Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0748-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Massachusetts; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Transport Provisions for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Posted Date: 2019-02-20T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5020-5032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02658]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0748; FRL-9989-41-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Transport 
Provisions for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve most elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the infrastructure 
requirements for the 2012 fine particle (PM2.5) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), including the interstate 
transport requirements. We are proposing findings of failure to submit 
for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of 
infrastructure SIPs for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are also 
proposing several actions related to infrastructure SIP requirements 
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, including approvals for 
previously unaddressed elements and converting certain previous 
conditional approvals to full approval. We are also proposing to 
convert to full approvals previous conditional approvals for the 1997 
and 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 sulfur dioxide, and 2010 nitrogen 
dioxide NAAQS. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve five new or amended 
definitions regarding the NAAQS and Particulate Matter and a state 
Executive Order regarding consultation by state agencies with local 
governments. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2018-0748 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
simcox.alison@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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly 
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov 
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 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 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional 
Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, 
MA 02109--3912, tel. (617) 918-1684; simcox.alison@epa.gov.

[[Page 5021]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
    A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions does this rulemaking 
address?
    B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
III. EPA's review
    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
    D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
    E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
    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; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 
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
    N. Massachusetts Regulation and Executive Order Submitted for 
Incorporation Into the SIP
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses a February 9, 2018, submission from the 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 
regarding the infrastructure SIP requirements of the CAA for the 2012 
fine particle (PM2.5) \1\ National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS). The February 2018 submission also includes the 
interstate transport requirements for the 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, this rulemaking addresses the 
interstate transport requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
which the Commonwealth submitted on January 31, 2008. Under sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, States are required to provide 
infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that State SIPs provide for 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including 
the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 
or less in diameter, often referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, this rulemaking addresses a portion of a Massachusetts SIP 
submission dated May 14, 2018, which includes five new or amended 
definitions in 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.00.

B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting on a February 2018 submission from MassDEP that 
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submission also 
addresses the ``Good Neighbor'' or interstate transport requirements 
for infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
In addition, EPA is acting on a January 31, 2008, submission from the 
Commonwealth that addresses interstate transport requirements for the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This 
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an 
``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity 
in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it 
is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of 
acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided 
comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions through a 
guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and through 
regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\2\ Unless otherwise 
noted below, we are following that existing approach in acting on this 
submission. In addition, in the context of acting on such 
infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state's SIP 
for factual compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, not 
for the state's implementation of its SIP.\3\ The EPA has other 
authority to address any issues concerning a state's implementation of 
the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its 
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure 
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior 
action on Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP to address the 1997 
ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, and 2010 sulfur 
dioxide NAAQS. 81 FR 93627 (December 21, 2016).
    \3\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in 
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 
(August 30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?

    EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure 
SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2, 
2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 
memorandum). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and 
memoranda, including a September 25, 2009, memorandum 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 memorandum), and a September 13, 
2013, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 memorandum).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These memoranda and other referenced guidance documents and 
memoranda are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the ``Good Neighbor'' or interstate transport 
requirements for infrastructure SIPs, the most recent relevant EPA 
guidance is a memorandum published on March 17, 2016, entitled 
``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision 
for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2016 
memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes EPA's past approach to 
addressing interstate transport and provides EPA's general review of 
relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to 
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides 
information relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``Good Neighbor'' provision requirements in 
infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS.

III. EPA's Review

    EPA is soliciting comment on our evaluation of Massachusetts' 
infrastructure SIP submissions as presented in this notice of proposed

[[Page 5022]]

rulemaking. Massachusetts' February 9, 2018, submission includes a 
detailed list of Massachusetts Laws and previously SIP-approved Air 
Quality Regulations to show precisely how the various components of its 
EPA-approved SIP meet each of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of 
the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The following review 
evaluates the Commonwealth's submission 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 (also referred to as an element) of the Act 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.\5\ In the context of an infrastructure 
SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this 
purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether Massachusetts' SIP has 
basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, for example, EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (November 12, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.) c. 21A, Sec.  8, Executive 
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Organization of Departments; 
powers, duties and functions, creates and sets forth the 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, Sec. Sec.  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, Sec.  18, Permit applications and compliance 
assurance fees; timeline action schedules; regulations, authorizes 
MassDEP to establish fees applicable to the regulatory programs it 
administers. MassDEP's February 9, 2018, infrastructure SIP for the 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS included a request to add M.G.L. c.21A, 
Sec.  18 to the Massachusetts SIP. In a letter dated February 6, 2019, 
the state withdrew this request.
    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, and 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control 
Regulations. For example, many SIP-approved 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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
including but not limited to, 7.06, Visible Emissions; 7.07, Open 
Burning; 7.08, Incinerators; and 7.29, Emission Standards for Power 
Plants.
    On May 14, 2018, MassDEP submitted a SIP revision to EPA that 
included new or amended definitions in 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution 
Control: Definitions. Specifically, these definitions include: National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Federal Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, PM10 or Particulate Matter 10, PM10 
Emissions, PM2.5 or Particulate Matter 2.5, and 
PM2.5 Emissions. In a final rule dated December 21, 2016 (81 
FR 93627), EPA conditionally approved several Massachusetts 
infrastructure submissions \6\ for section 110(a)(2)(A) because the 
SIP-approved version of 310 CMR 7.00 did not contain a definition for 
``NAAQS,'' resulting in uncertainty as to which version of the NAAQS 
the term incorporated. However, the definition of ``NAAQS'' added to 
310 CMR 7.00 clarifies that references to NAAQS are to all current 
NAAQS, including the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we are 
proposing to approve this definition plus the additional definitions 
given above related to Particulate Matter included in MassDEP's May 
2018 submission. This action will convert the former conditional 
approvals \7\ of this section to a full approval. The new definitions 
also address two earlier conditional approvals of this section for the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012). 
Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS and proposes to convert to full approval conditional approvals of 
this section for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 
PM2.5, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, and 
2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The submissions were for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 
ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, and 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS.
    \7\ See supra, note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 provide for establishment and 
operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures 
necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze ambient air quality data, 
and make such 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, 
Sec. Sec.  142B to 142D, MassDEP operates an air-monitoring network. 
EPA approved Massachusetts' most recent Annual Air Monitoring Network 
Plan (ANP) for PM2.5 on May 9, 2018. This approval excluded 
one monitor in Chelmsford that, under 40 CFR 58.10(a)(iv), was required 
to be operational by January 1, 2015, but was not operating. However, 
this monitor began operating in June 2018, measuring PM2.5, 
ozone, and NO2. In addition to having an adequate air-
monitoring network, 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 Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2012 PM2.5 
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 new source review (NSR) 
requirements under prevention of significant deterioration (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

[[Page 5023]]

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the following: (i) Enforcement of SIP 
measures; (ii) PSD program for major sources and major modifications; 
and (iii) a permit program for minor sources and minor modifications.
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, Sec.  2C, 
Pollution violations; orders of department of environmental protection, 
which authorizes MassDEP to issue orders enforcing pollution control 
regulations generally; M.G.L. c.111, Sec. Sec.  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, Sec.  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, SIP-approved 
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 meets the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
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, regarding 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 proposes a finding of failure to 
submit with respect to the PSD-related requirements of this sub-element 
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\8\ 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 Commonwealth 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA has previously issued findings of failure to submit 
infrastructure SIPs addressing the PSD-related requirements of 
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 73 FR 16205 (March 27, 
2008), the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 78 FR 2882 (January 15, 2013), the 2008 
Pb NAAQS, 78 FR 12961 (February 26, 2013), and the 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 81 FR 93627 (December 
21, 2016). Massachusetts has made no additional submissions to 
address the PSD-related requirements for these NAAQS since those 
previous findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS.
    In summary, we are proposing to find that, for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS, Massachusetts meets the enforcement-related 
aspects of Section 110(a)(2)(C) for sub-element 1 and the 
preconstruction permitting requirements for minor sources for sub-
element 3. However, pursuant to section 110(c)(1), we are proposing to 
find that the Commonwealth has failed to make the required submissions 
related to major source preconstruction permitting (sub-element 2) for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

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 with which States 
must comply. It covers the following five topics, categorized as sub-
elements: Sub-element 1, Significant contribution to nonattainment, and 
interference 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 four prongs 
discussed below, two of which are found within sub-element 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.
Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to Nonattainment 
(Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 2)
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a SIP to prohibit 
any emissions activity in the State that will contribute significantly 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any 
downwind State. EPA commonly refers to these requirements as prong 1 
(significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference 
with maintenance), or jointly as the ``Good Neighbor'' or ``transport'' 
provisions of the CAA. This rulemaking proposes action on the portion 
of Massachusetts' February 2018 SIP submission that addresses the prong 
1 and 2 requirements with respect to the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS. On December 26, 2017, EPA issued a finding that Massachusetts 
had failed to submit a SIP addressing the transport provisions 
(including prongs 1 and 2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 82 
FR 60870. The February 2018 submittal resolves this issue.
    EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong 1 
and 2 interstate-transport requirements with respect to the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The 
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind 
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining 
the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind States contribute to these 
identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and 
analysis; (3) for States identified as contributing to downwind air 
quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to 
prevent an upwind State from significantly

[[Page 5024]]

contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 
NAAQS downwind; and (4) for States that are found to have emissions 
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind 
emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This 
framework was most recently applied with respect to PM2.5 in 
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed both the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone 
standard. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    EPA's analysis for CSAPR, conducted consistent with the four-step 
framework, included air-quality modeling that evaluated the impacts of 
38 eastern States on identified receptors in the eastern United States. 
EPA indicated that, for step 2 of the framework, States with impacts on 
downwind receptors that are below the contribution threshold of 1% of 
the relevant NAAQS would not be considered to significantly contribute 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS, 
and would, therefore, not be included in CSAPR. See 76 FR 48220. EPA 
further indicated that such States could rely on EPA's analysis for 
CSAPR as technical support to demonstrate that their existing or future 
interstate transport SIP submittals are adequate to address the 
transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 
relevant NAAQS. Id.
    In addition, as noted above, on March 17, 2016, EPA released the 
2016 memorandum to provide information to States as they develop SIPs 
addressing the Good Neighbor provision as it pertains to the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Consistent with step 1 of the framework, the 
2016 memorandum provides projected future-year annual PM2.5 
design values for monitors throughout the country based on quality-
assured and certified ambient-monitoring data and recent air-quality 
modeling and explains the methodology used to develop these projected 
design values. The memorandum also describes how the projected values 
can be used to help determine which monitors should be further 
evaluated to potentially address if emissions from other States 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at these monitoring sites. The 2016 
memorandum explained that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality 
for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. 
Accordingly, because the available data included 2017 and 2025 
projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated 
through the CAMx photochemical model, the memorandum suggests 
approaches States might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at 
sites in 2021.
    For all, but one, monitoring sites in the eastern United States, 
the modeling data provided in the 2016 memorandum showed that monitors 
were expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results project that this one 
monitor, the Liberty monitor, (ID number 420030064), located in 
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, will be above the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017, but only under the model's maximum 
projected conditions, which are used in EPA's interstate transport 
framework to identify maintenance receptors. The Liberty monitor (along 
with all the other Allegheny County monitors) is projected to both 
attain and maintain the NAAQS in 2025. The 2016 memorandum suggests 
that under such a condition (again, where EPA's photochemical modeling 
indicates an area will maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
in 2025, but not in 2017), further analysis of the site should be 
performed to determine if the site may be a nonattainment or 
maintenance receptor in 2021 (which, again, is the attainment deadline 
for moderate PM2.5 areas). The memorandum also indicates 
that for certain States with incomplete ambient monitoring data, 
additional information including the latest available data, should be 
analyzed to determine whether there are potential downwind air quality 
problems that may be impacted by transported emissions. This rulemaking 
considers these analyses for Massachusetts, as well as additional 
analysis conducted by EPA during review of Massachusetts' submittal.
    To develop the projected values presented in the memorandum, EPA 
used the results of nationwide photochemical air-quality modeling that 
it recently performed to support several rulemakings related to the 
ozone NAAQS. Base-year modeling was performed for 2011. Future-year 
modeling was performed for 2017 to support the proposed CSAPR Update 
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 75705 (December 3, 2015). Future-
year modeling was also performed for 2025 to support the Regulatory 
Impact Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone NAAQS.\9\ The outputs from 
these model runs included hourly concentrations of PM2.5 
that were used in conjunction with measured data to project annual 
average PM2.5 design values for 2017 and 2025. Areas that 
were designated as moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas for 
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014 must attain the NAAQS by 
December 31, 2021, or as expeditiously as practicable. Although neither 
the available 2017 nor 2025 future-year modeling data correspond 
directly to the future-year attainment deadline for moderate 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, EPA believes that the modeling 
information is still helpful for identifying potential nonattainment 
and maintenance receptors in the 2017 through 2021 period. Assessing 
downwind PM2.5 air-quality problems based on estimates of 
air-quality concentrations in a future year aligned with the relevant 
attainment deadline is consistent with the instructions from the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in North 
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008), that upwind 
emission reductions should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with 
the attainment deadlines for downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/20151001ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massachusetts' Submissions for Prongs 1 and 2
    The submissions addressed herein pertain to the 1997, 2006, and 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Below is a brief history of these NAAQS.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for PM2.5 
(62 FR 38652). This new NAAQS established a primary (health-based) 
annual standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) based on 
a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 
24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th 
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 
61144), EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 [mu]g/
m\3\ to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the annual PM2.5 standard 
at a level of 15 [mu]g/m\3\. On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA 
revised the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15 [mu]g/m\3\ to 12 
[mu]g/m\3\ and retained the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a 
level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
    On January 31, 2008, MassDEP submitted an infrastructure SIP for 
the 1997 Ozone NAAQS that included interstate transport provisions 
addressing prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS (i.e., ``transport SIP''). This transport SIP relied in part on 
EPA's analysis

[[Page 5025]]

performed for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) rulemaking as well 
as EPA's newer NONROAD model (version 2005a, February 2006) for 
modeling non-road motor vehicles in Massachusetts to conclude that the 
State will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind 
area. CAIR was replaced by CSAPR, which is discussed above, as of 
January 1, 2015.
    On February 9, 2018, MassDEP submitted an infrastructure SIP for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS that included interstate transport 
provisions addressing prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. These transport SIPs relied in part on EPA's 
analysis performed for the CSAPR rulemaking to conclude that the State 
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2006 or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind 
area.
    EPA analyzed Massachusetts' January 2008 and February 2018 
submittals to determine whether they fully addressed the prong 1 and 2 
transport provisions with respect to the 1997, 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed below, EPA concludes that 
emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 
(NOX and SO2) in Massachusetts will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 1997, 2006 or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State.
Analysis of Massachusetts' Submissions for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS
    With respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's 
analysis in the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking determined that Massachusetts' 
impact to all downwind receptors would be below the 1% contribution 
threshold for both NAAQS for the annual (i.e., 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\) and 24-
hour standards (i.e., 0.65 [mu]g/m\3\ (1997) and 0.35 [mu]g/m\3\ 
(2006)), indicating that the Commonwealth will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance for the 1997 
or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind State. See 76 FR at 
48240, 48242. As noted above, EPA previously determined that States can 
rely on EPA's CSAPR analysis for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS as technical support to demonstrate that their existing or future 
interstate transport SIP submittals are adequate to address the 
transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the relevant 
NAAQS. Accordingly, as EPA's CSAPR analysis concluded that 
Massachusetts will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
we propose to approve Massachusetts' January 31, 2008, and February 9, 
2018, SIP submissions for prongs 1 and 2 for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Analysis of Massachusetts' Submission for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS
    As noted above, the modeling discussed in EPA's 2016 memorandum 
identified one potential maintenance receptor for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS at the Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064), 
located in Allegheny County. The memorandum also identified certain 
States with incomplete ambient monitoring data as areas that may 
require further analysis to determine whether there are potential 
downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported 
emissions.
    While developing the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking, EPA modeled the impacts 
of all 38 eastern States in its modeling domain on fine particulate 
matter concentrations at downwind receptors in other States in the 2012 
analysis year to evaluate the contribution of upwind States on downwind 
States with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5. Although the 
modeling was not conducted for purposes of analyzing upwind States' 
impacts on downwind receptors with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS, the contribution analysis for the 1997 and 2006 standards can be 
informative for evaluating Massachusetts' compliance with the Good 
Neighbor provision for the 2012 standard.
    This CSAPR modeling showed that Massachusetts had a very small 
impact (0.008 [mu]g/m\3\) on the Liberty monitor in Allegheny County, 
which is the only out-of-State monitor that may be a nonattainment or 
maintenance receptor in 2021. Although EPA has not proposed a specific 
threshold for evaluating the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA notes 
that Massachusetts' impact on the Liberty monitor is far below the 
threshold of 1% for the annual 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 0.12 
[mu]g/m\3\) that EPA previously used to evaluate the contribution of 
upwind States to downwind air-quality monitors. (A spreadsheet showing 
CSAPR contributions for ozone and PM2.5 is included in 
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4228.) Therefore, even if the Liberty 
monitor were considered a receptor for purposes of transport, the EPA 
proposes to conclude that Massachusetts will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS at that monitor.
    In addition, the Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and expected emissions reductions in the 
next four years will lead to additional reductions in measured 
PM2.5 concentrations. There are both local and regional 
components to measured PM2.5 levels. All monitors in 
Allegheny County have a regional component, with the Liberty monitor 
most strongly influenced by local sources. This is confirmed by the 
fact that annual average measured concentrations at the Liberty monitor 
have consistently been 2-4 [mu]g/m\3\ higher than other monitors in 
Allegheny County.
    Specifically, previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional 
emissions from upwind States, particularly SO2 and 
NOX emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment 
at the Liberty monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and 
NOX reductions from power plants have occurred in 
Pennsylvania and States upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. 
Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will have 
decreased 166,000 tons between 2015 and 2017 because of CSAPR 
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions 
controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs). Projected 
power plant closures and additional emissions controls in Pennsylvania 
and upwind States will help further reduce both direct PM2.5 
and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission reductions will 
continue to occur from current on-the-books Federal and State 
regulations such as the federal on-road and non-road vehicle programs, 
and various rules for major stationary emissions sources. See proposed 
and final approval of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS on December 7, 2017 (82 FR 57689) and on 
February 2, 2018 (83 FR 4845), respectively.
    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures, 
additional local reductions to both direct PM2.5 and 
SO2 emissions are expected to occur and should contribute to 
further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitor 
concentrations. For example, significant SO2 reductions have 
recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill facilities in 
southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr SO2 NAAQS 
SIP.\10\ Reductions are largely due to declining sulfur content in the 
Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG). Because this COG is burned at 
US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel 
Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should contribute to much 
lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the immediate

[[Page 5026]]

future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also projects lower 
SO2 emissions resulting from vehicle fuel standards, 
reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the 
Greater Pittsburgh region, and several shutdowns of significant sources 
of emissions in Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ www.achd.net/air/pubs/SIPs/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_9-14-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and 
upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in 
emissions between 2017 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored 
PM2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor 
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS by 2021. See proposed approval and final approval of the Ohio 
Infrastructure SIP, December 7, 2017 (82 FR 57689) and February 2, 2018 
(83 FR 4845).
    As noted in the 2016 memorandum, several States have had recent 
data-quality issues identified as part of the PM2.5 
designations process. In particular, some ambient PM2.5 data 
for some periods between 2009 and 2013 in Florida, Illinois, Idaho, 
Tennessee, and Kentucky did not meet all data-quality requirements 
under 40 CFR part 50, appendix L. The lack of data means that the 
relevant areas in those States could potentially be in nonattainment or 
be maintenance receptors in 2021. However, as mentioned above, EPA's 
analysis for the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking with respect to the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS determined that Massachusetts' impact to all 
these downwind receptors would be well below the 1% contribution 
threshold for this NAAQS. That conclusion informs the analysis of 
Massachusetts' contributions for purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS as well. Given this, and the fact, discussed below, that the 
Commonwealth's PM2.5 design values for all ambient monitors 
have declined since the 2005-2007 period, EPA concludes that it is 
highly unlikely that Massachusetts significantly contributes to 
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS in areas with data-quality issues.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Massachusetts' PM2.5 design values for all 
ambient monitors are available in the Design Value Reports at 
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values_.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information in Massachusetts' February 2018 SIP submission 
corroborates EPA's proposed conclusion that Massachusetts' SIP meets 
its Good Neighbor obligations. The State's technical analysis in that 
submission includes graphs showing downward trends in the maximum 24-
hour and annual PM2.5 design values for all six New England 
States and New York since 2007. It also includes results of EPA's CSAPR 
and CSAPR update modeling. This technical analysis is supported by 
additional indications that the State's air quality is improving and 
that emissions are falling, including certified 24-hour and annual 
PM2.5 monitor values recorded through 2017 and preliminary 
2018 results.\12\ Specifically, since 1999, the highest value 
satisfying minimum data completion criteria for the 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard was 48 [mu]g/m\3\ in Pittsfield in Berkshire 
County (1999) and in Lynn in Essex County (2003). The highest value 
satisfying minimum data completion criteria for the annual 
PM2.5 standard was 15.3 [mu]g/m\3\ in Boston in Suffolk 
County (1999). However, since 2008, all monitors in the Commonwealth 
have been below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 24-hour and annual PM2.5 monitor values for 
individual monitoring sites throughout Massachusetts are available 
at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as reported in EPA's Clean Air Markets Program 
database, actual ozone-season NOX emissions from EGUs in 
Massachusetts from 2009 through 2017 fell from 2,403.5 to 878.5 tons, 
almost one-third of what it was.
    Second, Massachusetts' sources are well-controlled. Massachusetts' 
2018 submission indicates that the Commonwealth has many SIP-approved 
regulations and programs that limit emissions of PM2.5 and 
the PM2.5 precursors SO2 and NOX.\13\ 
Among others, these regulations include 310 CMR 7.06, Visible Emissions 
(37 FR 23085; October 28, 1972); 7.07, Open Burning (45 FR 40987; June 
17, 1980); 7.08, Incinerators (64 FR 48095; September 2, 1999); 7.09, 
Dust, Odor, Construction and Demolition (81 FR 47708; July 22, 2016); 
7.19, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of 
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) (80 FR 61101; October 9, 2015); and 7.29, 
Emission Standards for Power Plants (78 FR 57487; September 19, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ SO2 and NOX contribute to the 
formation of PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should also be noted that Massachusetts is not in the CSAPR 
program because EPA analyses show that the State does not emit ozone-
season NOX at a level that contributes significantly to non-
attainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State.
    For the reasons explained herein, EPA agrees with Massachusetts' 
conclusions and proposes to determine that Massachusetts will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2006 or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State. 
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the February 2018 infrastructure SIP 
submission from Massachusetts for prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
    To prevent significant deterioration of air quality, this sub-
element requires SIPs to include provisions that prohibit any source or 
other type of emissions activity in one State from interfering with 
measures that are required in any other State's SIP under Part C of the 
CAA. One way for a State to meet this requirement, specifically with 
respect to in-State sources and pollutants that are subject to PSD 
permitting, is through a comprehensive PSD permitting program that 
applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the 
requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. For in-State sources 
not subject to PSD, this requirement can be satisfied through a fully-
approved nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program with respect to 
any previous NAAQS.
    On December 26, 2017, EPA issued a finding that Massachusetts had 
failed to submit a SIP addressing the transport provisions (including 
prong 3) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 82 FR 60870. As 
discussed under element C above, Massachusetts has long been subject to 
a PSD FIP and has implemented and enforced the federal PSD program 
through a delegation agreement with EPA. MassDEP's February 2018 
submittal does not address the PSD-related aspect of prong 3. 
Therefore, EPA's December 26, 2017, finding of failure to submit 
remains with respect to the PSD requirement of prong 3 of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS but does not 
trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation for the same reasons 
discussed under element C above.
    Under prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA also reviews the 
potential for in-State sources not subject to PSD to interfere with PSD 
in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another State. EPA generally 
considers a fully approved NNSR program adequate for purposes of 
meeting this requirement of prong 3 with respect to in-state sources 
and pollutants not subject to PSD. See 2013 memorandum. EPA last 
approved the Commonwealth's NNSR program on October 27, 2000. 65 FR 
64360. Because Massachusetts is located within the Ozone Transport 
Region (OTR), see

[[Page 5027]]

CAA section 184(a), 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a), the CAA requires sources 
emitting 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) or 50 tpy or more of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 
located in attainment or unclassifiable areas to be subject to the 
requirements that would be applicable to major stationary sources if 
the area were classified as a moderate nonattainment area. See CAA 
sections 182(f)(1), 184(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7511a, 7511c.
    In other words, even if located in an area designated attainment or 
unclassifiable for ozone, under the CAA and its implementing 
regulations, such sources are subject to NNSR rather than PSD. The 
major source threshold for NNSR in Massachusetts is currently 50 tpy 
for NOX instead of 100 tpy due to the fact that part of 
Massachusetts had been designated in 1990 as a serious nonattainment 
area for the 1979 1-hour ozone standard.\14\ \15\ Massachusetts's 
current SIP-approved NNSR regulations, however, apply by their terms 
only to nonattainment areas,\16\ meaning that sources with 50 tpy (see 
footnote 15) or more of VOCs or NOX emissions in much of 
Massachusetts are not covered by either the PSD FIP, applicable in the 
Commonwealth, or the Commonwealth's EPA-approved NNSR program. Thus, 
the Commonwealth has not shown that it has met this requirement of 
prong 3. However, as a matter of state regulation, the Commonwealth has 
promulgated and implements NNSR regulations that make the 
Commonwealth's NNSR program applicable to such sources regardless of 
area designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ On November 6, 1991, the EPA promulgated designations for 
the 1979 1-hour ozone standard. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
    \15\ Because Massachusetts is in the OTR, the major source 
threshold for VOCs is 50 tpy.
    \16\ At the time EPA last approved Massachusetts' NNSR 
regulations (October 27, 2000; 65 FR 64361), the Western 
Massachusetts area was nonattainment for the one-hour ozone 
standard, and the Eastern Massachusetts area was attaining the 
standard, but was anticipated to become nonattainment as of January 
16, 2001, upon EPA's reinstatement of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for 
that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 9, 2018, Massachusetts submitted a separate SIP 
revision to make its EPA-approved NSSR program applicable to such 
sources. EPA is proposing approval of those provisions in a separate 
rulemaking, and will take final action on that submittal prior to, or 
in conjunction with, finalizing our action on MassDEP's infrastructure 
SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, we 
propose to approve Massachusetts' submittals for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS for the NNSR aspect of prong 3.
Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection 
(Prong 4)
    Regarding 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, 2011, and 2013 memoranda 
explain that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP 
addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, 
or an approved SIP addressing regional haze. A fully approved regional 
haze SIP meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 will ensure that 
emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not 
interfering with measures required to be included in other air 
agencies' plans to protect visibility.
    On December 26, 2017, EPA issued a finding that Massachusetts had 
failed to submit a SIP addressing the transport provisions (including 
prong 4) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 82 FR 60870. 
MassDEP's February 2018 submittal resolves this issue, addressing prong 
4 by citing to Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP, which EPA approved on 
September 19, 2013. This Regional Haze SIP, which was submitted in 
December 2011, with two supplemental submittals in August 2012, meets 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See 78 FR 57487. Accordingly, EPA 
proposes that Massachusetts meets the visibility protection 
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS. Additionally, in its infrastructure submission for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS, MassDEP stated that it would rely on its 
Regional Haze SIP for this requirement. As noted above, EPA approved 
the Regional Haze SIP in 2013. Accordingly, EPA proposes that 
Massachusetts meets the visibility protection requirements of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate Pollution Abatement
    This sub-element requires that each SIP contain provisions 
requiring compliance with 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. States with SIP-approved PSD programs 
must have a provision requiring such notification by new or modified 
sources.
    As mentioned elsewhere in this document, Massachusetts is currently 
subject to a PSD FIP. In addition, Massachusetts states in its 
submittal that it relies on the PSD FIP to meet the notice requirement 
of section 126(a). Therefore, we propose 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 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS.\17\ 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. section 52.1165. Nor does the finding trigger any 
sanctions. Massachusetts has no obligations under any other provision 
of section 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed earlier, supra n.6, 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, 
2008 Pb, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International Pollution 
Abatement
    This sub-element also requires each SIP to contain provisions 
requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115 
relating to international pollution abatement. Section 115 authorizes 
the Administrator to require a state to revise its SIP to alleviate 
international transport into another country where the Administrator 
has made a finding with respect to emissions of the particular NAAQS 
pollutant and its precursors, if applicable. There are no final 
findings under section 115 against Massachusetts for the 1997, 2006, or 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts 
meets 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, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS.

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each SIP to provide assurances 
that the State will have adequate personnel, funding, and legal 
authority under State law to carry out its SIP. In addition, section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each State to comply with the requirements 
under CAA section 128 about State boards. 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,

[[Page 5028]]

the State retain responsibility for ensuring implementation of SIP 
obligations with respect to relevant NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), 
however, does not apply 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 submittal, has 
documented that its air agency has the requisite authority and 
resources to carry out its SIP obligations. Massachusetts General Laws 
c. 111, Sec. Sec.  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. Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts meets the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) 
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each SIP to contain provisions 
that comply with the State board requirements of section 128 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 cited M.G.L. c. 268A, Sec. Sec.  6 and 6A of the 
Commonwealth's Conflict of Interest law in its February 2018 
infrastructure SIP submittal for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Pursuant to these State provisions, which were approved into the 
Massachusetts SIP on December 21, 2016, 81 FR 93627, 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. Therefore, we propose to approve the Commonwealth's 
infrastructure SIP submittal for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, we propose to convert to full 
approval two conditional approvals we previously issued for 
Massachusetts with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012).

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. Lastly, the reports shall be available at reasonable times 
for public inspection.
    Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 111, Sec. Sec.  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 require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of 
emissions monitoring equipment by, and to collect information on air 
emissions from, sources in the State. The following SIP-approved 
regulations enable the accomplishment of the Commonwealth's emissions 
recording, reporting, and correlating objectives:

1. 310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration.
2. 310 CMR 7.13, Stack Testing.
3. 310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices and Reports.

    Additionally, Massachusetts statutes and regulations provide that 
emissions data shall be available for public inspection. See, e.g., 
M.G.L. c. 21I, Sec.  20(K); M.G.L. c. 111, Sec.  142B; 310 CMR 
Sec. Sec.  3.33(5), 7.12(4)(b); 7.14(1).
    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 
meets the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers

    This section requires that a plan provide for State authority 
analogous to that provided to the EPA Administrator in section 303 of 
the 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 
circumstances in which ``it is not practicable to assure prompt 
protection . . . by commencement of such civil action.''
    We propose to find that the Commonwealth's infrastructure SIP 
submittal demonstrates that certain State statutes and regulations 
provide for authority comparable to that in section 303. Massachusetts' 
submittal cites M.G.L. c. 111, Sec.  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

[[Page 5029]]

authorize the Commissioner to issue emergency orders.
    Moreover, M.G.L. c. 21A, Sec.  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 approved into the SIP on 
October 4, 2002 (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.\18\ Finally, M.G.L. c. 111, Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commonwealth's Contaminant Concentration Levels are 
found in Table 1 of 310 CMR 8.01, and match EPA's levels from 40 CFR 
51.151 except for 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that States have an approved 
contingency plan (also known as an emergency episode plan) to implement 
the air agency's emergency episode authority for any Air Quality 
Control Region (AQCR) within the State that is classified as Priority 
I, IA, or II for certain pollutants. See 40 CFR 51.152(c). For 
classifications for Massachusetts, see 40 CFR 52.1121. A contingency 
plan is not required if the entire State is classified as Priority III 
for a particular pollutant. Id. In general, contingency plans for 
Priority I, IA, and II areas must meet the applicable requirements of 
40 CFR part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153) (Prevention of 
Air Pollution Emergency Episodes) for the relevant NAAQS, if the NAAQS 
is covered by those regulations. In the case of PM2.5, EPA 
has not promulgated regulations that provide the ambient levels to 
classify different priority levels for the 2012 standard (or any 
PM2.5 NAAQS). For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's 
2009 memorandum recommends that States develop emergency episode plans 
for any area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 
levels greater than 140 [mu]g/m\3\ since 2006. EPA's review of 
Massachusetts' certified air quality data in AQS indicates that the 
highest 24-hour PM2.5 level recorded since 2006 was 72.7 
[mu]g/m\3\, which occurred in 2012 in Boston in Suffolk County (Site ID 
250250042).\19\ Therefore, EPA proposes that a specific contingency 
plan from Massachusetts for PM2.5 is not necessary. 
Furthermore, although not expected, if PM2.5 conditions in 
Massachusetts were to change, MassDEP has general authority to order a 
source to reduce or discontinue air pollution as required to protect 
the public health or safety or the environment, as discussed earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 24-hour and annual PM2.5 monitor values for 
individual monitoring sites throughout Massachusetts are available 
at www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as a matter of practice, Massachusetts forecasts 
concentrations of PM2.5 throughout the year and issues 
alerts to the public through the EPA AirNow and EPA Enviroflash 
systems. Information regarding these two systems is available on EPA's 
website at www.airnow.gov. When levels are forecast to exceed the 24-
hour PM2.5 standard in Massachusetts, notices are sent out 
to Enviroflash participants, the media are alerted via a press release, 
and the National Weather Service (NWS) is alerted to issue an Air 
Quality Advisory through the normal NWS weather alert system. These 
actions are similar to the notification and communication requirements 
for contingency plans in 40 CFR 51.152.
    Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts, through the combination 
of statutes and regulations discussed above and participation in EPA's 
AirNow program, meets the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires that a State's SIP provide for revision in 
response to: Changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for 
attaining the NAAQS, or an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially 
inadequate.
    Massachusetts General Laws c. 111, Sec.  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, however, that such standards shall not be 
less than the minimum federal standards.'' This authorizing statute 
gives MassDEP the power to revise the Massachusetts SIP 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.
    EPA proposes that Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2012 PM2.5 
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; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Visibility 
Protection

    Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires that each SIP ``meet the 
applicable requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to 
consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to public 
notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of air 
quality and visibility protection).'' The evaluation of the submission 
from Massachusetts with respect to these requirements is described 
below.
Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
    Pursuant to CAA section 121, a State must provide a satisfactory 
process for

[[Page 5030]]

consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in 
carrying out its NAAQS implementation requirements.
    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.'' In addition, MassDEP included 
Massachusetts Executive Order 145, ``Consultation with Cities & Towns 
on Administrative Mandates,'' which establishes a process for state 
agencies to consult with local governments, in its February 2018 
infrastructure SIP submittal for EPA approval. We propose to approve 
this Executive Order into the Massachusetts SIP.
    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 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that Massachusetts 
meets 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.
Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
    Pursuant to CAA section 127, States must 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 website, 
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 website, 
alerts, and press releases. Therefore, we propose to find that 
Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion 
of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
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 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,\20\ and note that such a finding will not 
result in any sanctions or new FIP obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As discussed earlier, supra n.6, EPA has previously issued 
findings of failure to submit for Massachusetts for PSD-related 
infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 2008 
Lead, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
    Regarding 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, as noted in EPA's 2013 
memorandum, 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 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data

    Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act requires that a SIP provide for the 
performance of such air-quality modeling as the EPA Administrator may 
prescribe to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions 
of any air pollutant for which EPA has established a NAAQS, and the 
submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling. 
EPA has published modeling guidelines at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, 
for predicting the effects of emissions of criteria pollutants on 
ambient air quality. EPA also recommends in the 2013 memorandum that, 
to meet section 110(a)(2)(K), a State submit or reference the statutory 
or regulatory provisions that provide the air agency with the authority 
to conduct such air quality modeling and to provide such modeling data 
to EPA upon request.
    Massachusetts state law implicitly authorizes MassDEP to perform 
air quality modeling and provide such modeling data to EPA upon 
request. See M.G.L. c. 21A, Sec.  2(2), (10), (22); M.G.L. c. 111, 
Sec. Sec.  142B-142D. In addition, 310 CMR 7.02 authorizes MassDEP to 
require air dispersion modeling analyses from certain sources and 
permit applicants. As previously discussed, Massachusetts implements 
and enforces the federal PSD program through a delegation agreement. 
This agreement, which is included in the docket for today's action 
requires MassDEP to follow the applicable procedures in EPA's 
permitting regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, as amended from time to time. 
The Commonwealth also collaborates with the Ozone Transport Commission 
(OTC), the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, and EPA to 
perform large scale urban airshed modeling.
    Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts meets the infrastructure 
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012 PM2.5 
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 costs 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. To gain 
approval, Massachusetts demonstrated, among other things, that it 
collects fees sufficient to cover the costs of reviewing and acting on 
permit applications and implementing and enforcing permits.

[[Page 5031]]

See 61 FR 3827 (February 2, 1996); 40 CFR 70.9. M.G.L. c. 21A, Sec.  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, and 
310 CMR 7.00, Appendix C, Operating Permit and Compliance Program. 
These regulations set permit compliance fees, including fees for Title 
V operating permits. EPA proposes that the Commonwealth meets the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local 
Entities

    To satisfy element M, States must provide for consultation and 
allow participation by local political subdivisions affected by the 
SIP. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 111, Sec.  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, ``Consultation with Cities & Towns on Administrative 
Mandates,'' which we are proposing to add to the Massachusetts SIP, 
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. MassDEP also notes that it consults with local political 
subdivisions though a state ``SIP Steering Committee'' and conducts 
stakeholder outreach with local entities as a matter of policy when 
revising the SIP or adopting air regulations. Therefore, EPA proposes 
that Massachusetts meets the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(M) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

N. Massachusetts Regulation and Executive Order Submitted for 
Incorporation Into the SIP

    Massachusetts' February 9, 2018, infrastructure SIP submittal for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS included definitions of National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Federal Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, PM10 or Particulate Matter 10, PM10 Emissions, PM2.5 or 
Particulate Matter 2.5, and PM2.5 Emissions in 310 CMR 7.00 that 
Massachusetts included in a submittal to EPA dated May 14, 2018 and 
Executive Order No. 145, ``Consultation with Cities & Towns on 
Administrative Mandates'' (see discussion under element J, Sub-element 
1). EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the Massachusetts 
SIP, the five submitted definitions in 310 CMR 7.00 and Executive Order 
145.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve most of the elements of the 
infrastructure SIP submitted by Massachusetts on February 9, 2018, for 
the 2012 PM2.5, including the interstate transport 
requirements. This submittal also addresses the interstate transport 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which we are likewise 
proposing to approve. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve a SIP 
revision submitted by Massachusetts on January 31, 2008, for the 
interstate transport requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA's proposed action for each element for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS is stated in Table 1 below.

 Table 1--Proposed Action on Massachusetts' Infrastructure SIP Submittal
                        for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
                       Element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control measures.....                  A
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system.                  A
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures...................                  A
(C)2: PSD program for major sources and major                        FS
 modifications......................................
(C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor                         A
 modifications......................................
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with                      A
 maintenance of NAAQS...............................
(D)2: PSD...........................................                 FS
(D)3: Visibility Protection.........................                  A
(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement................                 FS
(D)5: International Pollution Abatement.............                  A
(E)1: Adequate resources............................                  A
(E)2: State boards..................................                  A
(E)3: Necessary assurances with respect to local                     NA
 agencies...........................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system............                  A
(G): Emergency power................................                  A
(H): Future SIP revisions...........................                  A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under                  +
 part D.............................................
(J)1: Consultation with government officials........                 FS
(J)2: Public notification...........................                  A
(J)3: PSD...........................................                 FS
(J)4: Visibility protection.........................                  +
(K): Air quality modeling and data..................                  A
(L): Permitting fees................................                  A
(M): Consultation and participation by affected                       A
 local entities.....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5032]]

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.........................................  Approve.
NA........................................  Not applicable.
FS........................................  Finding of failure to
                                             submit.
+.........................................  Not germane to
                                             infrastructure SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also is proposing to approve the transport provisions (Element 
(D)1 in Table 1) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well 
as the Visibility Protection requirements (Element (D)3 in Table 1) for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    We are also proposing to convert to full approval previous 
conditional approvals for elements A and E(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS and previous conditional approvals for element A 
for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, and 
2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS. For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS, we are also proposing approvals for prong 4 of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and for the section 115-related requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    As shown in Table 1, we are proposing to issue a finding of failure 
to submit for the PSD-related requirements of (C)2, (D)2, (D)4, (J)1, 
and (J)3. However, 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, this action will not subject the Commonwealth to mandatory 
sanctions.
    EPA is also proposing to approve, and incorporate into the 
Massachusetts SIP, definitions of National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) or Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, PM10 or 
Particulate Matter 10, PM10 Emissions, PM2.5 or Particulate Matter 2.5, 
and PM2.5 Emissions in 310 CMR 7.00 that Massachusetts included in a 
submittal to EPA dated May 14, 2018.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the 
Massachusetts SIP, Massachusetts Executive Order 145, Consultation with 
Cities & Towns on Administrative Mandates, effective November 20, 1978, 
which Massachusetts included for approval in its infrastructure SIP 
submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    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 this 
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this Federal Register.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, 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 Executive Order 145 and the part of 310 CMR 7.00 referenced 
in Section IV above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and 
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).

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 Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 
21, 2011);
     This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 
13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 
FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) because application of those requirements would be 
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 
1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 11, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-02658 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P