Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 8693 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 12, 2021. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 

pertaining to Pennsylvania’s limited 

maintenance plan for the Johnstown 

Area may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: February 3, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard Second 

Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown 

Area’’ at the end of the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard Second Maintenance 

Plan for the Johnstown Area.

Johnstown Area ................ 2/27/2020 2/9/2021, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–02559 Filed 2–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2019–0695; FRL–10018– 

99–Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 

by the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. Except as noted below, 

this submission satisfies the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. We are 

issuing a finding of failure to submit 

pertaining to the various aspects of 

infrastructure SIPs relating to the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD). The Commonwealth has long 

been subject to a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) regarding 

PSD, thus the finding of failure to 

submit will result in no sanctions or 

further FIP requirements. In this action 

we do not address CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements regarding 

interstate transport, because we 

previously approved the 

Commonwealth’s submission 

addressing these requirements for the 

2015 ozone standard. This action is 

being taken in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

11, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2019–0695. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available at https://

www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Region 1 Regional Office, Air and 

Radiation Division, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the contact listed in the FOR


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
8694 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and 

facility closures due to COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 

05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, tel. 

617–918–1628, email rackauskas.eric@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On March 13, 2020, EPA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

(85 FR 14605) proposing to approve and 

a direct final rule (DFR) (85 FR 14578) 

approving a SIP submission from the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts to 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of the Clean Air Act for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. When EPA promulgates a new 

or revised NAAQS, each state must 

submit a SIP submission, known as an 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’, in order to ensure 

that the state’s SIP provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the new or revised 

NAAQS. The Massachusetts Department 

of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 

submitted the infrastructure SIP 

submission to EPA as a formal SIP 

submission on September 27, 2018. In 

the DFR, EPA stated that, if it received 

an adverse comment on the direct final 

proposal by April 13, 2020, then the 

agency would withdraw that direct final 

and issue a final rule based on the 

NPRM. EPA received one adverse 

comment prior to the close of the 

comment period. Therefore, EPA 

withdrew the DFR on May 12, 2020 (85 

FR 27927). This action is a final rule 

based on the NPRM. 

A detailed discussion of the 

Massachusetts September 27, 2018, 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

EPA’s rationale for proposing approval 

of the SIP submission appear in the DFR 

and we will not restate that here, except 

to the extent relevant to our response to 

the public comment on the proposal. 

EPA also received two requests to 

extend the public comment period for 

the NPRM until after the COVID–19 

pandemic is over. EPA is denying these 

extension requests, and the reasons for 

this denial can be found in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

II. Response to Comment 

EPA received one adverse comment 

on the March 13, 2020, notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

Comment: ‘‘EPA is also approving the 

state’s SIP as having adequate resources, 

how was EPA able to identify whether 

the state had adequate resources before 

the COVID–19 outbreak and how can 

the outbreak not affect the state’s ability 

to continue having adequate resources? 

And how is EPA sure the state has 

adequate enforcement abilities to carry 

out its mission to protect environmental 

and human health after Trump’s EPA 

issued a BLANKET waiver to all 

environmental rules??? EPA can’t 

possibly think a state is able to enforce 

the state’s rules in addition to EPA’s 

rules that Trump has declined to 

persecute [sic]. EPA can’t approve the 

state’s ability to have adequate resources 

or adequate funding or adequate 

enforcement if EPA’s review is 

predicated on the belief of pre-COVID– 

19 conditions will continue now.’’ 

Response: The comment provides 

little detail, but it appears to raise three 

general issues. First, it asks how EPA 

was ‘‘able to identify whether the state 

had adequate resources’’ before the 

COVID–19 pandemic. Second, it 

questions any conclusion that 

Massachusetts has ‘‘adequate resources’’ 

and ‘‘adequate enforcement abilities’’ in 

light of the pandemic. And third, it asks 

how EPA can be sure that Massachusetts 

has ‘‘adequate enforcement abilities’’ in 

light of what the comment refers to as 

an EPA-issued ‘‘BLANKET waiver to all 

environmental rules.’’ On the third 

issue, the comment does not specifically 

identify an EPA ‘‘waiver,’’ but EPA 

assumes the commenter refers to EPA’s 

March 26, 2020, memorandum entitled 

‘‘COVID–19 Implications for EPA’s 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Program’’ (hereinafter, ‘‘March 2020 

memorandum’’ or ‘‘EPA Enforcement 

Memo’’). The comment does not 

identify a particular section (or sections) 

of the Clean Air Act that it believes 

Massachusetts failed to satisfy but it is 

reasonable to assume that the 

commenter is referring to the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C) 

(pertaining to enforcement) and section 

110(a)(2)(E) (pertaining to state 

resources). 

As an initial matter, the purpose of an 

infrastructure SIP submission is to 

demonstrate that the state’s SIP contains 

the basic program elements needed to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

particular NAAQS at issue, in this case, 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. If the current 

SIP fails to satisfy these basic program 

elements then the state should revise 

the existing SIP so that EPA may 

evaluate these elements and approve 

them into the SIP, as appropriate. A SIP 

is generally comprised of state 

regulations, statutes and other 

documents used by the state that the 

EPA has approved as meeting applicable 

CAA requirements. In the context of 

acting on infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA evaluates the state’s 

SIP submission to determine whether 

the submission meets the applicable 

statutory requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) and the 

appropriate regulatory requirements. 

EPA is not evaluating the state’s 

implementation of its SIP in this action. 

See Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas, 

902 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2018). EPA has 

other authority to address issues 

concerning a state’s implementation of 

the rules, regulations, consent orders, 

etc. that comprise its SIP. 

EPA disagrees that it should 

disapprove the infrastructure SIP 

submission for the ‘‘enforcement’’ subelement of CAA section110(a)(2)(C), the 

‘‘adequate resources’’ requirement in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), or both. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act 

requires each SIP to provide ‘‘necessary 

assurances that the State . . . will have 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under State . . . law to carry 

out such implementation plan.’’ Thus, 

under this section, EPA evaluates a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission for 

evidence that the state has provided 

necessary assurances that it has 

adequate resources to carry out the SIP. 

Element E does not require the EPA to 

conduct an audit of state resources or 

personnel. Nevertheless, upon receiving 

this comment, EPA requested 

supplemental information from 

MassDEP to provide more detail about 

Department staff and resources. In this 

supplemental document, MassDEP 

states, ‘‘MassDEP resources to 

implement the SIP include staff and 

managers in the Bureau of Air and 

Waste (BAW), including the Division of 

Air and Climate Programs in MassDEP’s 

Boston office (approximately 29 staff), 

the Air Assessment Branch based in 

MassDEP’s Wall Experiment Station 

laboratory in Lawrence (approximately 

23 staff), and the permitting and 

compliance and enforcement (C&E) 

units in each of the four MassDEP 

regional offices (approximately 55 

staff).’’ MassDEP further notes that these 

numbers do not include additional staff 

in the separate legal, research, and 

information technology units that also 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 8695 

1https://budget.digital.mass.gov/summary/fy20/ 

enacted/energy-and-environmental-affairs/ 

environmental-protection/?tab=historical-spending. 

2https://budget.digital.mass.gov/govbudget/fy21/ 

appropriations/energy-and-environmental-affairs/ 

environmental-protection?tab=budget-summary. 

3For instance, the memorandum does not apply 

to criminal violations, imports, or activities that are 

carried out under Superfund and RCRA Corrective 

Action enforcement instruments. EPA Enforcement 

Memo at 2. Moreover, the enforcement discretion 

set forth in the memorandum is temporary and is 

conditioned on regulated entities making every 

effort to comply with their environmental 

compliance obligations. Id. 

support the Commonwealth’s efforts 

carrying out the SIP. 

MassDEP staff and operations are 

funded by the Commonwealth and 

through EPA grants, including annual 

funding through CAA sections 103 and 

105 to assist with the costs of 

implementing programs for the 

prevention and control of air pollution 

or implementation of national primary 

and secondary ambient air quality 

standards. Massachusetts also has an 

EPA-approved fee program under CAA 

title V which is used to support title V 

program elements such as permitting, 

monitoring, testing, inspections, and 

enforcement. MassDEP’s budget has 

been consistent over the past number of 

years and over these years 

Massachusetts has been able to meet its 

statutory commitments under the Act.1

MassDEP also reports that ‘‘There are no 

plans that would significantly alter 

these resources in the 5-year period 

following submission of the 

Certification or beyond and therefore 

MassDEP expects to have adequate 

resources to implement the SIP in the 

future.’’ The full supplemental 

submission from MassDEP can be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

EPA explained in the DFR that 

Massachusetts’ infrastructure SIP 

submission documented that its air 

agency, MassDEP, has the requisite 

authority and resources to carry out its 

SIP obligations. In particular, 

Massachusetts General Laws c. 111, 

sections 142A to 142N, provide 

MassDEP with the authority to carry out 

the state’s implementation plan. The 

Massachusetts SIP, as originally 

submitted in 1971 and subsequently 

amended, provides descriptions of the 

staffing and funding necessary to carry 

out the plan. In the original and 

supplemental submissions MassDEP has 

provided an adequate description of its 

resources to allow EPA to assess that 

MassDEP has adequate personnel and 

funding to carry out the SIP during the 

five years following infrastructure SIP 

submission and in future years. Thus, 

with respect to the first issue raised by 

the comment, EPA finds that MassDEP 

has provided an adequate description of 

its staffing resources and that this 

information, when considered together 

with the budget information, is 

sufficient for EPA to conclude that the 

Commonwealth has adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under State law 

to meet its SIP obligations sufficient to 

justify approval of the SIP submittal for 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). 

With respect to the second issue, the 

commenter expresses concern that the 

impacts of the ongoing COVID 19 

pandemic can only result in the 

Commonwealth having inadequate 

resources to meet its SIP obligations. As 

explained above, MassDEP provides 

assurances in the infrastructure SIP 

submission and supplemental document 

that it has adequate personnel and 

funding to carry out the SIP during the 

five years following the submission and 

in future years. We also note that the 

Massachusetts’ Governor’s 2021 budget 

recommendation proposes a similar 

level of funding for MassDEP as it has 

received in recent years.2 Moreover, the 

Commonwealth receives federal grants 

under CAA sections 103 and 105 to 

assist it in carrying out the SIP, and 

other funding sources include permit 

fees and title V fees collected by 

MassDEP. If the Commonwealth’s 

implementation of its SIP is 

substantially affected in the future by 

the pandemic, EPA has the statutory 

authority under the CAA to address 

such issues through means other than 

disapproving the infrastructure SIP 

submission at this time. Based on the 

original SIP submission and 

supplemental information, EPA finds 

that MassDEP has provided necessary 

information for EPA to conclude that 

MassDEP has and will continue to have 

adequate personnel and funding to carry 

out the SIP. For these reasons, EPA does 

not agree that it must disapprove the 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) in light of the 

pandemic. 

Also, with respect to the second issue 

raised, the comment also expresses 

concern that the Commonwealth will 

not have ‘‘adequate enforcement 

abilities’’ in light of the pandemic. 

While the commenter does not identify 

any particular infrastructure SIP 

requirement with this claim, it is 

possible that the commenter may be 

objecting to EPA’s approval of the ISIP 

submittal for the enforcement subelement of section 110(a)(2)(C). This 

sub-element requires that each state’s 

SIP ‘‘include a program to provide for 

the enforcement of’’ the emission limits 

and control measures that the state air 

agency identified in its submission for 

purposes of satisfying 110(a)(2)(A). In 

the DFR, EPA explained that the 

Massachusetts SIP includes such a 

program. In particular, EPA noted 

specific provisions of state law that 

authorize MassDEP to adopt regulations 

to control air pollution, to enforce such 

regulations and to assess penalties for 

non-compliance. EPA also highlighted 

state regulations currently in the SIP. 

Thus, EPA explained that the SIP 

includes a program to provide for the 

enforcement of SIP measures. EPA 

acknowledges the COVID–19 pandemic 

has the potential to impact the resources 

available to the state to maintain its 

program; however, proposed level 

funding for FY2021 indicates that 

MADEP will maintain their current 

program capability. EPA also notes that 

The Commonwealth has been a leader 

among all states in being proactive to 

address air quality concerns. 

Nevertheless, if an actual resources 

problem were to develop, EPA has the 

statutory authority to address such 

issues through means other than 

disapproving the infrastructure SIP 

submission at this time. 

Finally, the commenter expresses 

concern that Massachusetts does not 

have ‘‘adequate enforcement abilities’’ 

in light of what the commenter 

characterizes as a ‘‘blanket waiver’’ by 

EPA of environmental rules. EPA does 

not agree that the March 2020 

memorandum is a ‘‘blanket waiver,’’ 3

but in any event the memorandum 

applies to EPA’s own enforcement 

activities, not a state’s. See EPA 

Enforcement Memo at 1–2 (‘‘Authorized 

states or tribes may take a different 

approach under their own authorities.’’). 

Therefore, it does not affect whether 

Massachusetts has ‘‘adequate 

enforcement abilities’’ and does not 

affect Massachusetts’ ‘‘program to 

provide for the enforcement of’’ SIP 

measures. Furthermore, on August 31, 

2020, EPA terminated the temporary 

policy described in the March 2020 

memorandum. See COVID–19 

Implications for EPA’s Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance Program: 

Addendum on Termination, EPA (June 

29, 2020). For these reasons, the March 

2020 memorandum is not a reason to 

disapprove the Massachusetts’ ISIP 

submittal for the enforcement subelement in section 110(a)(2)(C). 

For the above reasons, EPA concludes 

that the comment does not justify 

disapproving the Commonwealth’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS for compliance with the 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C) or (E)(i). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
8696 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving most portions of the 

Massachusetts infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

We are also issuing a finding of failure 

to submit pertaining to the various 

infrastructure SIP requirements that 

pertain to the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program, i.e., 

section 110(a)(2)(C) sub-element 2, the 

PSD portion of Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3), 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect to 

the PSD-related notice of interstate 

pollution, section 110(a)(2)(J) subelement 1 with respect to the FLM 

consultation requirement for PSD 

permitting, and section 110(a)(2)(J) subelement 3 (PSD). The Commonwealth 

has long been subject to a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) regarding 

PSD, thus the finding of failure to 

submit will result in no mandatory 

sanctions or further FIP requirements. 

This rulemaking also does not include 

any action on the interstate transport 

portion of the Commonwealth’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2015 Ozone NAAQS, i.e., section 

110(a)(2)(D). This action is being taken 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 

regulatory action because this action is 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 12, 2021. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 3, 2021. 

Deborah Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 1. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart W—Massachusetts 

■ 2. In § 52.1120(e), amend the table by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

submittal for 2015 Ozone NAAQS’’ at 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 8697 

1 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). 

2 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni 

Memo). 

3The ozone design value for a monitoring site is 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations. 

The design value for an ozone nonattainment area 

is the highest design value of any monitoring site 

in the area. 

MASSACHUSETTS NON REGULATORY

Name of non regulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective date EPA approved date 3 Explanations 

*******

Infrastructure SIP submittal for 

2015 Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide ................... September 27, 2018 February 9, 2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].Approved with respect to requirements for CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) with the exception of the PSD-related requirements of (C), 

(D), and (J). 

3To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02536 Filed 2–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0332; FRL–10017– 

26–Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) Second 

Maintenance Plan for the Altoona (Blair 

County) Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to 

the Commonwealth’s plan, submitted by 

the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), for 

maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) (referred to as the ‘‘1997 

ozone NAAQS’’) in the Altoona, Blair 

County, Pennsylvania area (Altoona 

Area). EPA is approving these revisions 

to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 11, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0332. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, Planning & 

Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. The telephone number is (215) 

814–2117. Mr. Talley can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On September 3, 2020 (85 FR 54947), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the 

NPRM, EPA proposed approval of 

Pennsylvania’s plan for maintaining the 

1997 ozone NAAQS in the Altoona Area 

through August 1, 2027, in accordance 

with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP 

revision was submitted by PADEP on 

February 27, 2020. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

On August 1, 2007 (72 FR 41906 

effective August 1, 2007), EPA approved 

a redesignation request (and 

maintenance plan) from PADEP for the 

Altoona Area. In accordance with 

section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth 

year after the effective date of the 

redesignation, the state must also 

submit a second maintenance plan to 

ensure ongoing maintenance of the 

standard for an additional 10 years, and 

in South Coast Air Quality Management 

District v. EPA,1 the D.C. Circuit held 

that this requirement cannot be waived 

for areas, like Charleston, that had been 

redesignated to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to 

revocation and that were designated 

attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria 

for adequate maintenance plans. In 

addition, EPA has published 

longstanding guidance that provides 

further insight on the content of an 

approvable maintenance plan, 

explaining that a maintenance plan 

should address five elements: (1) An 

attainment emissions inventory; (2) a 

maintenance demonstration; (3) a 

commitment for continued air quality 

monitoring; (4) a process for verification 

of continued attainment; and (5) a 

contingency plan.2 PADEP’s February 

27, 2020 submittal fulfills 

Pennsylvania’s obligation to submit a 

second maintenance plan and addresses 

each of the five necessary elements. 

As discussed in the September 3, 

2020 NPRM, EPA allows the submittal 

of a less rigorous, limited maintenance 

plan (LMP) to meet the CAA section 

175A requirements by demonstrating 

that the area’s design value 3 is well 

below the NAAQS and that the 

historical stability of the area’s air 

quality levels shows that the area is 

unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the 

future. EPA evaluated PADEP’s 

February 27, 2020 submittal for 

consistency with all applicable EPA 

guidance and CAA requirements. EPA 

found that the submittal met CAA 

section 175A and all CAA requirements, 

and proposed approval of the LMP for 

the Altoona Area as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania SIP. The effect of this 

action makes certain commitments 

related to the maintenance of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS Federally enforceable as 

part of the Pennsylvania SIP. 

Subsequent to the publication of the 

September 3, 2020 NPRM, EPA 

discovered a minor computational error 

in the data presented in Table 1: 

‘‘Typical Summer Day NOX and VOC 

Emissions for the Altoona Area.’’ While 

the data are correct, the total volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) emissions 

were summed incorrectly in Table 1. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES