metropolitan        (a)           (b)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (c)
 Boston Intrastate Area (See
 40 CFR 81.19).
AQCR 120: Metropolitan        (a)           (b)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (c)
 Providence Interstate Area
 (See 40 CFR 81.31).
AQCR 121: Merrimack Valley-   (a)           (b)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (c)
 Southern NH Interstate Area
 (See 40 CFR 81.81).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 a. Air quality levels presently below primary standards or area is unclassifiable.
 b. Air quality levels presently below secondary standards or area is unclassifiable.
 c. November 15, 1999.
 d. December 31, 2003.


    3. Section 52.1132 is amended by redesignating paragraph (i) as 
paragraph (b) and adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1132  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (c) Approval--On May 25, 2001, the Massachusetts Department of 
Environmental Protection submitted a revision to the carbon monoxide 
State Implementation Plan for the 1996 base year emission inventory. 
The inventory was submitted by the State of Massachusetts to satisfy 
Federal requirements under section 172(c) of the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990, as a revision to the carbon monoxide State 
Implementation Plan.
    (d) Approval--On May 25, 2001, the Massachusetts Department of 
Environmental Protection (MADEP) submitted a request to redesignate the 
cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester from 
nonattainment area to attainment for carbon monoxide. As part of the 
redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as 
required by 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Elements of 
the section 175A maintenance plan include a 1996 emission inventory for 
carbon monoxide, a demonstration of maintenance of the carbon monoxide 
NAAQS with projected emission inventories to the year 2012 for carbon 
monoxide, a plan to verify continued attainment, a contingency plan, 
and an obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in 8 
years as required by the Clean Air Act. If an area records an 
exceedance or violation of the carbon monoxide NAAQS (which must be 
confirmed by the MADEP), Massachusetts will implement one or more 
appropriate contingency measure(s) which are contained in the 
contingency plan. The redesignation request and maintenance plan meet 
the redesignation requirements in sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the 
Act as amended in 1990, respectively.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

    2. In Sec. 81.322 by revising the table for ``Massachusetts--Carbon 
Monoxide'' to read as follows:


Sec. 81.322  Massachusetts.

* * * * *

                                         Massachusetts--Carbon Monoxide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Designation                   Classification
                 Designated area                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Date \1\          Type          Date \1\          Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston area:
    Middlesex County (part) Cities of Cambridge,          4/1/96      Attainment
     Everett, Malden, Medford, and Somerville...
    Norfolk County (part) Quincy City...........          4/1/96      Attainment
    Suffolk County (part) Cities of Boston,               4/1/96      Attainment
     Chelsea, and Revere........................
Lowell area:

[[Page 7279]]

 
    Middlesex County (part) Lowell City.........         4/22/02      Attainment
Springfield area:
    Hampden County (part) Springfield City......         4/22/02      Attainment
Waltham area:
    Middlesex County (part) Waltham City........         4/22/02      Attainment
Worcester area:
    Worcester County (part) Worcester City......         4/22/02      Attainment
AQCR 042 Hartford-New Haven-Springfield--All      ..............  Unclassifiable/
 portions except Springfield City...............                      Attainment
AQCR 117 Berkshire Interstate...................  ..............  Unclassifiable/
                                                                      Attainment
AQCR 118 Central Massachusetts Interstate--All    ..............  Unclassifiable/
 portions except Worcester City.................                      Attainment
AQCR 119 Metropolitan Boston Intrastate--All      ..............  Unclassifiable/
 portions except cities of Boston, Cambridge,                         Attainment
 Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy,
 Revere, and Waltham............................
AQCR 120 Metropolitan Providence Interstate.....  ..............  Unclassifiable/
                                                                      Attainment
AQCR 121 Merrimack Valley-S New Hampshire--All    ..............  Unclassifiable/
 portions except Lowell City....................                     Attainment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-3758 Filed 2-15-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P