[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40344-40349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17406]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0108; FRL-9998-00-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Transport State Implementation
Plans for the 1997, 2008, and 2015 Ozone Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Massachusetts that address the interstate transport of air
pollution requirements for Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997, 2008, and
2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (i.e.,
Transport SIPs). The intended effect of this action is to propose
approval of the Transport SIPs as revisions to the Massachusetts SIP.
This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 13,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2008-0108 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 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square-Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR 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 Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square-Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1684, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The term ``the Commonwealth''
refers to the State of Massachusetts.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittals
A. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 1997
Ozone Standard
B. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 2008
Ozone Standard
C. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 2015
Ozone Standard
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On January 31, 2008, February 9, 2018, and September 27, 2018, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted
revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of
interstate transport SIPs for the 1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
interstate transport SIPs we are proposing to approve were submitted to
address the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Over the past two decades, EPA has revised the primary ozone
standard three times. On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the ozone standard
from 0.120 parts per million (ppm), based on a one-hour average, to
0.08 ppm, based on a three-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average. See 62 FR 38856. On March 12, 2008, EPA
revised the level of the primary ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075
ppm and maintained the form of the standard. See 73 FR 16436. Most
recently, on October 1, 2015, EPA revised the primary ozone standard by
lowering the level to 0.070 ppm while maintaining the form of the
standard. See 80 FR 65292.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of
a standard, or within a shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2) lists the elements that new SIPs must address, as applicable,
including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate
transport of certain emissions.
The interstate transport SIP provisions require each state to
submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that have certain adverse effects
in another state due to interstate transport of air pollution. Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four elements related to the evaluation of
impacts of interstate transport of air pollutants; in this rulemaking,
we are addressing the first two elements; the remaining two elements
will be acted on under separate rulemaking actions. Specifically, the
portions that we are proposing to approve pertain to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): (1) Significant contribution to nonattainment of
the ozone NAAQS in any other state (commonly called ``prong 1''); and
(2) interference with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS (commonly called
``prong 2'') by any other state. These two provisions (or ``prongs'')
are commonly referred to as the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the
CAA. The first provision requires that a state's SIP for a new or
revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts that ``contribute significantly'' to nonattainment of the NAAQS
in another state. The second provision requires that a state's SIP
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in the state
from emitting pollutants in amounts that will ``interfere with
maintenance'' of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.
[[Page 40345]]
II. EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittals
A. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 1997 Ozone
Standard
On April 25, 2005, EPA published a final rule that made a finding
that all 50 states had failed to submit, pursuant to Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, interstate transport SIPs for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 21147. Subsequently, on August 15, 2006, EPA
issued a guidance memorandum that provided recommendations to states
for making submissions to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 fine-particle
(PM2.5) standards (2006 Guidance).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance for
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5National Ambient Air Quality Standards''
(Aug. 15, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA does not specifically mandate how to determine significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA has interpreted these terms in past regulatory
actions, such as the 1998 nitrogen oxides (NOX) SIP Call, in
which EPA took action to address emissions of NOX that
significantly contributed to nonattainment of, or interfered with
maintenance of, the then-applicable ozone NAAQS. See 63 FR 57356
(October 27, 1998).
The NOX SIP Call was the mechanism through which EPA
evaluated whether NOX emissions from sources in certain
states had prohibited interstate impacts, and if they did, required the
states to adopt SIP revisions to eliminate the NOX emissions
through participation in a regional cap-and-trade program or by other
means.
After promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA recognized that regional transport was a serious concern
throughout the eastern United States and, therefore, developed the 2005
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX that exacerbate ambient ozone and
PM2.5 levels in many downwind areas through interstate
transport. See 70 FR 25162. In CAIR, EPA interpreted the term
``interfere with maintenance'' as part of the evaluation of whether the
emissions of sources in certain states had impacts on areas that could
put them at risk of violating the NAAQS in a modeled future-year unless
actions were taken by upwind states to reduce SO2 and
NOX emissions. Through CAIR, EPA required states that had
such interstate impacts to adopt SIP revisions to eliminate the
SO2 and NOX emissions, whether through
participation in a regional cap-and-trade program or by other means.
Massachusetts was included in CAIR as a state that, under the 1997
ozone NAAQS, contributed significantly to ozone-season nonattainment in
another state.
EPA's 2006 Guidance addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. For
those states subject to CAIR, EPA indicated that compliance with CAIR
would meet the two requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these
NAAQS.
In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that
CAIR and the related CAIR federal implementation plans (FIPs) were
unlawful.\2\ Among other issues, the court held that EPA had not
correctly addressed the second element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in
CAIR and noted that ``EPA gave no independent significance to the
`interfere with maintenance' prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
separately identify upwind sources interfering with downwind
maintenance.'' \3\ EPA's approach, the court reasoned, would leave
areas that are ``barely meeting attainment'' with ``no recourse'' to
address upwind emissions sources.\4\ The court, therefore, concluded
that a plain-language reading of the statute requires EPA to give
independent meaning to the ``interfere with maintenance'' requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and that the approach used by EPA in CAIR
failed to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
amended on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (2008).
\3\ 531 F.3d at 909.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 8, 2011, to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA
adopted a new rule to address interstate transport of air pollution
pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): ``Federal Implementation Plans:
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, and
Correction of SIP Approvals,'' known as the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR). See 76 FR 48208. As part of CSAPR, EPA reexamined the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.\5\ In CSAPR, EPA developed an
approach to predict which areas that would violate the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in the future, and which areas that
would be close to the level of these NAAQS and, therefore, at risk of
becoming nonattainment areas. This approach starts by identifying
geographic areas for which further evaluation is appropriate and
differentiates between areas where the concern is ``significant
contribution to nonattainment'' from those where the concern is
``interference with maintenance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The original CSAPR did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CSAPR, EPA evaluated data from air-quality monitors over
three overlapping 3-year periods (i.e., 2003-2005, 2004-2006, and 2005-
2007), as well as data from air-quality modeling to predict which areas
would violate the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012,
and which areas would have difficulty maintaining attainment. If an
area's projected monitoring data for 2012 indicated that it would
violate the NAAQS based on the average of these three overlapping
periods, then this monitor was considered appropriate for comparison
for purposes of the ``significant contribution to nonattainment''
element. However, if an area's projected data indicated that it would
violate the NAAQS based on a single period, but not over the average of
the three periods, then this monitor was considered appropriate for
comparison for purposes of the ``interfere with maintenance'' element.
EPA's 2006 Guidance did not specifically recommend this approach to
states. However, in light of the court's decision on CAIR, EPA used
this approach to evaluate whether Massachusetts had met its ``good
neighbor'' obligations with respect to the 1997 ozone standard. In this
guidance, EPA stated that ``EPA believes that the contents of the SIP
submission required by section 110(a)(2)(D) may vary, depending upon
the facts and circumstances related to the specific NAAQS. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
State develops and submits a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS necessarily
affects the contents of the required submission.''[thinsp]
On January 31, 2008, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision to EPA
addressing the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ``good neighbor''
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The Commonwealth's submittal
noted that EPA's 2006 Guidance indicates that states subject to EPA's
CAIR can meet their CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ``good neighbor''
obligations with a state-adopted, SIP-approved CAIR regulation.
Massachusetts submitted a CAIR regulation to EPA on March 30, 2007, and
EPA approved it into the Massachusetts SIP on December 3, 2007. See 72
FR 67854. Massachusetts noted
[[Page 40346]]
that it doubted that the CAIR rule would be adequate to ensure all
areas in the Eastern U.S. would meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the
required attainment dates, and, therefore, supplemented its submittal
with information about additional controls measures it had adopted, or
planned to adopt, that stemmed from a planning effort overseen by the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC).
Although Massachusetts was identified as a state that contributed
significantly to ozone nonattainment in another state, and, therefore,
was required under CAIR to reduce ozone-season NOX
emissions, EPA's August 2011 CSAPR rule reached a different conclusion
based on an updated analysis of air-quality and emissions data. See 76
FR 48299. Specifically, Table V.D-7 of the CSAPR rule indicates that
Massachusetts' largest downwind contribution to nonattainment for ozone
was 0.0 ppb, and its largest downwind contribution to maintenance for
ozone was 0.6 ppb. Id. at 48245. These levels are below the 1 percent
of the standard (0.8 ppb) that EPA established as the contribution
threshold for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA concluded in CSAPR
that Massachusetts does not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Id. at 48236
(explaining that states whose contributions are below the threshold do
not violate the Good Neighbor provision). In light of the analysis of
ozone transport contained in the CSAPR rule, the final determination
pertaining to Massachusetts in that action, and the Commonwealth's
continued adoption of VOC and NOX control strategies as
noted in their January 31, 2008, Transport SIP submittal, we are
proposing to find that Massachusetts has met its CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' SIP obligation for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
B. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone
Standard
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary ozone
standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR
16436. As discussed above, upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS,
states have three years to submit the SIP revision under section
110(a)(2) of the Act, including ``good neighbor'' SIPs. The CAA gives
EPA a backstop role to issue federal implementation plans (FIPs), as
appropriate, for states that do not have ``good neighbor'' provisions,
or other required provisions, approved in their SIP.
To meet this backstop role for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA updated
the CSAPR ozone-season program by issuing a final rule on October 26,
2016, known as the CSAPR Update. See 81 FR 74504. The CSAPR Update
addressed the summertime (May-September) transport of ozone in the
eastern United States that crosses state lines to help downwind states
meet and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\ The CSAPR Update used the
same framework that was used by EPA in developing CSAPR.\7\ Prior to
this, on July 13, 2015, EPA published a rule finding that 24 states,
including Massachusetts, failed to make complete submissions addressing
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In the CSAPR Update, EPA issued FIPs to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations for 22 eastern states but determined
that no FIP was needed for Massachusetts.
\7\ Key elements of the four-step interstate transport framework
have been upheld by the Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through several previous rulemakings,\8\ EPA, working in
partnership with states, established a four-step interstate-transport
framework to address the requirements of the ``good neighbor''
provision for the ozone NAAQS.\9\ The four steps are: Step 1--Identify
downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the NAAQS; step 2--determine which upwind states contribute
enough to these identified downwind air quality problems to warrant
further review and analysis; step 3--identify the emissions reductions
necessary to prevent an identified upwind state from contributing
significantly to those downwind air quality problems; and step 4--adopt
permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NOX SIP Call. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 75 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); and
CSAPR Update. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
\9\ The four-step interstate framework has also been used to
address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some
previous particulate matter (PM) NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To apply the first and second steps of the four-step interstate-
transport framework to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA evaluated modeling
projections for air-quality monitoring sites in 2017 and considered
current (at the time) ozone monitoring data at these sites to identify
receptors \10\ anticipated to have problems attaining or maintaining
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Next, EPA used air-quality modeling to assess
contributions from upwind states to these downwind receptors and
evaluated the contributions relative to a screening threshold of one
percent (1%) of the NAAQS. States with contributions that equaled or
exceeded the 1% threshold were identified as warranting further
analysis for ``significant contribution to nonattainment'' or
``interference with maintenance'' of the NAAQS. In the CSAPR Update,
EPA found that Massachusetts did not contribute at or above the 1%
threshold to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor. See 81
FR 74506. Therefore, EPA did not issue FIP requirements for sources in
Massachusetts as part of CSAPR Update. See id. at 74553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Within the CSAPR framework, the term ``receptor'' indicates
a monitoring site. Under CSAPR Update, nonattainment receptors are
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have an average
design value that exceed the NAAQS and that have a current monitored
design value above the NAAQS, while maintenance receptors are
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have maximum design
values that exceed the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 6, 2014, Massachusetts submitted most of its infrastructure
SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA. On December 21, 2016, EPA fully
approved most, and conditionally approved some portions, of that
submittal. See 81 FR 93627. However, that submittal did not include the
``good neighbor'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On February
9, 2018, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision to address this unmet
SIP obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In today's action, we are
proposing to approve that submittal.
In its February 2018, submittal, the Commonwealth noted that the
CSAPR Update states that the largest modeled contribution of emissions
from Massachusetts to nonattainment and maintenances receptors are well
below the threshold of 1% of the NAAQS. Massachusetts also pointed to
the declining trend in ozone-precursor emissions that has occurred in
the Commonwealth to support its view that Massachusetts is unlikely to
cause future problems to downwind attainment or maintenance receptors.
Moreover, we note that, in the CSAPR Update, EPA already ``determined
that emissions from [Massachusetts] do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
downwind states'' and that EPA ``need not require further emission
reductions from sources in [Massachusetts] to address the good
[[Page 40347]]
neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.'' 81 FR at 74506.
In light of the above, we propose that Massachusetts has met its
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' SIP obligation for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
C. Background and Evaluation of the Massachusetts Transport SIP for the
2015 Ozone Standard
EPA has released several documents relevant to evaluating
interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First, on
January 6, 2017, EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA) for
preliminary interstate ozone-transport modeling with projected ozone
design values for 2023.\11\ The year 2023 aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas under the 2015
ozone standard. On October 27, 2017, EPA issued a memorandum (2017
memorandum) containing updated modeling data for 2023, with changes
made in response to comments on the NODA.\12\ The 2017 memorandum also
included data for the 2023 modeling year. Although it stated that the
modeling may be useful for states for developing SIPs addressing ``good
neighbor'' obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2017 memorandum
did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
\12\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(Oct. 27, 2017), available in the docket for this action or at
https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2018, EPA issued a memorandum (March 2018 memorandum)
indicating that the same 2023 modeling data released in the 2017
memorandum may also be useful for evaluating potential downwind air-
quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the
four-step framework).\13\ The March 2018 memorandum included
contribution-modeling results to help states evaluate their impact on
potential downwind air-quality problems (step 2 of the four-step
framework). In August and October 2018, EPA issued two more memoranda
that provided guidance for developing ``good neighbor'' SIPs for the
2015 ozone NAAQS regarding (1) potential contribution thresholds that
may be appropriate to apply in step 2 and (2) considerations for
identifying downwind areas that may have problems maintaining the
standard (i.e., prong 2) at step 1 of the framework.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(Mar. 27, 2018), available in the docket for this action or at
https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
\14\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (Aug. 31, 2018) (``August 2018 memorandum'');
Considerations for Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (Oct. 19, 2018), available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The March 2018 memorandum described the updated photochemical and
source-apportionment modeling used to project ambient ozone
concentrations for 2023 and the state-by-state impacts on those
concentrations. As described in the 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, EPA
used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version
6.40) to model average and maximum design values in 2023 to identify
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The March 2018 memorandum presented design values calculated in
two ways: (1) Following the EPA's historic ``3 x 3'' approach \15\ to
evaluating all sites, and (2) following a modified approach for coastal
monitoring sites in which ``overwater'' modeling data were not included
in the calculation of future-year design values (known as the ``no
water approach'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors
in 2023, EPA applied the same approach as that used in the CSAPR
Update. Specifically, EPA identified nonattainment receptors as those
monitors with both measured values \16\ and projected 2023 average
design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA identified maintenance
receptors as those monitors with projected maximum design values
exceeding the NAAQS. This included monitoring sites with measured
values below the NAAQS, but with projected average and maximum design
values above the NAAQS, and monitoring sites with projected average
design values below the NAAQS, but with projected maximum design values
above the NAAQS. Data for all monitoring sites projected to be
nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated 2023
modeling is included in Attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based on 2014-2016
measured data, which were the most current data at the time of the
analysis. See attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum, p. B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source-
apportionment modeling to estimate the expected impact from each state
to each nonattainment and maintenance receptor.\17\ For more
information, see the 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, the NODA for the
preliminary interstate transport assessment, and the supporting
technical documents included in the docket for today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum, the EPA
performed source-apportionment model runs for a modeling domain that
covers the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia,
and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, on August 31, 2018, EPA issued a memorandum
(the August 2018 memorandum) providing guidance concerning contribution
thresholds that may be appropriate to apply with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS in step 2. Consistent with the process for selecting the 1%
threshold in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the memorandum included
analytical information regarding the degree to which potential air-
quality thresholds would capture the collective amount of upwind
contribution from upwind states to downwind receptors for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. The August 2018 memorandum indicated that, based on EPA's
analysis of its most recent modeling data, the amount of upwind
collective contribution captured using a 1 ppb threshold is generally
comparable, overall, to the amount captured using a threshold
equivalent to 1% of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA indicated
that it may be reasonable and appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb
contribution threshold, as an alternative to the 1% threshold, at step
2 of the four-step framework in developing their SIP revisions
addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the March 2018 memorandum presented information regarding
EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport, EPA has not made any final
determinations regarding how states should identify downwind receptors
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the four-step
framework. Rather, EPA noted that, in developing their SIPs, states
have flexibility to
[[Page 40348]]
follow different analytical approaches than EPA if their chosen
approach has adequate technical justification and is consistent with
the requirements of the CAA.
On September 27, 2018, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision
addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2),
including the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\19\ Massachusetts relied on the
results of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (in the March 2018
memorandum) to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in the
Commonwealth. Based on Massachusetts' review of EPA's modeling
assumptions, model performance evaluation, and the modifications made
in response to public comments, the Commonwealth determined that EPA's
future-year projections were appropriate for purposes of evaluating
Massachusetts' impact on attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in other states. Thus, the Commonwealth concurred with EPA's
photochemical modeling results that indicate Massachusetts' greatest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.24 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As noted earlier, in this action, EPA is only addressing
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA will address the
remaining infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in a
separate rulemaking(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts compared these values to a screening threshold of
0.70 ppb, representing 1% of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that
because none of the Commonwealth's impacts exceed this threshold,
emissions from Massachusetts sources will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
The March 2018 memorandum also provided contribution data regarding
the impact of other states on the potential receptors. To evaluate the
Commonwealth's 2015 ozone NAAQS interstate-transport SIP submission,
EPA used the 1% threshold to conclude that the state's impact will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS in any other state. EPA notes that, consistent with the
August 2018 memorandum, it may be reasonable for states to use a 1-ppb
contribution threshold as an alternative to a 1% threshold at step 2 of
the four-step framework. However, for the reasons discussed below, it
is unnecessary for EPA to determine the appropriateness of applying a
1-ppb threshold for purposes of today's action.
EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Massachusetts' largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor is 0.24 ppb at the Queens, New
York, monitor. This value is less than 0.70 ppb (1% of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS),\20\ and demonstrates that emissions from Massachusetts are not
linked to any projected 2023 downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the March 2018 memorandum. Therefore, EPA
proposes to find that Massachusetts will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Because none of Massachusetts' impacts exceed 0.70 ppb,
they necessarily also do not exceed the 1ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts' SIP revisions that were
submitted to address prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport
requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997, 2008, and
2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters.\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPA is not reopening for comment final determinations made
in CSAPR or in the CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to support
those rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.
[[Page 40349]]
Dated: August 7, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-17406 Filed 8-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P