Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0445-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Massachusetts; Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Lowell
Posted Date: 2011-02-17T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9281-9283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3613]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0445; A-1-FRL-9267-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Massachusetts; Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Lowell

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Massachusetts. This SIP submittal 
contains revisions to the carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for 
Lowell, Massachusetts. Specifically, Massachusetts has revised the 
contingency plan portion of the original maintenance plan. The intended 
effect of this action is to propose approval of this revision to the 
Lowell CO maintenance plan. This action is being taken in accordance 
with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2010-0445 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0445'', 
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 
02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, 
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, 
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The 
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2010-0445. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. 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 either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post 
Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 
excluding legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical 
support document are also available for public inspection during normal 
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; Division of Air 
Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter 
Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality 
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number 
(617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, e-mail 
mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 9282]]

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Summary of SIP Revision
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On April 14, 2010, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection (DEP) submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) for Massachusetts. The SIP revision consists of a minor 
modification to the carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for Lowell, 
Massachusetts. (A redesignation request and a maintenance plan for the 
Lowell CO nonattainment area were approved by EPA on February 19, 2002 
(67 FR 7272).) The modification changes the triggering mechanism which 
will be used by the State to determine if contingency measures need to 
be implemented in Lowell.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Lowell carbon monoxide 
maintenance plan submitted by the State of Massachusetts on April 14, 
2010. Specifically, EPA is proposing approval of the State's 
modification of the portion of the maintenance plan used to determine 
when contingency measures need to be triggered to reduce CO 
concentrations in Lowell. This proposed action, if finalized, would 
allow the discontinuation of CO monitoring in the Lowell maintenance 
area.
    Massachusetts's SIP revision and EPA's evaluation of this SIP 
revision are discussed below. Additional details are also provided in a 
memorandum dated January 24, 2011, entitled ``Technical Support 
Document for Revision to the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 
Lowell, Massachusetts'' (TSD). The TSD and Massachusetts's submittal 
are available in the docket supporting this action.

III. Summary of SIP Revision

    On April 14, 2010, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection submitted a SIP revision to EPA that contains a modification 
to its CO maintenance plan for the Lowell CO maintenance area. The 
modifications to the maintenance plan change the triggering mechanism 
by which contingency measures would be implemented and will allow the 
State to discontinue CO monitoring in the Lowell maintenance area. CO 
concentrations measured in Lowell have been below the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nearly 25 years, and in recent years, 
maximum measured concentrations have been less than 30% of the 9 parts 
per million (ppm) 8-hour CO standard.\1\ In this SIP revision, the 
State of Massachusetts is establishing an alternative triggering 
mechanism, which will rely on CO data from a nearby CO monitor in 
Worcester, Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On January 28, 2011, EPA proposed to retain the existing CO 
standard. In this action, EPA also proposed an increase in near-road 
CO monitoring. Due to the low CO concentrations recorded at the 
Lowell monitor and the applicable monitor siting criteria, this 
monitor would not meet the requirements for a near-road monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current maintenance plan, contingency measures in Lowell 
are triggered when a violation of the CO NAAQS is measured in Lowell. 
Under the revised maintenance plan, Massachusetts will rely on data 
from the Worcester CO monitor to determine when and if monitoring will 
be reestablished in the Lowell maintenance area, and, in some 
circumstances, when contingency measures will be triggered in the 
Lowell maintenance area.
    If this proposal is finalized, Massachusetts will discontinue CO 
monitoring in Lowell. Massachusetts DEP will continue to collect and 
review CO monitoring data from nearby Worcester, MA on an on-going 
basis. In the event the second highest CO concentration in any calendar 
year monitored in Worcester reaches 75 percent of the Federal 1-hour or 
8-hour NAAQS for CO (35 and 9 ppm, respectively), Massachusetts will, 
within 9 months of recording such concentrations, re-establish a CO 
monitoring site in Lowell consistent with EPA siting criteria, and 
resume analyzing and reporting those data. Massachusetts will continue 
to commit to implement its contingency program in Lowell in the event 
that a CO violation (the ``contingency trigger'') is monitored at the 
re-established Lowell monitoring site at any time during the 
maintenance period and to consider one or more of the other EPA-
approved measures listed in the 2001 Maintenance Plan if necessary to 
reduce CO levels.
    If the Worcester CO monitor measures a violation of either the 
Federal 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, the contingency measures in 2001 
Maintenance Plan for Lowell will be implemented in Lowell, as well as 
triggering contingency measures in Worcester under the terms of the 
existing Maintenance Plan for Worcester, until a re-established Lowell 
CO monitor shows that the area is attainment of the CO standard.
    When implementing contingency measures, Massachusetts will review 
and implement the measures necessary to remedy the violation, including 
transportation control measures (TCM) or other additional vehicle or 
fuel controls.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision

    EPA agrees that the mechanism described above represents an 
acceptable contingency triggering mechanism for the Lowell CO 
maintenance plan. If the proposed approval of this revised triggering 
mechanism is finalized, Massachusetts DEP will be allowed to 
discontinue monitoring in the Lowell area, which we believe is 
appropriate for this area which is currently measuring concentrations 
well below the 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS. Under this plan, we believe 
air quality goals can be maintained, and State monitoring resources 
conserved.
    On October 17, 2006, EPA published a final monitoring rule revising 
minimum monitoring requirements, which was codified in 40 CFR part 58. 
(See 71 FR 61236.) That rule explicitly recognized that, in some cases 
where measured levels of pollutants are low, shutting down certain CO 
monitors may be allowed without revising the SIP. (See 40 CFR 
58.14(c)(1)-(6).) The rule, however, also explicitly provides that if a 
monitor is the only monitor in the area, and it serves as a trigger to 
implement a contingency measure in an EPA-approved maintenance plan, 
then the monitor may not be discontinued. (See 40 CFR 58.14(c)(1).) 
Rather, in this case the maintenance plan would need to be revised, and 
the trigger replaced. (See 71 FR 61250 and 71 FR 61301.)
    As described above, this action is proposing to approve a change to 
the mechanism that Massachusetts will use to determine when contingency 
measures need to be triggered to reduce CO concentrations in Lowell. 
Previously, the State would implement a contingency measure based on 
concentrations of CO monitored in Lowell. In light of the fact that 
Lowell CO concentrations have been well below the standard for some 
time, the State is looking to conserve resources. Massachusetts DEP 
wants to use its CO monitor in Worcester, a nearby city, to aid in 
determining if Lowell has a CO problem. Lowell and Worcester are 
located 42 miles apart. Worcester (population 175,011) \2\ is somewhat 
larger than Lowell (population

[[Page 9283]]

103,615) \3\, so its CO concentrations can be expected to be slightly 
higher due to greater motor vehicle emissions. CO concentrations in 
Lowell and Worcester have tracked very closely for many years. (The TSD 
provides a comparison of the data collected at the Lowell and Worcester 
CO monitors over the last twenty-five years.) Both cities were 
designated nonattainment in 1990 for CO ``by operation of law,'' though 
both had design values below the standard at that time. In both cases, 
only the city itself was designated nonattainment since data did not 
support an expansion of the nonattainment area. Both cities were 
redesignated to attainment in 2000, and both have measured CO 
concentrations well below the standard since that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Population Estimates.
    \3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to conserve resources, the State is seeking to discontinue 
monitoring in Lowell since current air quality levels do not warrant 
the additional expense of running a CO monitor in this area. The State 
has committed to continue CO monitoring in Worcester, and will 
reestablish CO monitoring in Lowell if air quality in Worcester 
degrades significantly. In Massachusetts (as in many other places), CO 
is primarily emitted by on and off-road mobile sources. Starting in the 
early 1970s, EPA has set national standards that have considerably 
reduced emissions of CO and other pollutants from motor vehicles, 
including tailpipe emissions, new vehicle technologies, and clean fuels 
programs. Moreover, the Massachusetts SIP requires that new or modified 
large stationary sources demonstrate that their emissions will not 
cause an exceedance of any NAAQS. Finally, growth is not likely to 
result in increased CO levels because the CO reductions described above 
have occurred even as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have increased. (See 
VMT data in TSD.) For this reason, EPA believes that it is unlikely 
that the Lowell or Worcester maintenance area will exceed the CO NAAQS 
again. Thus, we believe that the revisions that Massachusetts has made 
to the Lowell maintenance plan will continue to protect the citizens of 
Massachusetts from high CO concentrations, and also conserve resources.
    EPA is proposing to approve the Massachusetts SIP revision for the 
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Lowell, which was submitted on 
April 14, 2010. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues 
discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments 
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this Federal Register.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the Lowell CO 
maintenance plan submitted by the State of Massachusetts on April 14, 
2010. Specifically, EPA is proposing approval of the State's request to 
modify the portion of the maintenance plan used to determine when 
contingency measures need to be implemented in Lowell. As described in 
more detail above, if this proposal is finalized, the State will shut 
down the Lowell CO monitor and rely on data from the CO monitor in 
Worcester to determine when and if monitoring will be reestablished in 
the Lowell maintenance area, and, in some circumstances, when 
contingency measures will be triggered in the Lowell maintenance area.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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, this rule does not have Tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: February 8, 2011.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2011-3613 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P