[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5020-5032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02658]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0748; FRL-9989-41-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Transport
Provisions for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve most elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the infrastructure
requirements for the 2012 fine particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), including the interstate
transport requirements. We are proposing findings of failure to submit
for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of
infrastructure SIPs for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are also
proposing several actions related to infrastructure SIP requirements
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, including approvals for
previously unaddressed elements and converting certain previous
conditional approvals to full approval. We are also proposing to
convert to full approvals previous conditional approvals for the 1997
and 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 sulfur dioxide, and 2010 nitrogen
dioxide NAAQS. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve five new or amended
definitions regarding the NAAQS and Particulate Matter and a state
Executive Order regarding consultation by state agencies with local
governments. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2018-0748 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109--3912, tel. (617) 918-1684; [email protected].
[[Page 5021]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions does this rulemaking
address?
B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
III. EPA's review
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials;
Public Notifications; Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
Visibility Protection
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities
N. Massachusetts Regulation and Executive Order Submitted for
Incorporation Into the SIP
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses a February 9, 2018, submission from the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
regarding the infrastructure SIP requirements of the CAA for the 2012
fine particle (PM2.5) \1\ National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The February 2018 submission also includes the
interstate transport requirements for the 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, this rulemaking addresses the
interstate transport requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
which the Commonwealth submitted on January 31, 2008. Under sections
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, States are required to provide
infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that State SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, often referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, this rulemaking addresses a portion of a Massachusetts SIP
submission dated May 14, 2018, which includes five new or amended
definitions in 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.00.
B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
EPA is acting on a February 2018 submission from MassDEP that
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submission also
addresses the ``Good Neighbor'' or interstate transport requirements
for infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
In addition, EPA is acting on a January 31, 2008, submission from the
Commonwealth that addresses interstate transport requirements for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity
in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it
is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of
acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided
comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions through a
guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and through
regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\2\ Unless otherwise
noted below, we are following that existing approach in acting on this
submission. In addition, in the context of acting on such
infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state's SIP
for factual compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, not
for the state's implementation of its SIP.\3\ The EPA has other
authority to address any issues concerning a state's implementation of
the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior
action on Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP to address the 1997
ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, and 2010 sulfur
dioxide NAAQS. 81 FR 93627 (December 21, 2016).
\3\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933
(August 30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2,
2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
memorandum). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and
memoranda, including a September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 memorandum), and a September 13,
2013, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 memorandum).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These memoranda and other referenced guidance documents and
memoranda are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the ``Good Neighbor'' or interstate transport
requirements for infrastructure SIPs, the most recent relevant EPA
guidance is a memorandum published on March 17, 2016, entitled
``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision
for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2016
memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes EPA's past approach to
addressing interstate transport and provides EPA's general review of
relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides
information relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``Good Neighbor'' provision requirements in
infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
III. EPA's Review
EPA is soliciting comment on our evaluation of Massachusetts'
infrastructure SIP submissions as presented in this notice of proposed
[[Page 5022]]
rulemaking. Massachusetts' February 9, 2018, submission includes a
detailed list of Massachusetts Laws and previously SIP-approved Air
Quality Regulations to show precisely how the various components of its
EPA-approved SIP meet each of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The following review
evaluates the Commonwealth's submission in light of section 110(a)(2)
requirements and relevant EPA guidance.
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
This section (also referred to as an element) of the Act requires
SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures,
means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related
matters. However, EPA has long interpreted emission limits and control
measures for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment
planning requirements are due.\5\ In the context of an infrastructure
SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this
purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether Massachusetts' SIP has
basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, for example, EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (November 12,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.) c. 21A, Sec. 8, Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Organization of Departments;
powers, duties and functions, creates and sets forth the powers and
duties of the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) within
the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. In addition,
M.G.L. c.111, Sec. Sec. 142A through 142N, which, collectively, are
referred to as the Massachusetts Pollution Control Laws, provide
MassDEP with broad authority to prevent pollution or contamination of
the atmosphere and to prescribe and establish appropriate regulations.
Furthermore, M.G.L. c.21A, Sec. 18, Permit applications and compliance
assurance fees; timeline action schedules; regulations, authorizes
MassDEP to establish fees applicable to the regulatory programs it
administers. MassDEP's February 9, 2018, infrastructure SIP for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS included a request to add M.G.L. c.21A,
Sec. 18 to the Massachusetts SIP. In a letter dated February 6, 2019,
the state withdrew this request.
MassDEP has adopted numerous regulations within the Code of
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) in furtherance of the objectives set
out by these statutes, including 310 CMR 4.00, Timely Action & Fee
Schedule Regulations, and 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control
Regulations. For example, many SIP-approved State air quality
regulations within 310 CMR 7.00 provide enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules
for compliance, and other related matters that satisfy the requirements
of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
including but not limited to, 7.06, Visible Emissions; 7.07, Open
Burning; 7.08, Incinerators; and 7.29, Emission Standards for Power
Plants.
On May 14, 2018, MassDEP submitted a SIP revision to EPA that
included new or amended definitions in 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution
Control: Definitions. Specifically, these definitions include: National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Federal Ambient Air Quality
Standards, PM10 or Particulate Matter 10, PM10
Emissions, PM2.5 or Particulate Matter 2.5, and
PM2.5 Emissions. In a final rule dated December 21, 2016 (81
FR 93627), EPA conditionally approved several Massachusetts
infrastructure submissions \6\ for section 110(a)(2)(A) because the
SIP-approved version of 310 CMR 7.00 did not contain a definition for
``NAAQS,'' resulting in uncertainty as to which version of the NAAQS
the term incorporated. However, the definition of ``NAAQS'' added to
310 CMR 7.00 clarifies that references to NAAQS are to all current
NAAQS, including the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve this definition plus the additional definitions
given above related to Particulate Matter included in MassDEP's May
2018 submission. This action will convert the former conditional
approvals \7\ of this section to a full approval. The new definitions
also address two earlier conditional approvals of this section for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012).
Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS and proposes to convert to full approval conditional approvals of
this section for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, and
2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The submissions were for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008
ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, and 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS.
\7\ See supra, note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove
any existing State provisions or rules related to SSM or director's
discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
This section requires SIPs to provide for establishment and
operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures
necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze ambient air quality data,
and make such data available to EPA upon request. Each year, States
submit annual air monitoring network plans to EPA for review and
approval. EPA's review of these annual monitoring plans includes our
evaluation of whether the State: (i) Monitors air quality at
appropriate locations throughout the State using EPA-approved Federal
Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits
data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and (iii)
provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned
changes to monitoring sites or the network plan. Under MGL c.111,
Sec. Sec. 142B to 142D, MassDEP operates an air-monitoring network.
EPA approved Massachusetts' most recent Annual Air Monitoring Network
Plan (ANP) for PM2.5 on May 9, 2018. This approval excluded
one monitor in Chelmsford that, under 40 CFR 58.10(a)(iv), was required
to be operational by January 1, 2015, but was not operating. However,
this monitor began operating in June 2018, measuring PM2.5,
ozone, and NO2. In addition to having an adequate air-
monitoring network, MassDEP populates AQS with air quality monitoring
data in a timely manner and provides EPA with prior notification when
considering a change to its monitoring network or plan.
EPA proposes that Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet new source review (NSR)
requirements under prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections
171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each State's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
[[Page 5023]]
section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the following: (i) Enforcement of SIP
measures; (ii) PSD program for major sources and major modifications;
and (iii) a permit program for minor sources and minor modifications.
Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
MassDEP staffs and implements an enforcement program pursuant to
authorities provided within the following laws: M.G.L. c.111, Sec. 2C,
Pollution violations; orders of department of environmental protection,
which authorizes MassDEP to issue orders enforcing pollution control
regulations generally; M.G.L. c.111, Sec. Sec. 142A through 142O,
Massachusetts Pollution Control Laws, which, among other things, more
specifically authorize MassDEP to adopt regulations to control air
pollution, enforce such regulations, and issue penalties for non-
compliance; and, M.G.L. c.21A, Sec. 16, Civil Administrative
Penalties, which provides additional authorizations for MassDEP to
assess penalties for failure to comply with the Commonwealth's air
pollution control laws and regulations. Moreover, SIP-approved
regulations, such as 310 CMR 7.02(12)(e) and (f), provide a program for
the enforcement of SIP measures. Accordingly, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts meets the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Preconstruction Program for Major Sources and Major
Modifications
Sub-element 2 of section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that States provide
for the regulation of modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved, including a
program to meet PSD and NNSR requirements. PSD applies to new major
sources or modifications made to major sources for pollutants where the
area in which the source is located is in attainment of, or
unclassifiable, regarding the relevant NAAQS, and NNSR requires similar
actions in nonattainment areas.
Massachusetts does not have an approved State PSD program and has
made no submittals addressing the PSD sub-element of section
110(a)(2)(C). The Commonwealth has long been subject to a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP), however, and has implemented and enforced
the federal PSD program through a delegation agreement. See 76 FR 31241
(May 31, 2011). Accordingly, EPA proposes a finding of failure to
submit with respect to the PSD-related requirements of this sub-element
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\8\ See CAA section 110(c)(1). This
finding, however, does not trigger any additional FIP obligation by the
EPA under section 110(c)(1), because the deficiency is addressed by the
FIP already in place. Moreover, the Commonwealth is not subject to
mandatory sanctions solely as a result of this finding because the SIP
submittal deficiencies are neither with respect to a sub-element that
is required under part D nor in response to a SIP call under section
110(k)(5) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA has previously issued findings of failure to submit
infrastructure SIPs addressing the PSD-related requirements of
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 73 FR 16205 (March 27,
2008), the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 78 FR 2882 (January 15, 2013), the 2008
Pb NAAQS, 78 FR 12961 (February 26, 2013), and the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 81 FR 93627 (December
21, 2016). Massachusetts has made no additional submissions to
address the PSD-related requirements for these NAAQS since those
previous findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor
Modifications
To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and
construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of
major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should
identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new
provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that
regulates emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA's most recent
approval of the Commonwealth's minor NSR program occurred on April 5,
1995 (60 FR 17226). Since this date, Massachusetts and EPA have relied
on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified
sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
In summary, we are proposing to find that, for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, Massachusetts meets the enforcement-related
aspects of Section 110(a)(2)(C) for sub-element 1 and the
preconstruction permitting requirements for minor sources for sub-
element 3. However, pursuant to section 110(c)(1), we are proposing to
find that the Commonwealth has failed to make the required submissions
related to major source preconstruction permitting (sub-element 2) for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
This section contains a comprehensive set of air quality management
elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution with which States
must comply. It covers the following five topics, categorized as sub-
elements: Sub-element 1, Significant contribution to nonattainment, and
interference with maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-
element 3, Visibility protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution
abatement; and Sub-element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-
elements 1 through 3 above are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the Act, and these items are further categorized into the four prongs
discussed below, two of which are found within sub-element 1. Sub-
elements 4 and 5 are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act
and include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of
the Act relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to Nonattainment
(Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 2)
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a SIP to prohibit
any emissions activity in the State that will contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any
downwind State. EPA commonly refers to these requirements as prong 1
(significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference
with maintenance), or jointly as the ``Good Neighbor'' or ``transport''
provisions of the CAA. This rulemaking proposes action on the portion
of Massachusetts' February 2018 SIP submission that addresses the prong
1 and 2 requirements with respect to the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. On December 26, 2017, EPA issued a finding that Massachusetts
had failed to submit a SIP addressing the transport provisions
(including prongs 1 and 2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 82
FR 60870. The February 2018 submittal resolves this issue.
EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong 1
and 2 interstate-transport requirements with respect to the
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining
the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind States contribute to these
identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and
analysis; (3) for States identified as contributing to downwind air
quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to
prevent an upwind State from significantly
[[Page 5024]]
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS downwind; and (4) for States that are found to have emissions
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind
emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This
framework was most recently applied with respect to PM2.5 in
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed both the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone
standard. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
EPA's analysis for CSAPR, conducted consistent with the four-step
framework, included air-quality modeling that evaluated the impacts of
38 eastern States on identified receptors in the eastern United States.
EPA indicated that, for step 2 of the framework, States with impacts on
downwind receptors that are below the contribution threshold of 1% of
the relevant NAAQS would not be considered to significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS,
and would, therefore, not be included in CSAPR. See 76 FR 48220. EPA
further indicated that such States could rely on EPA's analysis for
CSAPR as technical support to demonstrate that their existing or future
interstate transport SIP submittals are adequate to address the
transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the
relevant NAAQS. Id.
In addition, as noted above, on March 17, 2016, EPA released the
2016 memorandum to provide information to States as they develop SIPs
addressing the Good Neighbor provision as it pertains to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Consistent with step 1 of the framework, the
2016 memorandum provides projected future-year annual PM2.5
design values for monitors throughout the country based on quality-
assured and certified ambient-monitoring data and recent air-quality
modeling and explains the methodology used to develop these projected
design values. The memorandum also describes how the projected values
can be used to help determine which monitors should be further
evaluated to potentially address if emissions from other States
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at these monitoring sites. The 2016
memorandum explained that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality
for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate.
Accordingly, because the available data included 2017 and 2025
projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated
through the CAMx photochemical model, the memorandum suggests
approaches States might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at
sites in 2021.
For all, but one, monitoring sites in the eastern United States,
the modeling data provided in the 2016 memorandum showed that monitors
were expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results project that this one
monitor, the Liberty monitor, (ID number 420030064), located in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, will be above the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017, but only under the model's maximum
projected conditions, which are used in EPA's interstate transport
framework to identify maintenance receptors. The Liberty monitor (along
with all the other Allegheny County monitors) is projected to both
attain and maintain the NAAQS in 2025. The 2016 memorandum suggests
that under such a condition (again, where EPA's photochemical modeling
indicates an area will maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
in 2025, but not in 2017), further analysis of the site should be
performed to determine if the site may be a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in 2021 (which, again, is the attainment deadline
for moderate PM2.5 areas). The memorandum also indicates
that for certain States with incomplete ambient monitoring data,
additional information including the latest available data, should be
analyzed to determine whether there are potential downwind air quality
problems that may be impacted by transported emissions. This rulemaking
considers these analyses for Massachusetts, as well as additional
analysis conducted by EPA during review of Massachusetts' submittal.
To develop the projected values presented in the memorandum, EPA
used the results of nationwide photochemical air-quality modeling that
it recently performed to support several rulemakings related to the
ozone NAAQS. Base-year modeling was performed for 2011. Future-year
modeling was performed for 2017 to support the proposed CSAPR Update
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 75705 (December 3, 2015). Future-
year modeling was also performed for 2025 to support the Regulatory
Impact Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone NAAQS.\9\ The outputs from
these model runs included hourly concentrations of PM2.5
that were used in conjunction with measured data to project annual
average PM2.5 design values for 2017 and 2025. Areas that
were designated as moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014 must attain the NAAQS by
December 31, 2021, or as expeditiously as practicable. Although neither
the available 2017 nor 2025 future-year modeling data correspond
directly to the future-year attainment deadline for moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, EPA believes that the modeling
information is still helpful for identifying potential nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in the 2017 through 2021 period. Assessing
downwind PM2.5 air-quality problems based on estimates of
air-quality concentrations in a future year aligned with the relevant
attainment deadline is consistent with the instructions from the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008), that upwind
emission reductions should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with
the attainment deadlines for downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/20151001ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts' Submissions for Prongs 1 and 2
The submissions addressed herein pertain to the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Below is a brief history of these NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for PM2.5
(62 FR 38652). This new NAAQS established a primary (health-based)
annual standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) based on
a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a
24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR
61144), EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 [mu]g/
m\3\ to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the annual PM2.5 standard
at a level of 15 [mu]g/m\3\. On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA
revised the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15 [mu]g/m\3\ to 12
[mu]g/m\3\ and retained the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a
level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
On January 31, 2008, MassDEP submitted an infrastructure SIP for
the 1997 Ozone NAAQS that included interstate transport provisions
addressing prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS (i.e., ``transport SIP''). This transport SIP relied in part on
EPA's analysis
[[Page 5025]]
performed for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) rulemaking as well
as EPA's newer NONROAD model (version 2005a, February 2006) for
modeling non-road motor vehicles in Massachusetts to conclude that the
State will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind
area. CAIR was replaced by CSAPR, which is discussed above, as of
January 1, 2015.
On February 9, 2018, MassDEP submitted an infrastructure SIP for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS that included interstate transport
provisions addressing prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. These transport SIPs relied in part on EPA's
analysis performed for the CSAPR rulemaking to conclude that the State
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind
area.
EPA analyzed Massachusetts' January 2008 and February 2018
submittals to determine whether they fully addressed the prong 1 and 2
transport provisions with respect to the 1997, 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed below, EPA concludes that
emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
(NOX and SO2) in Massachusetts will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 1997, 2006 or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State.
Analysis of Massachusetts' Submissions for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
With respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's
analysis in the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking determined that Massachusetts'
impact to all downwind receptors would be below the 1% contribution
threshold for both NAAQS for the annual (i.e., 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\) and 24-
hour standards (i.e., 0.65 [mu]g/m\3\ (1997) and 0.35 [mu]g/m\3\
(2006)), indicating that the Commonwealth will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance for the 1997
or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind State. See 76 FR at
48240, 48242. As noted above, EPA previously determined that States can
rely on EPA's CSAPR analysis for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS as technical support to demonstrate that their existing or future
interstate transport SIP submittals are adequate to address the
transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the relevant
NAAQS. Accordingly, as EPA's CSAPR analysis concluded that
Massachusetts will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
we propose to approve Massachusetts' January 31, 2008, and February 9,
2018, SIP submissions for prongs 1 and 2 for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Analysis of Massachusetts' Submission for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS
As noted above, the modeling discussed in EPA's 2016 memorandum
identified one potential maintenance receptor for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at the Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064),
located in Allegheny County. The memorandum also identified certain
States with incomplete ambient monitoring data as areas that may
require further analysis to determine whether there are potential
downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported
emissions.
While developing the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking, EPA modeled the impacts
of all 38 eastern States in its modeling domain on fine particulate
matter concentrations at downwind receptors in other States in the 2012
analysis year to evaluate the contribution of upwind States on downwind
States with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5. Although the
modeling was not conducted for purposes of analyzing upwind States'
impacts on downwind receptors with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, the contribution analysis for the 1997 and 2006 standards can be
informative for evaluating Massachusetts' compliance with the Good
Neighbor provision for the 2012 standard.
This CSAPR modeling showed that Massachusetts had a very small
impact (0.008 [mu]g/m\3\) on the Liberty monitor in Allegheny County,
which is the only out-of-State monitor that may be a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in 2021. Although EPA has not proposed a specific
threshold for evaluating the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA notes
that Massachusetts' impact on the Liberty monitor is far below the
threshold of 1% for the annual 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 0.12
[mu]g/m\3\) that EPA previously used to evaluate the contribution of
upwind States to downwind air-quality monitors. (A spreadsheet showing
CSAPR contributions for ozone and PM2.5 is included in
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4228.) Therefore, even if the Liberty
monitor were considered a receptor for purposes of transport, the EPA
proposes to conclude that Massachusetts will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at that monitor.
In addition, the Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and expected emissions reductions in the
next four years will lead to additional reductions in measured
PM2.5 concentrations. There are both local and regional
components to measured PM2.5 levels. All monitors in
Allegheny County have a regional component, with the Liberty monitor
most strongly influenced by local sources. This is confirmed by the
fact that annual average measured concentrations at the Liberty monitor
have consistently been 2-4 [mu]g/m\3\ higher than other monitors in
Allegheny County.
Specifically, previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional
emissions from upwind States, particularly SO2 and
NOX emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment
at the Liberty monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and
NOX reductions from power plants have occurred in
Pennsylvania and States upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region.
Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will have
decreased 166,000 tons between 2015 and 2017 because of CSAPR
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions
controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs). Projected
power plant closures and additional emissions controls in Pennsylvania
and upwind States will help further reduce both direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission reductions will
continue to occur from current on-the-books Federal and State
regulations such as the federal on-road and non-road vehicle programs,
and various rules for major stationary emissions sources. See proposed
and final approval of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS on December 7, 2017 (82 FR 57689) and on
February 2, 2018 (83 FR 4845), respectively.
In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures,
additional local reductions to both direct PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions are expected to occur and should contribute to
further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitor
concentrations. For example, significant SO2 reductions have
recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill facilities in
southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr SO2 NAAQS
SIP.\10\ Reductions are largely due to declining sulfur content in the
Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG). Because this COG is burned at
US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel
Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should contribute to much
lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the immediate
[[Page 5026]]
future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also projects lower
SO2 emissions resulting from vehicle fuel standards,
reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the
Greater Pittsburgh region, and several shutdowns of significant sources
of emissions in Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ www.achd.net/air/pubs/SIPs/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_9-14-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and
upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in
emissions between 2017 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored
PM2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by 2021. See proposed approval and final approval of the Ohio
Infrastructure SIP, December 7, 2017 (82 FR 57689) and February 2, 2018
(83 FR 4845).
As noted in the 2016 memorandum, several States have had recent
data-quality issues identified as part of the PM2.5
designations process. In particular, some ambient PM2.5 data
for some periods between 2009 and 2013 in Florida, Illinois, Idaho,
Tennessee, and Kentucky did not meet all data-quality requirements
under 40 CFR part 50, appendix L. The lack of data means that the
relevant areas in those States could potentially be in nonattainment or
be maintenance receptors in 2021. However, as mentioned above, EPA's
analysis for the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS determined that Massachusetts' impact to all
these downwind receptors would be well below the 1% contribution
threshold for this NAAQS. That conclusion informs the analysis of
Massachusetts' contributions for purposes of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS as well. Given this, and the fact, discussed below, that the
Commonwealth's PM2.5 design values for all ambient monitors
have declined since the 2005-2007 period, EPA concludes that it is
highly unlikely that Massachusetts significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in areas with data-quality issues.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Massachusetts' PM2.5 design values for all
ambient monitors are available in the Design Value Reports at
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values_.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information in Massachusetts' February 2018 SIP submission
corroborates EPA's proposed conclusion that Massachusetts' SIP meets
its Good Neighbor obligations. The State's technical analysis in that
submission includes graphs showing downward trends in the maximum 24-
hour and annual PM2.5 design values for all six New England
States and New York since 2007. It also includes results of EPA's CSAPR
and CSAPR update modeling. This technical analysis is supported by
additional indications that the State's air quality is improving and
that emissions are falling, including certified 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 monitor values recorded through 2017 and preliminary
2018 results.\12\ Specifically, since 1999, the highest value
satisfying minimum data completion criteria for the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard was 48 [mu]g/m\3\ in Pittsfield in Berkshire
County (1999) and in Lynn in Essex County (2003). The highest value
satisfying minimum data completion criteria for the annual
PM2.5 standard was 15.3 [mu]g/m\3\ in Boston in Suffolk
County (1999). However, since 2008, all monitors in the Commonwealth
have been below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 24-hour and annual PM2.5 monitor values for
individual monitoring sites throughout Massachusetts are available
at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as reported in EPA's Clean Air Markets Program
database, actual ozone-season NOX emissions from EGUs in
Massachusetts from 2009 through 2017 fell from 2,403.5 to 878.5 tons,
almost one-third of what it was.
Second, Massachusetts' sources are well-controlled. Massachusetts'
2018 submission indicates that the Commonwealth has many SIP-approved
regulations and programs that limit emissions of PM2.5 and
the PM2.5 precursors SO2 and NOX.\13\
Among others, these regulations include 310 CMR 7.06, Visible Emissions
(37 FR 23085; October 28, 1972); 7.07, Open Burning (45 FR 40987; June
17, 1980); 7.08, Incinerators (64 FR 48095; September 2, 1999); 7.09,
Dust, Odor, Construction and Demolition (81 FR 47708; July 22, 2016);
7.19, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) (80 FR 61101; October 9, 2015); and 7.29,
Emission Standards for Power Plants (78 FR 57487; September 19, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ SO2 and NOX contribute to the
formation of PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should also be noted that Massachusetts is not in the CSAPR
program because EPA analyses show that the State does not emit ozone-
season NOX at a level that contributes significantly to non-
attainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State.
For the reasons explained herein, EPA agrees with Massachusetts'
conclusions and proposes to determine that Massachusetts will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the February 2018 infrastructure SIP
submission from Massachusetts for prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
To prevent significant deterioration of air quality, this sub-
element requires SIPs to include provisions that prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity in one State from interfering with
measures that are required in any other State's SIP under Part C of the
CAA. One way for a State to meet this requirement, specifically with
respect to in-State sources and pollutants that are subject to PSD
permitting, is through a comprehensive PSD permitting program that
applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the
requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. For in-State sources
not subject to PSD, this requirement can be satisfied through a fully-
approved nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program with respect to
any previous NAAQS.
On December 26, 2017, EPA issued a finding that Massachusetts had
failed to submit a SIP addressing the transport provisions (including
prong 3) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 82 FR 60870. As
discussed under element C above, Massachusetts has long been subject to
a PSD FIP and has implemented and enforced the federal PSD program
through a delegation agreement with EPA. MassDEP's February 2018
submittal does not address the PSD-related aspect of prong 3.
Therefore, EPA's December 26, 2017, finding of failure to submit
remains with respect to the PSD requirement of prong 3 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS but does not
trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation for the same reasons
discussed under element C above.
Under prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA also reviews the
potential for in-State sources not subject to PSD to interfere with PSD
in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another State. EPA generally
considers a fully approved NNSR program adequate for purposes of
meeting this requirement of prong 3 with respect to in-state sources
and pollutants not subject to PSD. See 2013 memorandum. EPA last
approved the Commonwealth's NNSR program on October 27, 2000. 65 FR
64360. Because Massachusetts is located within the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR), see
[[Page 5027]]
CAA section 184(a), 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a), the CAA requires sources
emitting 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) or 50 tpy or more of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
located in attainment or unclassifiable areas to be subject to the
requirements that would be applicable to major stationary sources if
the area were classified as a moderate nonattainment area. See CAA
sections 182(f)(1), 184(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7511a, 7511c.
In other words, even if located in an area designated attainment or
unclassifiable for ozone, under the CAA and its implementing
regulations, such sources are subject to NNSR rather than PSD. The
major source threshold for NNSR in Massachusetts is currently 50 tpy
for NOX instead of 100 tpy due to the fact that part of
Massachusetts had been designated in 1990 as a serious nonattainment
area for the 1979 1-hour ozone standard.\14\ \15\ Massachusetts's
current SIP-approved NNSR regulations, however, apply by their terms
only to nonattainment areas,\16\ meaning that sources with 50 tpy (see
footnote 15) or more of VOCs or NOX emissions in much of
Massachusetts are not covered by either the PSD FIP, applicable in the
Commonwealth, or the Commonwealth's EPA-approved NNSR program. Thus,
the Commonwealth has not shown that it has met this requirement of
prong 3. However, as a matter of state regulation, the Commonwealth has
promulgated and implements NNSR regulations that make the
Commonwealth's NNSR program applicable to such sources regardless of
area designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ On November 6, 1991, the EPA promulgated designations for
the 1979 1-hour ozone standard. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
\15\ Because Massachusetts is in the OTR, the major source
threshold for VOCs is 50 tpy.
\16\ At the time EPA last approved Massachusetts' NNSR
regulations (October 27, 2000; 65 FR 64361), the Western
Massachusetts area was nonattainment for the one-hour ozone
standard, and the Eastern Massachusetts area was attaining the
standard, but was anticipated to become nonattainment as of January
16, 2001, upon EPA's reinstatement of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for
that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 9, 2018, Massachusetts submitted a separate SIP
revision to make its EPA-approved NSSR program applicable to such
sources. EPA is proposing approval of those provisions in a separate
rulemaking, and will take final action on that submittal prior to, or
in conjunction with, finalizing our action on MassDEP's infrastructure
SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, we
propose to approve Massachusetts' submittals for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS for the NNSR aspect of prong 3.
Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
Regarding the applicable requirements for visibility protection of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), States are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009, 2011, and 2013 memoranda
explain that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP
addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required,
or an approved SIP addressing regional haze. A fully approved regional
haze SIP meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 will ensure that
emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not
interfering with measures required to be included in other air
agencies' plans to protect visibility.
On December 26, 2017, EPA issued a finding that Massachusetts had
failed to submit a SIP addressing the transport provisions (including
prong 4) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 82 FR 60870.
MassDEP's February 2018 submittal resolves this issue, addressing prong
4 by citing to Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP, which EPA approved on
September 19, 2013. This Regional Haze SIP, which was submitted in
December 2011, with two supplemental submittals in August 2012, meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See 78 FR 57487. Accordingly, EPA
proposes that Massachusetts meets the visibility protection
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Additionally, in its infrastructure submission for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, MassDEP stated that it would rely on its
Regional Haze SIP for this requirement. As noted above, EPA approved
the Regional Haze SIP in 2013. Accordingly, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts meets the visibility protection requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate Pollution Abatement
This sub-element requires that each SIP contain provisions
requiring compliance with requirements of section 126 relating to
interstate pollution abatement. Section 126(a) requires new or modified
sources to notify neighboring States of potential impacts from the
source. The statute does not specify the method by which the source
should provide the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs
must have a provision requiring such notification by new or modified
sources.
As mentioned elsewhere in this document, Massachusetts is currently
subject to a PSD FIP. In addition, Massachusetts states in its
submittal that it relies on the PSD FIP to meet the notice requirement
of section 126(a). Therefore, we propose to make a finding of failure
to submit for section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding PSD-related notice of
interstate pollution with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.\17\ This finding does not trigger any additional FIP obligation
by the EPA under section 110(c)(1), because the federal PSD rules
address the notification issue. See 40 CFR 52.21(q), 124.10(c)(vii);
see also id. section 52.1165. Nor does the finding trigger any
sanctions. Massachusetts has no obligations under any other provision
of section 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As discussed earlier, supra n.6, EPA has previously issued
findings of failure to submit for Massachusetts for the PSD-related
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone,
2008 Pb, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International Pollution
Abatement
This sub-element also requires each SIP to contain provisions
requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115
relating to international pollution abatement. Section 115 authorizes
the Administrator to require a state to revise its SIP to alleviate
international transport into another country where the Administrator
has made a finding with respect to emissions of the particular NAAQS
pollutant and its precursors, if applicable. There are no final
findings under section 115 against Massachusetts for the 1997, 2006, or
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts
meets the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 115 of the CAA (international
pollution abatement) for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each SIP to provide assurances
that the State will have adequate personnel, funding, and legal
authority under State law to carry out its SIP. In addition, section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each State to comply with the requirements
under CAA section 128 about State boards. Finally, section
110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that, where a State relies upon local or
regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its SIP
provisions,
[[Page 5028]]
the State retain responsibility for ensuring implementation of SIP
obligations with respect to relevant NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii),
however, does not apply to this action because Massachusetts does not
rely upon local or regional governments or agencies for the
implementation of its SIP provisions.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
Massachusetts, through its infrastructure SIP submittal, has
documented that its air agency has the requisite authority and
resources to carry out its SIP obligations. Massachusetts General Laws
c. 111, Sec. Sec. 142A to 142N, provide MassDEP with the authority to
carry out the State's implementation plan. The Massachusetts SIP, as
originally submitted in 1971 and subsequently amended, provides
descriptions of the staffing and funding necessary to carry out the
plan. In the submittals, MassDEP provides assurances that it has
adequate personnel and funding to carry out the SIP during the five
years following infrastructure SIP submission and in future years.
Additionally, the Commonwealth receives CAA section 103 and 105 grant
funds through Performance Partnership agreements and provides State
matching funds, which together enable Massachusetts to carry out its
SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts meets the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each SIP to contain provisions
that comply with the State board requirements of section 128 of the
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (1) That any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (2) that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
Massachusetts does not have a State board that approves permits or
enforcement orders under the CAA. Instead, permits and enforcement
orders are approved by the Commissioner of MassDEP. Thus, Massachusetts
is not subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of section 128.
As to the conflict of interest provisions of section 128(a)(2),
Massachusetts cited M.G.L. c. 268A, Sec. Sec. 6 and 6A of the
Commonwealth's Conflict of Interest law in its February 2018
infrastructure SIP submittal for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Pursuant to these State provisions, which were approved into the
Massachusetts SIP on December 21, 2016, 81 FR 93627, State employees in
Massachusetts, including the head of an executive agency with authority
to approve air permits or enforcement orders, are required to disclose
potential conflicts of interest to, among others, the State ethics
commission. Therefore, we propose to approve the Commonwealth's
infrastructure SIP submittal for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, we propose to convert to full
approval two conditional approvals we previously issued for
Massachusetts with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012).
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The State
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each State agency with any emission limitations or
standards. Lastly, the reports shall be available at reasonable times
for public inspection.
Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 111, Sec. Sec. 142A to 142D, MassDEP has the
necessary authority to maintain and operate air monitoring stations,
and coordinates with EPA in determining the types and locations of
ambient air monitors across the State. The Commonwealth uses this
authority to require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of
emissions monitoring equipment by, and to collect information on air
emissions from, sources in the State. The following SIP-approved
regulations enable the accomplishment of the Commonwealth's emissions
recording, reporting, and correlating objectives:
1. 310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration.
2. 310 CMR 7.13, Stack Testing.
3. 310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices and Reports.
Additionally, Massachusetts statutes and regulations provide that
emissions data shall be available for public inspection. See, e.g.,
M.G.L. c. 21I, Sec. 20(K); M.G.L. c. 111, Sec. 142B; 310 CMR
Sec. Sec. 3.33(5), 7.12(4)(b); 7.14(1).
EPA recognizes that Massachusetts routinely collects information on
air emissions from its industrial sources and makes this information
available to the public. EPA, therefore, proposes that the Commonwealth
meets the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
This section requires that a plan provide for State authority
analogous to that provided to the EPA Administrator in section 303 of
the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to
seek a court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing
to emissions that present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' Section 303 further
authorizes the Administrator to issue ``such orders as may be necessary
to protect public health or welfare or the environment'' in
circumstances in which ``it is not practicable to assure prompt
protection . . . by commencement of such civil action.''
We propose to find that the Commonwealth's infrastructure SIP
submittal demonstrates that certain State statutes and regulations
provide for authority comparable to that in section 303. Massachusetts'
submittal cites M.G.L. c. 111, Sec. 2B, Air Pollution Emergencies,
which authorizes the Commissioner of the MassDEP to ``declare an air
pollution emergency'' if the Commissioner ``determines that the
condition or impending condition of the atmosphere in the Commonwealth
. . . constitutes a present or reasonably imminent danger to health.''
During such an air pollution emergency, the Commissioner is authorized
pursuant to section 2B, to ``take whatever action is necessary to
maintain and protect the public health, including but not limited to .
. . prohibiting, restricting and conditioning emissions of dangerous or
potentially dangerous air contaminants from whatever source derived . .
. .'' Additionally, sections 2B and 2C
[[Page 5029]]
authorize the Commissioner to issue emergency orders.
Moreover, M.G.L. c. 21A, Sec. 8 provides that, ``[i]n regulating .
. . any pollution prevention, control or abatement plan [or] strategy .
. . through any . . . departmental action affecting or prohibiting the
emission . . . of any hazardous substance to the environment . . . the
department may consider the potential effects of such plans [and]
strategies . . . on public health and safety and the environment . . .
and said department shall act to minimize and prevent damage or threat
of damage to the environment.''
These duties are implemented, in part, under MassDEP regulations at
310 CMR 8.00, Prevention and Abatement of Air Pollution Episodes and
Air Pollution Incident Emergencies, which EPA approved into the SIP on
October 4, 2002 (67 FR 62184). These regulations establish levels that
would constitute significant harm or imminent and substantial
endangerment to health for ambient concentrations of pollutants subject
to a NAAQS, consistent with the significant harm levels and procedures
for State emergency episode plans established by EPA in 40 CFR 51.150
and 51.151.\18\ Finally, M.G.L. c. 111, Sec. 2B authorizes the State
to seek injunctive relief in the superior court for violation of an
emergency order issued by the MassDEP Commissioner. While no single
Massachusetts statute or regulation mirrors the authorities of CAA
section 303, we propose to find that the combination of State statutes
and regulations discussed herein provide for comparable authority to
immediately bring suit to restrain, and issue orders against, any
person causing or contributing to air pollution that presents an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or
the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Commonwealth's Contaminant Concentration Levels are
found in Table 1 of 310 CMR 8.01, and match EPA's levels from 40 CFR
51.151 except for the averaging time used for ozone. Massachusetts
uses a 1-hour averaging time, which is slightly more protective that
the 2-hour averaging time EPA provides for this pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that States have an approved
contingency plan (also known as an emergency episode plan) to implement
the air agency's emergency episode authority for any Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR) within the State that is classified as Priority
I, IA, or II for certain pollutants. See 40 CFR 51.152(c). For
classifications for Massachusetts, see 40 CFR 52.1121. A contingency
plan is not required if the entire State is classified as Priority III
for a particular pollutant. Id. In general, contingency plans for
Priority I, IA, and II areas must meet the applicable requirements of
40 CFR part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153) (Prevention of
Air Pollution Emergency Episodes) for the relevant NAAQS, if the NAAQS
is covered by those regulations. In the case of PM2.5, EPA
has not promulgated regulations that provide the ambient levels to
classify different priority levels for the 2012 standard (or any
PM2.5 NAAQS). For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's
2009 memorandum recommends that States develop emergency episode plans
for any area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5
levels greater than 140 [mu]g/m\3\ since 2006. EPA's review of
Massachusetts' certified air quality data in AQS indicates that the
highest 24-hour PM2.5 level recorded since 2006 was 72.7
[mu]g/m\3\, which occurred in 2012 in Boston in Suffolk County (Site ID
250250042).\19\ Therefore, EPA proposes that a specific contingency
plan from Massachusetts for PM2.5 is not necessary.
Furthermore, although not expected, if PM2.5 conditions in
Massachusetts were to change, MassDEP has general authority to order a
source to reduce or discontinue air pollution as required to protect
the public health or safety or the environment, as discussed earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 24-hour and annual PM2.5 monitor values for
individual monitoring sites throughout Massachusetts are available
at www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as a matter of practice, Massachusetts forecasts
concentrations of PM2.5 throughout the year and issues
alerts to the public through the EPA AirNow and EPA Enviroflash
systems. Information regarding these two systems is available on EPA's
website at www.airnow.gov. When levels are forecast to exceed the 24-
hour PM2.5 standard in Massachusetts, notices are sent out
to Enviroflash participants, the media are alerted via a press release,
and the National Weather Service (NWS) is alerted to issue an Air
Quality Advisory through the normal NWS weather alert system. These
actions are similar to the notification and communication requirements
for contingency plans in 40 CFR 51.152.
Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts, through the combination
of statutes and regulations discussed above and participation in EPA's
AirNow program, meets the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
This section requires that a State's SIP provide for revision in
response to: Changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for
attaining the NAAQS, or an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially
inadequate.
Massachusetts General Laws c. 111, Sec. 142D provides in relevant
part that, ``From time to time the department shall review the ambient
air quality standards and plans for implementation, maintenance and
attainment of such standards adopted pursuant to this section and,
after public hearings, shall amend such standards and implementation
plan so as to minimize the economic cost of such standards and plan for
implementation, provided, however, that such standards shall not be
less than the minimum federal standards.'' This authorizing statute
gives MassDEP the power to revise the Massachusetts SIP from time to
time as may be necessary to take account of changes in the NAAQS or
availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS and whenever
the EPA finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
EPA proposes that Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D
The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has
determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the
infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Visibility
Protection
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires that each SIP ``meet the
applicable requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to
consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to public
notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of air
quality and visibility protection).'' The evaluation of the submission
from Massachusetts with respect to these requirements is described
below.
Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
Pursuant to CAA section 121, a State must provide a satisfactory
process for
[[Page 5030]]
consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in
carrying out its NAAQS implementation requirements.
Pursuant to EPA-approved Massachusetts regulations at 310 CMR
7.02(12)(g)(2), MassDEP notifies the public ``by advertisement in a
newspaper having wide circulation'' in the area of the particular
facility of the opportunity to comment on certain proposed permitting
actions and sends ``a copy of the notice of public comment to the
applicant, the EPA, and officials and agencies having jurisdiction over
the community in which the facility is located, including local air
pollution control agencies, chief executives of said community, and any
regional land use planning agency.'' In addition, MassDEP included
Massachusetts Executive Order 145, ``Consultation with Cities & Towns
on Administrative Mandates,'' which establishes a process for state
agencies to consult with local governments, in its February 2018
infrastructure SIP submittal for EPA approval. We propose to approve
this Executive Order into the Massachusetts SIP.
Massachusetts did not make a submittal, however, with respect to
the requirement to consult with FLMs. As previously mentioned,
Massachusetts does not have an approved State PSD program, but rather
is subject to a PSD FIP. The FIP includes a provision requiring
consultation with FLMs. See 40 CFR 52.21(p). Consequently, with respect
to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that Massachusetts
meets the consultation with local governments requirement of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(J), but proposes a finding of failure to
submit with respect to the FLM consultation requirement. Because the
federal PSD program, which Massachusetts implements and enforces,
addresses the FLM consultation requirement, a finding of failure to
submit will not result in sanctions or new FIP obligations.
Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
Pursuant to CAA section 127, States must notify the public if NAAQS
are exceeded in an area, advise the public of health hazards associated
with exceedances, and enhance public awareness of measures that can be
taken to prevent exceedances and of ways in which the public can
participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality.
Massachusetts regulations specify criteria for air pollution
episodes and incidents and provide for notice to the public via news
media and other means of communication. See 310 CMR 8.00. The
Commonwealth also provides a daily air quality forecast to inform the
public about concentrations of fine particles and, during the ozone
season, provides similar information for ozone. Real time air quality
data for NAAQS pollutants are also available on the MassDEP's website,
as are information about health hazards associated with NAAQS
pollutants and ways in which the public can participate in regulatory
efforts related to air quality. The Commonwealth is also an active
partner in EPA's AirNow and EnviroFlash air quality alert programs,
which notify the public of air quality levels through EPA's website,
alerts, and press releases. Therefore, we propose to find that
Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion
of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: PSD
States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. The Commonwealth's PSD program in the context of
infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs
addressing sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and our proposed actions for those sections are
consistent with the proposed actions for this portion of section
110(a)(2)(J). Specifically, we propose a finding of failure to submit
with respect to the PSD sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,\20\ and note that such a finding will not
result in any sanctions or new FIP obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As discussed earlier, supra n.6, EPA has previously issued
findings of failure to submit for Massachusetts for PSD-related
infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 2008
Lead, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
Regarding visibility protection, States are subject to visibility
and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of
a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, as noted in EPA's 2013
memorandum, we find that there is no new visibility obligation
``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act requires that a SIP provide for the
performance of such air-quality modeling as the EPA Administrator may
prescribe to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions
of any air pollutant for which EPA has established a NAAQS, and the
submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling.
EPA has published modeling guidelines at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W,
for predicting the effects of emissions of criteria pollutants on
ambient air quality. EPA also recommends in the 2013 memorandum that,
to meet section 110(a)(2)(K), a State submit or reference the statutory
or regulatory provisions that provide the air agency with the authority
to conduct such air quality modeling and to provide such modeling data
to EPA upon request.
Massachusetts state law implicitly authorizes MassDEP to perform
air quality modeling and provide such modeling data to EPA upon
request. See M.G.L. c. 21A, Sec. 2(2), (10), (22); M.G.L. c. 111,
Sec. Sec. 142B-142D. In addition, 310 CMR 7.02 authorizes MassDEP to
require air dispersion modeling analyses from certain sources and
permit applicants. As previously discussed, Massachusetts implements
and enforces the federal PSD program through a delegation agreement.
This agreement, which is included in the docket for today's action
requires MassDEP to follow the applicable procedures in EPA's
permitting regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, as amended from time to time.
The Commonwealth also collaborates with the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC), the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, and EPA to
perform large scale urban airshed modeling.
Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts meets the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary
source pay permitting fees to cover the costs of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
Massachusetts implements and operates the Title V permit program,
which EPA approved on September 28, 2001. See 66 FR 49541. To gain
approval, Massachusetts demonstrated, among other things, that it
collects fees sufficient to cover the costs of reviewing and acting on
permit applications and implementing and enforcing permits.
[[Page 5031]]
See 61 FR 3827 (February 2, 1996); 40 CFR 70.9. M.G.L. c. 21A, Sec. 18
authorizes MassDEP to promulgate regulations establishing fees. To
collect fees from sources of air emissions, the MassDEP promulgated and
implements 310 CMR 4.00, Timely Action Schedule and Fee Provisions, and
310 CMR 7.00, Appendix C, Operating Permit and Compliance Program.
These regulations set permit compliance fees, including fees for Title
V operating permits. EPA proposes that the Commonwealth meets the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities
To satisfy element M, States must provide for consultation and
allow participation by local political subdivisions affected by the
SIP. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 111, Sec. 142D, MassDEP must hold public
hearings prior to revising its SIP. In addition, M.G.L. c. 30A,
Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act, requires MassDEP to
provide notice and the opportunity for public comment and hearing prior
to adoption of any regulation. Moreover, the Commonwealth's Executive
Order No. 145, ``Consultation with Cities & Towns on Administrative
Mandates,'' which we are proposing to add to the Massachusetts SIP,
requires State agencies, including MassDEP, to provide notice to the
Local Government Advisory Committee to solicit input on the impact of
proposed regulations and other administrative actions on local
governments. MassDEP also notes that it consults with local political
subdivisions though a state ``SIP Steering Committee'' and conducts
stakeholder outreach with local entities as a matter of policy when
revising the SIP or adopting air regulations. Therefore, EPA proposes
that Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(M) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
N. Massachusetts Regulation and Executive Order Submitted for
Incorporation Into the SIP
Massachusetts' February 9, 2018, infrastructure SIP submittal for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS included definitions of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Federal Ambient Air Quality
Standards, PM10 or Particulate Matter 10, PM10 Emissions, PM2.5 or
Particulate Matter 2.5, and PM2.5 Emissions in 310 CMR 7.00 that
Massachusetts included in a submittal to EPA dated May 14, 2018 and
Executive Order No. 145, ``Consultation with Cities & Towns on
Administrative Mandates'' (see discussion under element J, Sub-element
1). EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the Massachusetts
SIP, the five submitted definitions in 310 CMR 7.00 and Executive Order
145.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve most of the elements of the
infrastructure SIP submitted by Massachusetts on February 9, 2018, for
the 2012 PM2.5, including the interstate transport
requirements. This submittal also addresses the interstate transport
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which we are likewise
proposing to approve. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve a SIP
revision submitted by Massachusetts on January 31, 2008, for the
interstate transport requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA's proposed action for each element for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS is stated in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Proposed Action on Massachusetts' Infrastructure SIP Submittal
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control measures..... A
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system. A
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures................... A
(C)2: PSD program for major sources and major FS
modifications......................................
(C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor A
modifications......................................
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with A
maintenance of NAAQS...............................
(D)2: PSD........................................... FS
(D)3: Visibility Protection......................... A
(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement................ FS
(D)5: International Pollution Abatement............. A
(E)1: Adequate resources............................ A
(E)2: State boards.................................. A
(E)3: Necessary assurances with respect to local NA
agencies...........................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system............ A
(G): Emergency power................................ A
(H): Future SIP revisions........................... A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under +
part D.............................................
(J)1: Consultation with government officials........ FS
(J)2: Public notification........................... A
(J)3: PSD........................................... FS
(J)4: Visibility protection......................... +
(K): Air quality modeling and data.................. A
(L): Permitting fees................................ A
(M): Consultation and participation by affected A
local entities.....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5032]]
In the above table, the key is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................................... Approve.
NA........................................ Not applicable.
FS........................................ Finding of failure to
submit.
+......................................... Not germane to
infrastructure SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also is proposing to approve the transport provisions (Element
(D)1 in Table 1) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well
as the Visibility Protection requirements (Element (D)3 in Table 1) for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
We are also proposing to convert to full approval previous
conditional approvals for elements A and E(ii) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and previous conditional approvals for element A
for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, and
2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS. For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, we are also proposing approvals for prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and for the section 115-related requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
As shown in Table 1, we are proposing to issue a finding of failure
to submit for the PSD-related requirements of (C)2, (D)2, (D)4, (J)1,
and (J)3. However, as noted above, Massachusetts is already subject to
a FIP for PSD, and so EPA will have no additional FIP obligations under
section 110(c) of the Act if this action is finalized as proposed.
Furthermore, this action will not subject the Commonwealth to mandatory
sanctions.
EPA is also proposing to approve, and incorporate into the
Massachusetts SIP, definitions of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) or Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, PM10 or
Particulate Matter 10, PM10 Emissions, PM2.5 or Particulate Matter 2.5,
and PM2.5 Emissions in 310 CMR 7.00 that Massachusetts included in a
submittal to EPA dated May 14, 2018.
Finally, EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the
Massachusetts SIP, Massachusetts Executive Order 145, Consultation with
Cities & Towns on Administrative Mandates, effective November 20, 1978,
which Massachusetts included for approval in its infrastructure SIP
submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Executive Order 145 and the part of 310 CMR 7.00 referenced
in Section IV above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011);
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 11, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-02658 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P