Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47133 

adopted consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity which includes the 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIP development and the requirements 

that link transportation planning and air 

quality planning in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. These consultation 

and participation procedures have been 

approved in the Alabama SIP as the 

non-regulatory provisions: ‘‘Alabama 

Interagency Transportation Conformity 

Memorandum of Agreement’’ and 

‘‘Conformity SIP for Birmingham and 

Jackson County.’’ These provisions were 

approved on May 11, 2000, and March 

26, 2009, respectively. See 65 FR 30362 

and 74 FR 13118. Required partners 

covered by Alabama’s consultation 

procedures include federal, state and 

local transportation and air quality 

agency officials. The state and local 

transportation agency officials are most 

directly impacted by transportation 

conformity requirements and are 

required to provide public involvement 

for their activities including the analysis 

demonstrating how they meet 

transportation conformity requirements. 

Additionally, Alabama has consulted 

with FLMs as a requirement of its 

regional haze SIP. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), and 

the state board requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to 

approve that certain elements in 

Alabama’s April 23, 2013, and 

December 9, 2015, SIP submissions for 

the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS have met 

the above-described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of 

Alabama’s infrastructure submissions 

because the State’s implementation plan 

does not contain provisions to comply 

with section 128 of the Act, and thus 

Alabama’s April 23, 2013, and 

December 9, 2015, infrastructure SIP 

submissions do not meet the 

requirements of the Act. The interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) will be 

addressed by EPA in a future action. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal (or portion 

thereof) that addresses a requirement of 

a CAA Part D Plan or is required in 

response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in CAA section 

110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions 

clock. The section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

provisions (the provisions being 

proposed for disapproval in today’s 

notice) were not submitted to meet 

requirements for Part D or a SIP call, 

and therefore, if EPA takes final action 

to disapprove this submittal, no 

sanctions will be triggered. However, if 

this disapproval action is finalized, that 

final action will trigger the requirement 

under section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the 

date of the disapproval unless the State 

corrects the deficiency, and EPA 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before EPA promulgates such FIP. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 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 CAA. 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); 

• 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 CAA; 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). 

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 as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 8, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17053 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0720; FRL–9949–29– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

most elements of State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submissions from 

Massachusetts regarding the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 

ozone, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is 

also proposing to conditionally approve 

three aspects of the Commonwealth’s 

submittals. In addition, we are also 

proposing findings of failure to submit 

pertaining to various aspects of the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47134 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) requirements of infrastructure 

SIPs. Lastly, we are proposing to remove 

40 CFR 52.1160 as legally obsolete. 

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. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 19, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2014–0720, at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arnold.anne@epa.gov. 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

McConnell, Environmental Engineer, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs 

Branch (Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109– 

3912; (617) 918–1046; 

mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. Additionally, the term ‘‘the 

Commonwealth’’ refers to the state of 

Massachusetts. 

This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions 

does this rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of 

these SIP submissions? 

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 

i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Preconstruction Program 

for Major Sources and Major 

Modifications 

iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction 

Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor 

Modifications 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

i. Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 

2) 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3) 

iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection 

(Prong 4) 

iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution 

Abatement 

v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)— 

International Pollution Abatement 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

i. Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and 

Related Issues 

ii. Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

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; PSD; Visibility Protection 

i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD 

iv. 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 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions 

does this rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses 

submissions from the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(MassDEP). The Commonwealth 

submitted its infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (ISIP) for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS on December 14, 2007, 

its ISIP for the 200b Pb NAAQS on 

December 4, 2012, and its ISIPs for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS on June 6, 2014. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 1997 ozone, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. These submissions 

must contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for the NAAQS 

already meet those requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47135 

1See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964, 

67034 (Nov. 12, 2008). 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 (Fine Particle) 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (2007 Memo). On September 

25, 2009, EPA issued an additional 

guidance document pertaining to the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 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 Memo), followed by 

the October 14, 2011, ‘‘Guidance on 

infrastructure SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2011 

Memo). Most recently, EPA issued 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2)’’ on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Memo). The SIP submissions referenced 

in this rulemaking pertain to the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) and address the 1997 

ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is proposing approval of most 

aspects of the SIP submissions from 

Massachusetts that address the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Additionally, we are proposing approval 

of a statute submitted by Massachusetts 

that supports the infrastructure SIP 

submittals, proposing conditional 

approval of certain aspects of the 

Commonwealth’s submittals as 

discussed below, and proposing 

findings of failure to submit for a 

number of ISIP provisions that pertain 

to the State’s PSD program. 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). 

Pursuant to these sections, each state 

must submit a SIP that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each primary or 

secondary NAAQS. States must make 

such SIP submission ‘‘within 3 years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation 

of’’ a new or revised NAAQS. This 

requirement is triggered by the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS and is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any other action. Section 

110(a)(2) includes the specific elements 

that ‘‘each such plan’’ must address. 

EPA commonly refers to such SIP 

submissions made for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the planning requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources (‘‘SSM’’ 

emissions) that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for PSD programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New 

Source Review (NSR) Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Instead, EPA 

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas separately. A 

detailed history, interpretation, and 

rationale for EPA’s approach to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ (See 79 FR 

27241; May 13, 2014). 

III. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate these SIP submissions? 

EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

non-binding guidance documents to 

make recommendations for states’ 

development and EPA review of 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements. EPA guidance 

applicable to these infrastructure SIP 

submissions is embodied in several 

documents. Specifically, attachment A 

of the 2007 Memo (Required Section 

110 SIP Elements) identifies the 

statutory elements that states need to 

submit in order to satisfy the 

requirements for an infrastructure SIP 

submission. The 2009 Memo provides 

additional guidance for certain elements 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2011 Memo provides guidance 

specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Lastly, 

the 2013 Memo identifies and further 

clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs 

that are not NAAQS specific. 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of these SIP submissions? 

Pursuant to section 110(a), and as 

noted in the 2011 Memo and the 2013 

Memo, states must provide reasonable 

notice and opportunity for public 

hearing for all infrastructure SIP 

submissions. MassDEP held a public 

hearing on the ISIP for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS on June 12, 2012, and held a 

public hearing on the ISIPs for the 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

on September 6, 2013. 

EPA is soliciting comment on our 

evaluation of the state’s infrastructure 

SIP submissions in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. Massachusetts 

provided detailed synopses of how 

various components of its SIP meet each 

of the requirements in section 110(a)(2) 

for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS, as applicable. The following 

review evaluates the state’s submissions 

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 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.1 In the 

context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is 

not evaluating the existing SIP 

provisions for this purpose. Instead, 

EPA is only evaluating whether the 

state’s SIP has basic structural 

provisions for the implementation of the 

NAAQS. 

Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.) 

c.21A, § 8, Executive Office of Energy 

and Environmental Affairs Organization 

of Departments; powers, duties and 

functions, creates and sets forth the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47136 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2 In EPA’s April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking 

for several states’ infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, we stated that each state’s 

PSD program must meet applicable requirements 

for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in 

PSD permits (See 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view 

was reiterated in EPA’s August 2, 2012 proposed 

rulemaking for several infrastructure SIPs for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In 

other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to 

adequately address Pb, NOX as a precursor to ozone, 

PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, 

PM2.5 increments, or the Federal GHG permitting 

thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requiring a suitable PSD permitting program must 

be considered not to be met irrespective of the 

NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit an 

infrastructure SIP, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

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, §§ 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, 

§ 18, Permit applications and 

compliance assurance fees; timeline 

action schedules; regulations, 

authorizes MassDEP to establish fees 

applicable to the regulatory programs it 

administers. 

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, 310 CMR 6.00, Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and 

310 CMR 7.00: Air Pollution Control 

Regulations. For example, many SIPapproved 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 1997 ozone, 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, including but not limited 

to 7.18, Volatile and Halogenated 

Organic Compounds, 7.19, Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

for Sources of NOX, and 7.29, Emission 

Standards for Power Plants. 

We note, however, that we are 

conditionally approving this element 

because the SIP-approved version of 310 

CMR 7.00 uses the term ‘‘National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ but does not contain a 

definition for this term. Therefore, there 

is uncertainty as to which versions of 

the NAAQS the term incorporates. By 

letter dated June 14, 2016, 

Massachusetts committed to submitting 

for inclusion in the SIP, by a date no 

later than one year from conditional 

approval of Massachusetts’ 

infrastructure submissions, a definition 

for NAAQS in 310 CMR 7.00 that would 

reflect the current versions of the 

various NAAQS we are proposing to act 

on in this rulemaking. 

In recognition of the above, EPA 

proposes that Massachusetts has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 

1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the 

exception of the issue related to a 

definition of NAAQS in 310 CMR 7.00, 

for which we are proposing a 

conditional approval. 

In addition to the above, we are 

proposing to remove as legally obsolete 

40 CFR 52.1160, which was 

promulgated on January 24, 1995 (60 FR 

4737). Section 52.1160 provides that 

‘‘Massachusetts’ adopted LEV [Low 

Emission Vehicle] program must be 

revised to the extent necessary for the 

state to comply with all aspects of the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.120,’’ a 

provision that was promulgated in the 

same action (60 FR 4736) and that 

required certain states to adopt the 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

LEV program or equivalent measures. 

(The OTC LEV program is based on 

California’s LEV program and requires 

that only cleaner ‘‘LEV’’ cars be sold in 

the states in which it has been adopted). 

On March 11, 1997, however, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated the provisions 

of 40 CFR 52.120. See Virginia v. EPA, 

108 F.3d 1397. Nonetheless, the 

Commonwealth has adopted a Low 

Emission Vehicle Program based on 

California’s LEV program (310 CMR 

7.40), the latest version of which was 

approved into the SIP on December 23, 

2002 (67 FR 78181). Because of the 

vacatur, EPA concludes that 40 CFR 

52.1160 is obsolete and proposes to 

remove it from the CFR. 

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 include 

provisions to provide for establishing 

and operating ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these 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, §§ 142B to 142D, 

MassDEP operates an air monitoring 

network. EPA approved the state’s most 

recent Annual Air Monitoring Network 

Plan for Pb, ozone, NO2, and SO2 on 

November 13, 2015. Furthermore, 

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 MassDEP has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 

1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 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 NSR 

requirements under 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 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the 

following: (i) Enforcement of SIP 

measures; (ii) PSD program for major 

sources and major modifications; and, 

(iii) permitting program for minor 

sources and minor modifications. A 

discussion of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 2 is 

included within our evaluation of the 

PSD provisions of the Commonwealth’s 

submittals. 

i. 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, § 2C, 

Pollution violations; orders of 

department of environmental 

protection, which authorizes MassDEP 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47137 

3EPA has previously issued findings of failure to 

submit infrastructure SIPs addressing the PSDrelated requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, 73 FR 16205 (Mar. 27, 2008), 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 78 FR 2882 (Jan. 15, 2013), 

and the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 78 FR 12961 (Feb. 26, 

2013), and Massachusetts has made no additional 

submissions to address the PSD-related 

requirements for these NAAQS since those previous 

findings. 

to issue orders enforcing pollution 

control regulations generally; M.G.L. 

c.111, §§ 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, § 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, SIPapproved 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 has met this requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 

the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

ii. 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 with regard to, 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 is proposing a finding of failure to 

submit with respect to the PSD-related 

requirements of this sub-element for the 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.3 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 state 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. 

iii. 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 

1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

In summary, we are proposing to find 

that Massachusetts has met the 

enforcement related aspects of Section 

110(a)(2)(C) discussed above within subelement 1, and the preconstruction 

permitting requirements for minor 

sources discussed in sub-element 3, for 

the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Also, 

we are proposing, pursuant to section 

110(c)(1), to find that the state has failed 

to make required submissions related to 

major source preconstruction permitting 

for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

for the reasons provided in sub-element 

2 above. 

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 that states 

must address. It covers the following 5 

topics, categorized as sub-elements: 

Sub-element 1, Contribute to 

nonattainment, and interfere 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 4 prongs discussed 

below, 2 of which are found within subelement 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. 

i. Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 

2) 

With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 

the 2011 Memo notes that the physical 

properties of Pb prevent it from 

experiencing the same travel or 

formation phenomena as PM2.5 or 

ozone. Specifically, there is a sharp 

decrease in Pb concentrations as the 

distance from a Pb source increases. 

Accordingly, although it may be 

possible for a source in a state to emit 

Pb at a location and in such quantities 

that contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state, EPA 

anticipates that this would be a rare 

situation (e.g., sources emitting large 

quantities of Pb in close proximity to 

state boundaries). The 2011 Memo 

suggests that the applicable interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to Pb can 

be met through a state’s assessment as 

to whether or not emissions from Pb 

sources located in close proximity to its 

borders have emissions that impact a 

neighboring state such that they 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in that state. 

Massachusetts’ infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

notes that there are no major sources of 

Pb emissions located in close proximity 

to any of the state’s borders with 

neighboring states, or elsewhere in the 

state. Our review of data within our 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

database confirms this, and also 

indicates that there is no group of 

sources anywhere within the state likely 

to emit enough Pb to cause ambient 

concentrations to approach the Pb 

NAAQS. Therefore, we propose that 

Massachusetts has met this set of 

requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Massachusetts’ infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

notes that Massachusetts sources do not 

contribute to non-attainment or 

maintenance in other states, given that 

all surrounding states are designated as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ This 

statement is accurate, and indeed there 

are no NO2 nonattainment areas 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47138 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4At the time EPA last approved Massachusetts’ 

NNSR regulations (October 27, 2000; 65 FR at 

64361), the Western Massachusetts area was 

nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, and 

the Eastern Massachusetts area was attaining the 

standard, but destined to become nonattainment as 

of January 16, 2001, upon EPA’s reinstatement of 

the one-hour ozone NAAQS for that area. 

5As discussed earlier, supra n.3, 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, and 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

anywhere in the United States. 77 FR 

9532 (Feb. 17, 2012). We examined the 

design values from NO2 monitors in 

Massachusetts and neighboring states 

based on data collected between 2012 

and 2014. In Massachusetts, the highest 

design value was 49 parts per billion 

(ppb)(versus the NO2 standard of 100 

ppb) at a monitor in Boston. The highest 

design value we found in a neighboring 

state was 58 ppb in Queens, NY. We 

believe that with the continued 

implementation of Massachusetts PSD 

FIP, and the Commonwealth’s NSR 

regulations, the state’s low monitored 

values of NO2 will continue. In other 

words, the NO2 emissions from 

Massachusetts are not expected to cause 

or contribute to a violation of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS in another state, and these 

emissions are not likely to interfere with 

the maintenance of the 2010 NO2

NAAQS in another state. Therefore, we 

propose that Massachusetts has met this 

set of requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

In today’s rulemaking, we are not 

proposing to approve or disapprove 

Massachusetts’ compliance with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, or 2010 SO2

NAAQS, since the Commonwealth’s SIP 

revisions upon which we are acting 

today do not include a submittal with 

respect to transport for sub-element 1, 

prongs 1 and 2 for these pollutants. 

Effective August 12, 2015, EPA found 

that Massachusetts, among a number of 

other states, had not made a complete 

good neighbor SIP submittal for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS to meet the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 80 FR 39961 (July 

13, 2015). 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3) 

One aspect of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

another state. A state’s infrastructure 

SIP submittal cannot be considered 

approvable for prong 3 unless EPA has 

issued final approval of the state’s PSD 

SIP, or alternatively, has issued final 

approval of a SIP that EPA has 

otherwise found adequate to prohibit 

interference with other states’ measures 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

As discussed under element C above, 

Massachusetts is currently subject to a 

PSD FIP. Therefore, we are proposing a 

finding of failure to submit for prong 3 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the 

PSD requirement, in the same manner as 

discussed under element C above. 

However, this finding will not trigger 

any sanctions or additional FIP 

obligation. 

Under prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

EPA also reviews the potential for instate sources not subject to PSD to 

interfere with PSD in an attainment or 

unclassifiable area of another state. EPA 

guidance recommends that a ‘‘fully 

approved nonattainment [new source 

review (NNSR)] program with respect to 

any previous NAAQS may generally be 

considered by the EPA as adequate for 

purposes of meeting this requirement of 

prong 3 with respect to sources and 

pollutants subject to such program.’’ 

2013 Guidance at 32. EPA last approved 

the Commonwealth’s NNSR program on 

October 27, 2000. 65 FR 64360. Because 

Massachusetts is located within the 

Ozone Transport Region, see CAA 

§ 184(a), 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a), sources 

emitting 50 tpy or more of NOX or VOCs 

are subject to the requirements that 

would be applicable to major stationary 

sources if the area were classified as a 

moderate nonattainment area, CAA 

§§ 182(f)(1), 184(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7511a, 

7511c. In other words, even if located in 

an area designated attainment for ozone, 

such sources are not subject to PSD, but 

rather, are to be subject to NNSR. 

Massachusetts’ SIP-approved NNSR 

regulations, however, apply by their 

terms only to nonattainment areas,4

meaning that sources of 50 tpy or more 

of VOCs or NOX in much of 

Massachusetts are not covered by either 

the PSD FIP or the state’s EPA-approved 

NNSR program and, thus, the state has 

not shown that it has met this 

requirement of prong 3. The 

Commonwealth has promulgated and 

implements NNSR regulations, 

however, that make the state’s NNSR 

program applicable to such sources 

regardless of area designation. In a letter 

dated June 14, 2016, the Commonwealth 

committed to submitting for inclusion 

in the SIP, by a date no later than one 

year from conditional approval of 

Massachusetts’ infrastructure 

submissions, the necessary provisions 

that would make its EPA-approved 

NSSR program applicable to such 

sources. Accordingly, we propose to 

conditionally approve Massachusetts’ 

submittals for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS for this aspect of prong 3. 

iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection 

(Prong 4) 

With regard to 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 Memo, the 2011 

Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these 

requirements can be satisfied by an 

approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, or an approved SIP addressing 

regional haze. 

The Commonwealth’s Regional Haze 

SIP was approved by EPA on September 

13, 2013. See 78 FR 57487. Accordingly, 

EPA proposes that Massachusetts has 

met the visibility protection 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution 

Abatement 

One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires each SIP to contain adequate 

provisions requiring compliance with 

the applicable 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. As 

mentioned elsewhere in this notice, 

Massachusetts is currently subject to a 

PSD FIP and it did not make submittals 

addressing the PSD-related 

requirements of section 126(a). 

Therefore, we are proposing 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS.5 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. § 52.1165. Nor 

does the finding trigger any sanctions. 

Massachusetts has no obligations under 

any other provision of section 126. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47139 

6 In its June 6, 2014 submittal, Massachusetts also 

requested that M.G.L. c. 268A, section 7 be added 

to the SIP. By letter dated June 14, 2016, however, 

Massachusetts withdrew section 7 from 

consideration for inclusion in the SIP. Section 7 

contains state-specific penalties that are not needed 

to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

v. Sub-Element 5: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International Pollution 

Abatement 

One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires each SIP to contain adequate 

provisions requiring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of section 

115 relating to international pollution 

abatement. Massachusetts does not have 

any pending obligations under section 

115 for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

that the Commonwealth has met 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 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state 

law to carry out its SIP, and related 

issues. Additionally, section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to 

comply with the requirements with 

respect to state boards under section 

128. 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, the state retain 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of SIP obligations with 

respect to relevant NAAQS. This last 

sub-element, however, is inapplicable 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 submittals, has 

documented that its air agency has the 

requisite authority and resources to 

carry out its SIP obligations. 

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 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. In light 

of the foregoing, EPA proposes that 

Massachusetts has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with 

respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each 

SIP to contain provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128(a) 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 has cited to 

M.G.L. c. 268A, sections 6 and 6A of the 

Commonwealth’s Conflict of Interest 

law in its June 6, 2014 infrastructure SIP 

submittal for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and requested 

that these sections be included in the 

SIP to satisfy this infrastructure SIP 

requirement.6 Pursuant to these state 

provisions, 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. We are 

proposing to find that M.G.L. c. 268A, 

sections 6 and 6A satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

of the Clean Air Act, to approve them 

into the Massachusetts SIP, and, 

consequently, to approve the 

Commonwealth’s ISIP submittals for 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 

ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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 established 

pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

Pursuant to M.G.L. c.111, sections 

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 

collect information on air emissions 

from sources in the state. Additionally, 

Massachusetts statutes and regulations 

provide that emissions data shall be 

available for public inspection. See, e.g., 

M.G.L. c.111, section 142B; 310 CMR 

sections 3.33(5), 7.12(4)(b); 7.14(1). The 

following SIP-approved regulations 

enable the accomplishment of the 

Commonwealth’s emissions recording 

and reporting objectives: 

1. 310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration. 

2. 310 CMR 7.13, Stack Testing. 

3. 310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices 

and Reports. 

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 has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 

1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for authority that is analogous 

to what is provided in section 303 of the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47140 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

7The Commonwealth’s Contaminant 

Concentration Levels are found within Table 1 of 

310 CMR 8.01, and match EPA’s levels from 40 CFR 

part 51.151 with the exception of 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. 

8By letter dated June 14, 2016, MassDEP stated 

that it likewise interprets M.G.L. c.111, section 2B 

and M.G.L. c. 21A, section 8 as together providing 

MassDEP with authority comparable to that granted 

to the Administrator by CAA section 303. 

9Those regulations do not specifically address 

Pb. See also 40 CFR 51.150. 

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 

the event that ‘‘it is not practicable to 

assure prompt protection . . . by 

commencement of such civil action.’’ 

We propose to find that the 

Commonwealth’s ISIP submittals 

demonstrate that certain state statutes 

and regulations provide for authority 

comparable to that in section 303. 

Massachusetts’ submittals cite M.G.L. 

c.111, section 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 

authorize the Commissioner to issue 

emergency orders. 

Moreover, M.G.L. c. 21A, section 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 most 

recently approved into the SIP on 

October 4, 2002. See 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 51.151.7 Finally, M.G.L. c.111, 

section 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.8

Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, 

for any NAAQS, States have an 

approved contingency plan for any Air 

Quality Control Region (AQCR) within 

the state that is classified as Priority I, 

IA, or II. See 40 CFR 51.152(c). A 

contingency plan is not required if the 

entire state is classified as Priority III for 

a particular pollutant. Id. The entire 

state is classified as Priority III for 

nitrogen dioxide, but contains priority 

classifications of I or II for particulate 

matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, 

and ozone. See 40 CFR 52.1121. 

Consequently, as relevant to this 

proposed rulemaking action, 

Massachusetts’ SIP must contain an 

emergency contingency plan meeting 

the specific requirements of 40 CFR 

51.151 and 51.152 with respect to SO2

and ozone.9

Although Massachusetts has adopted 

310 CMR 8.00, The Prevention and/or 

Abatement of Air Pollution Episode and 

Air Pollution Incident Emergencies, 

which is modeled on EPA’s example 

regulations for emergency contingency 

plans at 40 CFR part 51, appendix L, the 

version of the regulation that is 

currently in the SIP does not fully 

satisfy 40 CFR 51.152. For instance, it 

does not specify any ‘‘emission control 

actions to be taken at each episode 

stage,’’ as required by 40 CFR 

51.152(a)(3). By letter dated June 14, 

2016, MassDEP has committed to 

submitting for inclusion in the SIP, by 

a date no later than one year from 

conditional approval of Massachusetts’ 

infrastructure submissions, a regulation 

satisfying the contingency plan 

requirements of element G. 

With respect to Pb, we note that Pb is 

not explicitly included in the 

contingency plan requirements of 

subpart H. In addition, we note that 

there are no large sources of Pb in 

Massachusetts. Specifically, a review of 

the National Emission Inventory shows 

that there are no sources of Pb in 

Massachusetts that exceed EPA’s 

reporting threshold of 0.5 tons per year. 

Although not expected, if that situation 

were to change, Massachusetts does 

have general authority (e.g., M.G.L. c. 

21A, section 8 and c. 111, section 2B) 

to restrain any source from causing 

imminent and substantial 

endangerment. 

Consequently, EPA proposes that 

Massachusetts has met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. Furthermore, because 

all AQCRs in the state are classified as 

Priority III for NO2, EPA also proposes 

that the Commonwealth has met the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

For the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes to 

approve Massachusetts’ submittals with 

respect to the CAA section 303 

comparable authority requirement of 

element G, but to conditionally approve 

with respect to the contingency plan 

requirements of element G, based on 

MassDEP’s commitment to submit a 

regulation satisfying such requirements 

within one year of final action on the 

infrastructure submissions EPA is 

evaluating in this notice. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires that a state’s SIP 

provide for revision 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. 

Massachusetts General Laws c. 111, 

section 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, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47141 

10As discussed earlier, supra n.3, EPA has 

previously issued findings of failure to submit for 

Massachusetts for PSD-related infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

however, that such standards shall not 

be less than the minimum federal 

standards.’’ 

EPA proposes that Massachusetts has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect 

to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 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; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submissions 

from Massachusetts with respect to the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

are described below. 

i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to 

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments and Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to Section 121 relating to consultation. 

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.’’ 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 1997 

ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes 

that Massachusetts has met 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. 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to: 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 Web site, 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 Web site, alerts, and press 

releases. In light of the above, we 

propose to find that Massachusetts has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

iii. 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS,10

and note that such a finding will not 

result in any sanctions or new FIP 

obligations. 

iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for 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, 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 1997 ozone, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

To satisfy element K, the state air 

agency must demonstrate that it has the 

authority to perform air quality 

modeling to predict effects on air 

quality of emissions of any NAAQS 

pollutant and submit such data to EPA 

upon request. 

Pursuant to the authority granted by 

M.G.L. c.111, sections 142B–142D, the 

MassDEP has the authority to maintain 

and operate air sampling stations and 

devices, make or perform ‘‘such 

examinations, inspections, observations, 

determinations, laboratory analyses, and 

surveys; maintain such records; and 

perform such other acts as it deems 

necessary to conduct an adequate air 

pollution control program . . . .’’ The 

agency is further authorized to require 

sources to report monitoring and 

emissions data. MassDEP accomplishes 

these objectives via a number of 

regulations, including the following: 

310 CMR 7.02, Plan Approval and Emission 

Limitations; 

310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration; 

310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices and 

Reports; and, 

310 CMR 7.00, Appendix A—Emissions 

Offsets and Nonattainment Review. 

The state also collaborates with the 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), 

the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air 

Management Association, and EPA in 

order to perform large scale urban 

airshed modeling. EPA proposes that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47142 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Massachusetts has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 

1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 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 cost 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. In addition, 

M.G.L. c. 21A, section 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. These regulations set permit 

compliance fees, including fees for Title 

V operating permits. EPA proposes that 

the Commonwealth has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

To satisfy element M, states must 

consult with, and allow participation 

from, local political subdivisions 

affected by the SIP. Pursuant to M.G.L. 

c.111, section 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 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. Therefore, EPA proposes 

that Massachusetts has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 

1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

portions of the SIP submissions from 

Massachusetts certifying that its current 

SIP is sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 ozone, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of 

certain aspects relating to PSD which 

we have either already made, or are 

proposing, a finding of failure to submit. 

Additionally, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve several aspects of 

the Commonwealth’s submittals. EPA’s 

proposed action for each element for 

each NAAQS is stated in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED ACTION ON MA INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS FOR VARIOUS NAAQS 

Element 1997 

Ozone 

2008 

Pb 

2008 

Ozone 

2010 

NO2

2010 

SO2

(A): Emission limits and other control measures ......................................................... CA CA CA CA CA 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system .................................................. A A A A A 

(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures .......................................................................... A A A A A 

(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major modifications ............................... PF PF PF FS FS 

(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications ..................... A A A A A 

(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 

1 and 2) .................................................................................................................... NI A NS A NS 

(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3) ............................................................................................... PF/CA PF/CA PF/CA FS/CA FS/CA 

(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4) ........................................................................ A A A A A 

(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement ......................................................................... PF PF PF FS FS 

(D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement ..................................................................... A A A A A 

(E)(i): Adequate resources ........................................................................................... A A A A A 

(E)(ii): State boards ...................................................................................................... A A A A A 

(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies .................................... NA NA NA NA NA 

(F): Stationary source monitoring system .................................................................... A A A A A 

(G): Emergency power ................................................................................................. CA A CA A CA 

(H): Future SIP revisions ............................................................................................. A A A A A

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D ...................................... + + + + + 

(J)(i): Consultation with government officials ............................................................... FS FS FS FS FS 

(J)(ii): Public notification ............................................................................................... A A A A A 

(J)(iii): PSD ................................................................................................................... PF PF PF FS FS 

(J)(iv): Visibility protection ............................................................................................ + + + + + 

(K): Air quality modeling and data ............................................................................... A A A A A 

(L): Permitting fees ...................................................................................................... A A A A A 

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities ...................................... A A A A A 

In the above table, the key is as follows: 

A—Approve. 

CA—Conditional approval. 

FS—Finding of failure to submit. 

NA—Not applicable. 

NI—Not included in submittal we are acting on in today’s action. 

NS—No Submittal. 

PF—Prior finding of failure to submit. 

+—Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

incorporate into the Massachusetts SIP 

sections 6 and 6A of the state’s Conflict 

of Interest law, which the 

Commonwealth submitted on June 6, 

2014, and are proposing to remove 40 

CFR 52.1160 regarding Massachusetts 

LEV in that it is legally obsolete. 

As shown in Table 1, we are 

proposing to issue a finding of failure to 

submit for sub-element J(i) pertaining to 

the requirement for consultation with 

FLMs for all five of the cited NAAQS, 

and note that in light of the PSD FIP, 

this finding will not result in sanctions 

or new FIP obligations. Additionally, we 

are also proposing to issue findings of 

failure to submit with respect to the 

PSD-related elements in sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47143 

the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 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, the state will not be 

subject to mandatory sanctions as a 

result of these actions. 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve an aspect of the 

Commonwealth’s submittal for element 

110(a)(2)(A) pertaining to ambient air 

quality standards because the current, 

SIP-approved version of 310 CMR 7.00, 

Air Pollution Control, does not reflect 

the current version of the various 

NAAQS we are proposing to act on in 

this rulemaking. However, by letter 

dated June 14, 2016, the Commonwealth 

committed to add a definition of 

NAAQS 310 CMR 7.00 that includes a 

calendar date to address this issue. For 

this reason, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve this SIP revision 

provided that the Commonwealth 

submits to EPA an updated version of 

310 CMR 7.00. Additionally, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve the 

Commonwealth’s submittals for element 

110(a)(2)(G) pertaining to contingency 

plans for the 1997 and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 

pursuant to Massachusetts commitment 

within their June 14, 2016 letter, to 

submit a regulation meeting the 

contingency plan requirement of 

element 110(a)(2)(G) by a date no later 

than one year from EPA’s final action on 

these infrastructure SIPs. And last, we 

are proposing to conditionally approve 

the aspect of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS pertaining 

to the Commonwealth’s NNSR program 

pursuant to the state’s June 14, 2016 

letter committing to submit portions of 

310 CMR 7.00: Appendix A, to EPA as 

a SIP revision request by one year from 

our final action on these ISIPs. 

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, 

EPA may conditionally approve a plan 

based on a commitment from the State 

to adopt specific enforceable measures 

by a date certain, but not later than one 

year from the date of approval. If EPA 

conditionally approves these 

commitments in a final rulemaking 

action, Massachusetts must meet its 

commitments to: Submit an updated 

version of 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution 

Control, containing a calendar date to 

clarify which NAAQS are being 

referenced, to fully meet the 

requirements of element 110(a)(2)(A); 

submit revisions to its SIP-approved 

nonattainment new source review 

regulations to fully meet the 

requirements of element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II); and, submit a 

regulation addressing the contingency 

plan requirement of section 110(a)(2)(G). 

If the State fails to do so, this action will 

become a disapproval one year from the 

date of final approval. EPA will notify 

the State by letter that this action has 

occurred. At that time, these 

commitments will no longer be a part of 

the approved Massachusetts SIP. EPA 

subsequently will publish a document 

in the Federal Register notifying the 

public that the conditional approval(s) 

automatically converted to a 

disapproval(s). If the State meets its 

commitments within the applicable 

time frame, the conditionally approved 

submissions will remain a part of the 

SIP until EPA takes final action 

approving or disapproving them. If EPA 

disapproves the new submittals, the 

conditionally approved regulations will 

also be disapproved at that time. If EPA 

approves the submittals, the regulations 

will be fully approved in its entirety and 

replace the conditionally approved 

program in the SIP. If EPA determines 

that it cannot issue a final conditional 

approval or if the conditional approvals 

are converted to disapprovals, such 

action will trigger the Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requirement 

under section 110(c). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking, 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 into the 

Massachusetts SIP M.G.L c. 268A, 

sections 6 and 6A of the 

Commonwealth’s Conflict of Interest 

law submitted to EPA on June 6, 2014. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, this document generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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); 

• 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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47144 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1The design value is a statistic computed 

according to the data handling procedures of the 

NAAQS (in 40 CFR part 50 appendix T) that, by 

comparison to the level of the NAAQS, indicates 

whether the area is violating the NAAQS. For SO2, 

the design value is the three-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum 

concentrations. 

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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Sulfur Oxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 5, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17069 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0599; FRL–9949–28– 

Region 5] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of 

the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH Sulfur 

Dioxide Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

redesignate the Ohio portion of the 

Campbell-Clermont KY-OH sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area from 

nonattainment to attainment. The Ohio 

portion of this area consists of Pierce 

Township in Clermont County, Ohio. 

EPA is also proposing to approve Ohio’s 

maintenance plan submitted on August 

11, 2015. The primary emission source 

in the area has permanently closed, and 

the air quality in the area is now 

meeting the SO2 standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 19, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0599 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. 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, 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. 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Portanova, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954, 

portanova.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Redesignation Requirements 

III. Determination of Attainment 

IV. Ohio’s Section 110(k) SIP 

V. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Reductions 

VI. Requirements for the Area Under Section 

110 and Part D 

VII. Maintenance Plan 

VIII. What action is EPA taking? 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June 

22, 2010), EPA established a revised 

primary SO2 national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts 

per billion (ppb), which is met at a 

monitoring site when the three-year 

average of the 99th percentile of daily 

maximum one-hour concentrations does 

not exceed 75 ppb. On August 5, 2013 

(78 FR 47191), EPA published its initial 

air quality designations for the SO2

NAAQS based upon air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2009–2011. In that action, the CampbellClermont KY-OH area was designated 

nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The 

Campbell-Clermont KY-OH 

nonattainment area is comprised of 

Pierce Township in Clermont County, 

Ohio, and five census tracts in Campbell 

County, Kentucky. The Ohio portion of 

the nonattainment area contains the 

Walter C. Beckjord power plant 

(Beckjord plant). The Kentucky portion 

of the nonattainment area has less than 

nine tons of total SO2 emissions per 

year, but it contains the SO2 monitor 

which had violated the SO2 standard as 

of 2011. 

By April 4, 2015, Ohio and Kentucky 

were required to submit nonattainment 

plan SIPs that meet the requirements of 

sections 172(c) and 191–192 of the CAA, 

and provide for attainment of the 

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than October 4, 2018. Ohio’s 

analysis found the Beckjord plant to be 

the main contributor to SO2 monitored 

levels in the nonattainment area. In 

2011, the Beckjord plant had reported 

90,835 tons of SO2 emissions. However, 

in late 2014, the Beckjord plant 

permanently ceased operations. Its coalfired electricity generating units were 

shut down as of September 2014, and its 

oil-fired units ceased operations by the 

end of 2014. Sulfur dioxide emissions at 

the Beckjord plant totaled 32,603 tons in 

2014, and zero tons in 2015. Currently, 

the total point, area, and mobile source 

SO2 emissions in the entire CampbellClermont KY-OH nonattainment area 

are approximately 17 tons per year (tpy). 

Because of the significant, permanent 

and enforceable reduction in SO2

emissions affecting the nonattainment 

area, and because the Campbell County 

SO2 monitor’s three-year SO2 design 

value 1 for 2012–2014 had fallen below 

the SO2 NAAQS, Ohio chose to submit 

a redesignation request in 2015, in lieu 

of a nonattainment SIP. On August 11, 

2015, the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) 

submitted its request to EPA to 

redesignate the Ohio portion of the 

Campbell-Clermont KY-OH 

nonattainment area to attainment. For 

the reasons set forth in this document, 

EPA is proposing to redesignate the area 

to attainment. 

II. Redesignation Requirements 

Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), there 

are five criteria which must be met 

before a nonattainment area may be 

redesignated to attainment. 

1. EPA has determined that the 

relevant NAAQS has been attained in 

the area. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS