Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0353-0013
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Massachusetts; Transport Element for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Posted Date: 2019-11-13T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61560-61563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24323]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0353; FRL-10001-80-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Transport Element for the 2010 
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

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 
Massachusetts. This revision addresses the interstate transport 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the good 
neighbor provision, for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action approves 
Massachusetts's certification that air emissions in the Commonwealth 
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0353. 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

[[Page 61561]]

Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Townsend, Air Quality 
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post 
Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 
(617) 918-1614, email hubbard.elizabeth@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 August 8, 2019 (84 FR 38898), the EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to approve the February 9, 2018 submittal 
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as meeting the interstate 
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS, commonly referred to as the good neighbor 
provision. Other specific requirements and the rationale for the EPA's 
proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated 
here. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before 
September 9, 2019.

II. Response to Comments

    The EPA received one adverse comment from an anonymous commenter. 
This comment is included in the docket for this final action. The EPA 
has summarized the comment and provided a response below.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the EPA should evaluate all 
sources of SO2 emissions in Massachusetts located near the 
border of the SO2 nonattainment area in New Hampshire, 
rather than focus our analysis on large SO2 sources located 
farther from the nonattainment area in New Hampshire. The commenter 
expressed concern about the 100 tons per year (tpy) SO2 
emissions threshold by stating that the EPA arbitrarily picked 100 tpy 
as a threshold, and that smaller sources of annual emissions can 
violate a 1-hour standard. The commenter asserted that ``EPA must 
perform modeling to affirmatively rule out any stationary source of 
SO2 emissions don't contribute to the SO2 non-
attainment area in the neighboring state of New Hampshire,'' not just 
those emitting over 100 tpy of SO2.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that 
modeling must be performed to rule out significant contribution to 
SO2 nonattainment in New Hampshire from any stationary 
source of SO2 emissions and that the use of a 100 tpy 
threshold was inappropriate. The EPA continues to believe that a weight 
of evidence (WOE) approach is sufficient to determine if a state has 
satisfied the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, and there is no legal requirement in the CAA 
suggesting that dispersion modeling must be used to evaluate good 
neighbor SIPs.
    Regarding the statement about modeling, EPA notes that it did not 
independently model any sources as part of its evaluation of 
Massachusetts's good neighbor SIP submission, including sources 
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km from the 
Massachusetts border. However, when reliable and relevant modeling 
information is available, the EPA may utilize this information to 
inform its determination of whether a state has satisfied the good 
neighbor provision. As further discussed in the NPRM, Massachusetts 
reviewed potential SO2 impacts on the Central New Hampshire 
nonattainment area. New Hampshire submitted an attainment plan for the 
Central New Hampshire nonattainment area on January 31, 2017, which 
relied mainly on the emissions limits and other conditions established 
for the Merrimack Generating Station, and the EPA approved that plan on 
June 5, 2018.\1\ New Hampshire's attainment plan and demonstration for 
the central New Hampshire nonattainment area relied on air dispersion 
modeling of the 1-hour critical emission value shown to be equivalent 
to the federally-enforceable 7-boiler operating day allowable emissions 
limit for the Merrimack Generating Station. This modeling analysis 
included the addition of monitored background SO2 
concentrations. These measured background concentrations account for 
potential contributions from all Massachusetts sources, not just those 
emitting greater than 100 tpy. The New Hampshire modeling analysis 
demonstrated that allowable emissions from Merrimack Generating 
Station, in addition to the background levels, will not cause a 
violation of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The attainment plan did 
not require any reductions from Massachusetts sources, and relied 
solely on controls and limits at Merrimack Generating Station to 
address the nonattainment. On September 20, 2019, the EPA took final 
action to approve New Hampshire's maintenance plan, submitted to ensure 
the area will continue to maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, for 
the Central New Hampshire area.\2\ This final action also formally 
redesignated the Central New Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment 
Area to Attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, the 
EPA still concludes that sources in Massachusetts do not contribute 
significantly to SO2 nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance in the Central New Hampshire area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the EPA's final action on the Central New Hampshire 
Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at 83 FR 
25922 (June 5, 2018).
    \2\ See 84 FR 49467 (September 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the 
NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from 
Massachusetts to neighboring states. The EPA's analysis includes the 
following factors: (1) Ambient air quality data for active 
SO2 monitors in Massachusetts or in a neighboring or 
downwind state within 50 km of the Massachusetts border, (2) emissions 
information for SO2 sources in Massachusetts emitting 
greater than 100 tpy and located within 50 km of the Massachusetts 
border, (3) emissions information for SO2 sources in 
neighboring or downwind states emitting more than 100 tpy and located 
within 50 km of the Massachusetts border, (4) available modeling and 
monitoring information for any area within 50 km of the Massachusetts 
border, including for Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and (5) SO2 
emissions trends in Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states.
    Regarding the commenter's concern with the focus on individual 
facilities which emitted above 100 tpy (using the most recent year for 
which point source emission data was available, i.e., 2017); the EPA 
disagrees that this focus on such sources is arbitrary. The EPA noted 
in the NPRM to this final action that Massachusetts limited its 
analysis to sources emitting greater than 100 tpy of SO2. 
These emissions account for 96 percent of Massachusetts's statewide 
SO2 emissions from point sources, and thus are appropriate 
to evaluate for purposes of determining whether there is any emissions 
activity within the state that is in violation of the good neighbor 
provision. The EPA independently assessed which sources emitting over 
100 tpy could have the most potential impact on downwind

[[Page 61562]]

and neighboring states. Based on the assessment contained in the NPRM, 
the EPA stated ``we agree with Massachusetts's choice to limit its 
analysis in this way, because in the absence of special factors, for 
example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual factors, 
Massachusetts sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately be 
assumed to not be causing or contributing to SO2 
concentrations above the NAAQS. The EPA recognizes that in 2017 Ardagh 
Glass Inc. emitted 92 tpy SO2, with the next highest source 
(Wheelabrator Saugus Inc) emitting 54 tpy SO2. Ardagh Glass 
Inc. has permanently ceased operations as of September 26, 2018. Given 
these facts, the EPA finds Massachusetts's analysis of SO2 
sources above 100 tpy adequate for analysis of SO2 transport 
impacts to neighboring and downwind states.'' \3\ The EPA continues to 
find this statement accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 84 FR 38898 (August 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that the commenter did not provide a technical 
analysis or additional information indicating that sources emitting 100 
tpy or less within 50 km of the border may have downwind impacts that 
violate the good neighbor provision. For these reasons, the EPA finds 
that our analysis of the Massachusetts sources in the proposal, 
considered alongside other WOE factors described in that document, 
support the EPA's conclusion that Massachusetts has satisfied the good 
neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Massachusetts's February 9, 2018 interstate 
transport SIP for the 2010 SO2 1-hour NAAQS as a revision to 
the Massachusetts SIP.

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 January 13, 2020. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 1, 2019.
Dennis Deziel,
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart W--Massachusetts

0
2. In Sec.  52.1120(e), amend the table by adding the entry 
``Certification of Adequacy of Massachusetts 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 
Infrastructure SIP to Address the Good Neighbor Requirements of Clean 
Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' to the end of the table to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1120  Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

[[Page 61563]]

                                          Massachusetts Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal
    Name of non regulatory SIP         geographic or        date/       EPA approved date       Explanations
            provision               nonattainment area    effective            \3\
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Certification of Adequacy of       Statewide...........     2/9/2018  10/13/2019 [Insert
 Massachusetts 2010 Sulfur                                             Federal Register
 Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure SIP                                      citation].
 to Address the Good Neighbor
 Requirements of Clean Air Act
 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To 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. 2019-24323 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P