[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47133-47144]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17069]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0720; FRL-9949-29-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve most elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions
from Massachusetts regarding the infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008
ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is
also proposing to conditionally approve three aspects of the
Commonwealth's submittals. In addition, we are also proposing findings
of failure to submit pertaining to various aspects of the

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of
infrastructure SIPs. Lastly, we are proposing to remove 40 CFR 52.1160
as legally obsolete.
    The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2014-0720, at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Additionally, the term ``the
Commonwealth'' refers to the state of Massachusetts.
    This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
    A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions does this rulemaking
address?
    B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?
    C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
    A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
    B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
    C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
    i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
    ii. Sub-Element 2: Preconstruction Program for Major Sources and
Major Modifications
    iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources
and Minor Modifications
    D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
    i. Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
    ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
    iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility
Protection (Prong 4)
    iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate
Pollution Abatement
    v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International
Pollution Abatement
    E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
    i. Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal
Authority Under State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
    ii. Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of
the CAA
    F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
    G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
    H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
    I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D
    J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials;
Public Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
    i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
    ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
    iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
    iv. Visibility Protection
    K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
    L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
    M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What Massachusetts SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses submissions from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). The Commonwealth
submitted its infrastructure State Implementation Plan (ISIP) for the
1997 ozone NAAQS on December 14, 2007, its ISIP for the 200b Pb NAAQS
on December 4, 2012, and its ISIPs for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS on June 6, 2014.

B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions
needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS
already meet those requirements.
    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ``Guidance

on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997
8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 (Fine Particle) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an
additional guidance document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo), followed
by the October 14, 2011, ``Guidance on infrastructure SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo). Most
recently, EPA issued ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' on
September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions referenced in this
rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1)
and (2) and address the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is proposing approval of most aspects of the SIP submissions
from Massachusetts that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Additionally, we are proposing approval of a statute submitted by
Massachusetts that supports the infrastructure SIP submittals,
proposing conditional approval of certain aspects of the Commonwealth's
submittals as discussed below, and proposing findings of failure to
submit for a number of ISIP provisions that pertain to the State's PSD
program.
    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Pursuant to these
sections, each state must submit a SIP that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or
secondary NAAQS. States must make such SIP submission ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of'' a new or revised NAAQS. This requirement is triggered
by the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and is not conditioned
upon EPA's taking any other action. Section 110(a)(2) includes the
specific elements that ``each such plan'' must address.
    EPA commonly refers to such SIP submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the planning
requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (``SSM'' emissions) that
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's
``Final New Source Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these
substantive areas separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and
rationale for EPA's approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be
found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure
SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is
the scope of this rulemaking?'' (See 79 FR 27241; May 13, 2014).

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

    EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with
the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as
appropriate. Historically, EPA has elected to use non-binding guidance
documents to make recommendations for states' development and EPA
review of infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed
interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying
interpretations that have already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for particular elements. EPA guidance
applicable to these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied in
several documents. Specifically, attachment A of the 2007 Memo
(Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements
that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an
infrastructure SIP submission. The 2009 Memo provides additional
guidance for certain elements regarding the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2011 Memo provides guidance specific to the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. Lastly, the 2013 Memo identifies and further clarifies aspects
of infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS specific.

IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?

    Pursuant to section 110(a), and as noted in the 2011 Memo and the
2013 Memo, states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for
public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. MassDEP held a
public hearing on the ISIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on June 12, 2012, and
held a public hearing on the ISIPs for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS on September 6, 2013.
    EPA is soliciting comment on our evaluation of the state's
infrastructure SIP submissions in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Massachusetts provided detailed synopses of how various components of
its SIP meet each of the requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 1997
ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, as applicable. The following review evaluates the
state's submissions in light of section 110(a)(2) requirements and
relevant EPA guidance.

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits
and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long
interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the
standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are
due.\1\ In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating
the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only
evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for
the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (Nov. 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 has adopted numerous regulations within the Code of
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) in furtherance of the objectives set
out by these statutes, including 310 CMR 4.00: Timely Action & Fee
Schedule Regulations, 310 CMR 6.00, Ambient Air Quality Standards for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and 310 CMR 7.00: Air Pollution
Control Regulations. For example, many 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 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including
but not limited to 7.18, Volatile and Halogenated Organic Compounds,
7.19, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of
NOX, and 7.29, Emission Standards for Power Plants.
    We note, however, that we are conditionally approving this element
because the SIP-approved version of 310 CMR 7.00 uses the term
``National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' but does not
contain a definition for this term. Therefore, there is uncertainty as
to which versions of the NAAQS the term incorporates. By letter dated
June 14, 2016, Massachusetts committed to submitting for inclusion in
the SIP, by a date no later than one year from conditional approval of
Massachusetts' infrastructure submissions, a definition for NAAQS in
310 CMR 7.00 that would reflect the current versions of the various
NAAQS we are proposing to act on in this rulemaking.
    In recognition of the above, EPA proposes that Massachusetts has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the issue related
to a definition of NAAQS in 310 CMR 7.00, for which we are proposing a
conditional approval.
    In addition to the above, we are proposing to remove as legally
obsolete 40 CFR 52.1160, which was promulgated on January 24, 1995 (60
FR 4737). Section 52.1160 provides that ``Massachusetts' adopted LEV
[Low Emission Vehicle] program must be revised to the extent necessary
for the state to comply with all aspects of the requirements of 40 CFR
51.120,'' a provision that was promulgated in the same action (60 FR
4736) and that required certain states to adopt the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) LEV program or equivalent measures. (The OTC LEV
program is based on California's LEV program and requires that only
cleaner ``LEV'' cars be sold in the states in which it has been
adopted). On March 11, 1997, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated the provisions of 40 CFR 52.120.
See Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397. Nonetheless, the Commonwealth has
adopted a Low Emission Vehicle Program based on California's LEV
program (310 CMR 7.40), the latest version of which was approved into
the SIP on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). Because of the vacatur, EPA
concludes that 40 CFR 52.1160 is obsolete and proposes to remove it
from the CFR.
    As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove
any existing state provisions or rules related to SSM or director's
discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to
EPA upon request. Each year, states submit annual air monitoring
network plans to EPA for review and approval. EPA's review of these
annual monitoring plans includes our evaluation of whether the state:
(i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state
using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent
Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in
a timely manner; and, (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior
notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network
plan.
    Under MGL c.111, Sec. Sec.  142B to 142D, MassDEP operates an air
monitoring network. EPA approved the state's most recent Annual Air
Monitoring Network Plan for Pb, ozone, NO2, and
SO2 on November 13, 2015. Furthermore, MassDEP populates AQS
with air quality monitoring data in a timely manner, and provides EPA
with prior notification when considering a change to its monitoring
network or plan. EPA proposes that MassDEP has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997
ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources

    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections
171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
    The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the
following: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for major
sources and major modifications; and, (iii) permitting program for
minor sources and minor modifications. A discussion of greenhouse gas
(GHG) permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule'' \2\ is included within our
evaluation of the PSD provisions of the Commonwealth's submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In EPA's April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking for several
states' infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable
requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD
permits (See 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in
EPA's August 2, 2012 proposed rulemaking for several infrastructure
SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 45992 at 45998).
In other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately
address Pb, NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5
precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables,
PM2.5 increments, or the Federal GHG permitting
thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a
suitable PSD permitting program must be considered not to be met
irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit
an infrastructure SIP, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
    MassDEP staffs and implements an enforcement program pursuant to
authorities provided within the following laws: M.G.L. c.111, 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 has met this requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Preconstruction Program for Major Sources and Major
Modifications
    Sub-element 2 of section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that states provide
for the regulation of modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved, including a
program to meet PSD and NNSR requirements. PSD applies to new major
sources or modifications made to major sources for pollutants where the
area in which the source is located is in attainment of, or
unclassifiable with regard to, the relevant NAAQS, and NNSR requires
similar actions in nonattainment areas.
    Massachusetts does not have an approved state PSD program and has
made no submittals addressing the PSD sub-element of section
110(a)(2)(C). The Commonwealth has long been subject to a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP), however, and has implemented and enforced
the federal PSD program through a delegation agreement. See 76 FR
31241; May 31, 2011. Accordingly, EPA is proposing a finding of failure
to submit with respect to the PSD-related requirements of this sub-
element for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\3\
See CAA section 110(c)(1). This finding, however, does not trigger any
additional FIP obligation by the EPA under section 110(c)(1), because
the deficiency is addressed by the FIP already in place. Moreover the
state is not subject to mandatory sanctions solely as a result of this
finding, because the SIP submittal deficiencies are neither with
respect to a sub-element that is required under part D nor in response
to a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 (Mar. 27,
2008), the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 78 FR 2882 (Jan. 15, 2013), and the
2008 Pb NAAQS, 78 FR 12961 (Feb. 26, 2013), and Massachusetts has
made no additional submissions to address the PSD-related
requirements for these NAAQS since those previous findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources and
Minor Modifications
    To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and
construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of
major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should
identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new
provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that
regulates emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA's most recent
approval of the Commonwealth's minor NSR program occurred on April 5,
1995 (60 FR 17226). Since this date, Massachusetts and EPA have relied
on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified
sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    In summary, we are proposing to find that Massachusetts has met the
enforcement related aspects of Section 110(a)(2)(C) discussed above
within sub-element 1, and the preconstruction permitting requirements
for minor sources discussed in sub-element 3, for the 1997 ozone, 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Also, we are proposing, pursuant to section 110(c)(1), to find that the
state has failed to make required submissions related to major source
preconstruction permitting for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS for the reasons provided in sub-element 2 above.

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport

    This section contains a comprehensive set of air quality management
elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution that states must
address. It covers the following 5 topics, categorized as sub-elements:
Sub-element 1, Contribute to nonattainment, and interfere with
maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility
protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution abatement; and Sub-
element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-elements 1 through 3
above are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, and these
items are further categorized into the 4 prongs discussed below, 2 of
which are found within 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.
i. Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
    With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the 2011 Memo notes that the
physical properties of Pb prevent it from experiencing the same travel
or formation phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone. Specifically,
there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, although it may be possible for a
source in a state to emit Pb at a location and in such quantities that
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, EPA anticipates that this would be a
rare situation (e.g., sources emitting large quantities of Pb in close
proximity to state boundaries). The 2011 Memo suggests that the
applicable interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to Pb can be met through a state's
assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in
close proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring
state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in that state.
    Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS
notes that there are no major sources of Pb emissions located in close
proximity to any of the state's borders with neighboring states, or
elsewhere in the state. Our review of data within our National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) database confirms this, and also indicates
that there is no group of sources anywhere within the state likely to
emit enough Pb to cause ambient concentrations to approach the Pb
NAAQS. Therefore, we propose that Massachusetts has met this set of
requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.
    Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS notes that Massachusetts sources do not contribute
to non-attainment or maintenance in other states, given that all
surrounding states are designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.''
This statement is accurate, and indeed there are no NO2
nonattainment areas

anywhere in the United States. 77 FR 9532 (Feb. 17, 2012). We examined
the design values from NO2 monitors in Massachusetts and
neighboring states based on data collected between 2012 and 2014. In
Massachusetts, the highest design value was 49 parts per billion
(ppb)(versus the NO2 standard of 100 ppb) at a monitor in
Boston. The highest design value we found in a neighboring state was 58
ppb in Queens, NY. We believe that with the continued implementation of
Massachusetts PSD FIP, and the Commonwealth's NSR regulations, the
state's low monitored values of NO2 will continue. In other
words, the NO2 emissions from Massachusetts are not expected
to cause or contribute to a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
in another state, and these emissions are not likely to interfere with
the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state.
Therefore, we propose that Massachusetts has met this set of
requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
    In today's rulemaking, we are not proposing to approve or
disapprove Massachusetts' compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, or 2010 SO2
NAAQS, since the Commonwealth's SIP revisions upon which we are acting
today do not include a submittal with respect to transport for sub-
element 1, prongs 1 and 2 for these pollutants. Effective August 12,
2015, EPA found that Massachusetts, among a number of other states, had
not made a complete good neighbor SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 80 FR
39961 (July 13, 2015).
ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
    One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in another state. A state's
infrastructure SIP submittal cannot be considered approvable for prong
3 unless EPA has issued final approval of the state's PSD SIP, or
alternatively, has issued final approval of a SIP that EPA has
otherwise found adequate to prohibit interference with other states'
measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.
    As discussed under element C above, Massachusetts is currently
subject to a PSD FIP. Therefore, we are proposing a finding of failure
to submit for prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the PSD
requirement, in the same manner as discussed under element C above.
However, this finding will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP
obligation.
    Under prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA also reviews the
potential for in-state sources not subject to PSD to interfere with PSD
in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state. EPA guidance
recommends that a ``fully approved nonattainment [new source review
(NNSR)] program with respect to any previous NAAQS may generally be
considered by the EPA as adequate for purposes of meeting this
requirement of prong 3 with respect to sources and pollutants subject
to such program.'' 2013 Guidance at 32. EPA last approved the
Commonwealth's NNSR program on October 27, 2000. 65 FR 64360. Because
Massachusetts is located within the Ozone Transport Region, see CAA
Sec.  184(a), 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a), sources emitting 50 tpy or more of
NOX or VOCs are subject to the requirements that would be
applicable to major stationary sources if the area were classified as a
moderate nonattainment area, CAA Sec. Sec.  182(f)(1), 184(b)(2), 42
U.S.C. 7511a, 7511c. In other words, even if located in an area
designated attainment for ozone, such sources are not subject to PSD,
but rather, are to be subject to NNSR. Massachusetts' SIP-approved NNSR
regulations, however, apply by their terms only to nonattainment
areas,\4\ meaning that sources of 50 tpy or more of VOCs or
NOX in much of Massachusetts are not covered by either the
PSD FIP or the state's EPA-approved NNSR program and, thus, the state
has not shown that it has met this requirement of prong 3. The
Commonwealth has promulgated and implements NNSR regulations, however,
that make the state's NNSR program applicable to such sources
regardless of area designation. In a letter dated June 14, 2016, the
Commonwealth committed to submitting for inclusion in the SIP, by a
date no later than one year from conditional approval of Massachusetts'
infrastructure submissions, the necessary provisions that would make
its EPA-approved NSSR program applicable to such sources. Accordingly,
we propose to conditionally approve Massachusetts' submittals for the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS for this aspect of prong 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ At the time EPA last approved Massachusetts' NNSR
regulations (October 27, 2000; 65 FR at 64361), the Western
Massachusetts area was nonattainment for the one-hour ozone
standard, and the Eastern Massachusetts area was attaining the
standard, but destined to become nonattainment as of January 16,
2001, upon EPA's reinstatement of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for that
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011
Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these requirements can be satisfied by
an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze.
    The Commonwealth's Regional Haze SIP was approved by EPA on
September 13, 2013. See 78 FR 57487. Accordingly, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts has met the visibility protection requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate Pollution
Abatement
    One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain
adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable
requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement.
Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring
states of potential impacts from the source. The statute does not
specify the method by which the source should provide the notification.
As mentioned elsewhere in this notice, Massachusetts is currently
subject to a PSD FIP and it did not make submittals addressing the PSD-
related requirements of section 126(a). Therefore, we are proposing to
make a finding of failure to submit for section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
regarding PSD-related notice of interstate pollution with respect to
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\5\ This finding
does not trigger any additional FIP obligation by the EPA under section
110(c)(1), because the federal PSD rules address the notification
issue. See 40 CFR 52.21(q), 124.10(c)(vii); see also id. Sec.  52.1165.
Nor does the finding trigger any sanctions. Massachusetts has no
obligations under any other provision of section 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As discussed earlier, supra n.3, EPA has previously issued
findings of failure to submit for Massachusetts for the PSD-related
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and
2008 Pb NAAQS.

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

v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International Pollution
Abatement
    One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to
contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable
requirements of section 115 relating to international pollution
abatement. Massachusetts does not have any pending obligations under
section 115 for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is
proposing that the Commonwealth has met the applicable infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 115 of
the CAA (international pollution abatement) for the 1997 ozone, 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

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

    This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and
related issues. Additionally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each
state to comply with the requirements with respect to state boards
under section 128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that,
where a state relies upon local or regional governments or agencies for
the implementation of its SIP provisions, the state retain
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of SIP obligations
with respect to relevant NAAQS. This last sub-element, however, is
inapplicable to this action, because Massachusetts does not rely upon
local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its
SIP provisions.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
    Massachusetts, through its infrastructure SIP submittals, has
documented that its air agency has the requisite authority and
resources to carry out its SIP obligations. Massachusetts General Laws
c. 111, sections 142A to 142N, provide MassDEP with the authority to
carry out the state's implementation plan. The Massachusetts SIP, as
originally submitted in 1971 and subsequently amended, provides
descriptions of the staffing and funding necessary to carry out the
plan. In the submittals, MassDEP provides assurances that it has
adequate personnel and funding to carry out the SIP during the five
years following infrastructure SIP submission and in future years.
Additionally, the Commonwealth receives CAA section 103 and 105 grant
funds through Performance Partnership agreements and provides state
matching funds, which together enable Massachusetts to carry out its
SIP requirements. In light of the foregoing, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128(a) of the
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (1) That any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (2) that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
    Massachusetts does not have a state board that approves permits or
enforcement orders under the CAA. Instead, permits and enforcement
orders are approved by the Commissioner of MassDEP. Thus, Massachusetts
is not subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of section 128.
As to the conflict of interest provisions of section 128(a)(2),
Massachusetts has cited to M.G.L. c. 268A, sections 6 and 6A of the
Commonwealth's Conflict of Interest law in its June 6, 2014
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and requested that these sections be
included in the SIP to satisfy this infrastructure SIP requirement.\6\
Pursuant to these state provisions, state employees in Massachusetts,
including the head of an executive agency with authority to approve air
permits or enforcement orders, are required to disclose potential
conflicts of interest to, among others, the state ethics commission. We
are proposing to find that M.G.L. c. 268A, sections 6 and 6A satisfy
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, to
approve them into the Massachusetts SIP, and, consequently, to approve
the Commonwealth's ISIP submittals for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In its June 6, 2014 submittal, Massachusetts also requested
that M.G.L. c. 268A, section 7 be added to the SIP. By letter dated
June 14, 2016, however, Massachusetts withdrew section 7 from
consideration for inclusion in the SIP. Section 7 contains state-
specific penalties that are not needed to satisfy CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    Pursuant to M.G.L. c.111, sections 142A to 142D, MassDEP has the
necessary authority to maintain and operate air monitoring stations,
and coordinates with EPA in determining the types and locations of
ambient air monitors across the state. The Commonwealth uses this
authority to collect information on air emissions from sources in the
state. Additionally, Massachusetts statutes and regulations provide
that emissions data shall be available for public inspection. See,
e.g., M.G.L. c.111, section 142B; 310 CMR sections 3.33(5), 7.12(4)(b);
7.14(1). The following SIP-approved regulations enable the
accomplishment of the Commonwealth's emissions recording and reporting
objectives:
    1. 310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration.
    2. 310 CMR 7.13, Stack Testing.
    3. 310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices and Reports.
    EPA recognizes that Massachusetts routinely collects information on
air emissions from its industrial sources and makes this information
available to the public. EPA, therefore, proposes that the Commonwealth
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F)
with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

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

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the

CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to
seek a court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing
to emissions that present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' Section 303 further
authorizes the Administrator to issue ``such orders as may be necessary
to protect public health or welfare or the environment'' in the event
that ``it is not practicable to assure prompt protection . . . by
commencement of such civil action.''
    We propose to find that the Commonwealth's ISIP submittals
demonstrate that certain state statutes and regulations provide for
authority comparable to that in section 303. Massachusetts' submittals
cite M.G.L. c.111, section 2B, Air Pollution Emergencies, which
authorizes the Commissioner of the MassDEP to ``declare an air
pollution emergency'' if the Commissioner ``determines that the
condition or impending condition of the atmosphere in the Commonwealth
. . . constitutes a present or reasonably imminent danger to health.''
During such an air pollution emergency, the Commissioner is authorized
pursuant to section 2B, to ``take whatever action is necessary to
maintain and protect the public health, including but not limited to .
. . prohibiting, restricting and conditioning emissions of dangerous or
potentially dangerous air contaminants from whatever source derived . .
. .'' Additionally, sections 2B and 2C authorize the Commissioner to
issue emergency orders.
    Moreover, M.G.L. c. 21A, section 8 provides that, ``[i]n regulating
. . . any pollution prevention, control or abatement plan [or] strategy
. . . through any . . . departmental action affecting or prohibiting
the emission . . . of any hazardous substance to the environment . . .
the department may consider the potential effects of such plans [and]
strategies . . . on public health and safety and the environment . . .
and said department shall act to minimize and prevent damage or threat
of damage to the environment.''
    These duties are implemented, in part, under MassDEP regulations at
310 CMR 8.00, Prevention and Abatement of Air Pollution Episodes and
Air Pollution Incident Emergencies, which EPA most recently approved
into the SIP on October 4, 2002. See 67 FR 62184. These regulations
establish levels that would constitute significant harm or imminent and
substantial endangerment to health for ambient concentrations of
pollutants subject to a NAAQS, consistent with the significant harm
levels and procedures for state emergency episode plans established by
EPA in 40 CFR 51.150 and 51.151.\7\ Finally, M.G.L. c.111, section 2B
authorizes the state to seek injunctive relief in the superior court
for violation of an emergency order issued by the MassDEP Commissioner.
While no single Massachusetts statute or regulation mirrors the
authorities of CAA section 303, we propose to find that the combination
of state statutes and regulations discussed herein provide for
comparable authority to immediately bring suit to restrain, and issue
orders against, any person causing or contributing to air pollution
that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health
or welfare, or the environment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commonwealth's Contaminant Concentration Levels are
found within Table 1 of 310 CMR 8.01, and match EPA's levels from 40
CFR part 51.151 with the exception of the averaging time used for
ozone. Massachusetts uses a 1-hour averaging time, which is slightly
more protective that the 2-hour averaging time EPA provides for this
pollutant.
    \8\ By letter dated June 14, 2016, MassDEP stated that it
likewise interprets M.G.L. c.111, section 2B and M.G.L. c. 21A,
section 8 as together providing MassDEP with authority comparable to
that granted to the Administrator by CAA section 303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, for any NAAQS, States have
an approved contingency plan for any Air Quality Control Region (AQCR)
within the state that is classified as Priority I, IA, or II. See 40
CFR 51.152(c). A contingency plan is not required if the entire state
is classified as Priority III for a particular pollutant. Id. The
entire state is classified as Priority III for nitrogen dioxide, but
contains priority classifications of I or II for particulate matter,
sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and ozone. See 40 CFR 52.1121.
Consequently, as relevant to this proposed rulemaking action,
Massachusetts' SIP must contain an emergency contingency plan meeting
the specific requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152 with respect to
SO2 and ozone.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Those regulations do not specifically address Pb. See also
40 CFR 51.150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Massachusetts has adopted 310 CMR 8.00, The Prevention
and/or Abatement of Air Pollution Episode and Air Pollution Incident
Emergencies, which is modeled on EPA's example regulations for
emergency contingency plans at 40 CFR part 51, appendix L, the version
of the regulation that is currently in the SIP does not fully satisfy
40 CFR 51.152. For instance, it does not specify any ``emission control
actions to be taken at each episode stage,'' as required by 40 CFR
51.152(a)(3). By letter dated June 14, 2016, MassDEP has committed to
submitting for inclusion in the SIP, by a date no later than one year
from conditional approval of Massachusetts' infrastructure submissions,
a regulation satisfying the contingency plan requirements of element G.
    With respect to Pb, we note that Pb is not explicitly included in
the contingency plan requirements of subpart H. In addition, we note
that there are no large sources of Pb in Massachusetts. Specifically, a
review of the National Emission Inventory shows that there are no
sources of Pb in Massachusetts that exceed EPA's reporting threshold of
0.5 tons per year. Although not expected, if that situation were to
change, Massachusetts does have general authority (e.g., M.G.L. c. 21A,
section 8 and c. 111, section 2B) to restrain any source from causing
imminent and substantial endangerment.
    Consequently, EPA proposes that Massachusetts has met the
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with
respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Furthermore, because all AQCRs in the
state are classified as Priority III for NO2, EPA also
proposes that the Commonwealth has met the applicable requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. For the 1997
ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes to
approve Massachusetts' submittals with respect to the CAA section 303
comparable authority requirement of element G, but to conditionally
approve with respect to the contingency plan requirements of element G,
based on MassDEP's commitment to submit a regulation satisfying such
requirements within one year of final action on the infrastructure
submissions EPA is evaluating in this notice.

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

    This section requires that a state's SIP provide for revision from
time to time as may be necessary to take account of changes in the
NAAQS or availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS and
whenever the EPA finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
Massachusetts General Laws c. 111, section 142D provides in relevant
part that, ``From time to time the department shall review the ambient
air quality standards and plans for implementation, maintenance and
attainment of such standards adopted pursuant to this section and,
after public hearings, shall amend such standards and implementation
plan so as to minimize the economic cost of such standards and plan for
implementation, provided,

however, that such standards shall not be less than the minimum federal
standards.''
    EPA proposes that Massachusetts has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 1997
ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has
determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the
infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection

    The evaluation of the submissions from Massachusetts with respect
to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to Section 121
relating to consultation.
    Pursuant to EPA-approved Massachusetts regulations at 310 CMR
7.02(12)(g)(2), MassDEP notifies the public ``by advertisement in a
newspaper having wide circulation'' in the area of the particular
facility of the opportunity to comment on certain proposed permitting
actions and sends ``a copy of the notice of public comment to the
applicant, the EPA, and officials and agencies having jurisdiction over
the community in which the facility is located, including local air
pollution control agencies, chief executives of said community, and any
regional land use planning agency.'' Massachusetts did not make a
submittal, however, with respect to the requirement to consult with
FLMs. As previously mentioned, Massachusetts does not have an approved
state PSD program, but rather is subject to a PSD FIP. The FIP includes
a provision requiring consultation with FLMs. See 40 CFR 52.21(p).
Consequently, with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA proposes that
Massachusetts has met the consultation with local governments
requirement of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J), but proposes a
finding of failure to submit with respect to the FLM consultation
requirement. Because the federal PSD program, which Massachusetts
implements and enforces, addresses the FLM consultation requirement, a
finding of failure to submit will not result in sanctions or new FIP
obligations.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to: Notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area; advise the public of health hazards
associated with exceedances; and enhance public awareness of measures
that can be taken to prevent exceedances and of ways in which the
public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air
quality.
    Massachusetts regulations specify criteria for air pollution
episodes and incidents and provide for notice to the public via news
media and other means of communication. See 310 CMR 8.00. The
Commonwealth also provides a daily air quality forecast to inform the
public about concentrations of fine particles and, during the ozone
season, provides similar information for ozone. Real time air quality
data for NAAQS pollutants are also available on the MassDEP's Web site,
as are information about health hazards associated with NAAQS
pollutants and ways in which the public can participate in regulatory
efforts related to air quality. The Commonwealth is also an active
partner in EPA's AirNow and EnviroFlash air quality alert programs,
which notify the public of air quality levels through EPA's Web site,
alerts, and press releases. In light of the above, we propose to find
that Massachusetts has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. The Commonwealth's PSD program in the context of
infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs
addressing sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and our proposed actions for those sections are
consistent with the proposed actions for this portion of section
110(a)(2)(J). Specifically, we propose a finding of failure to submit
with respect to the PSD sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS,\10\ and note that
such a finding will not result in any sanctions or new FIP obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As discussed earlier, supra n.3, EPA has previously issued
findings of failure to submit for Massachusetts for PSD-related
infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2008
Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not
change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation
``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the
1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

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

    To satisfy element K, the state air agency must demonstrate that it
has the authority to perform air quality modeling to predict effects on
air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and submit such data to
EPA upon request.
    Pursuant to the authority granted by M.G.L. c.111, sections 142B-
142D, the MassDEP has the authority to maintain and operate air
sampling stations and devices, make or perform ``such examinations,
inspections, observations, determinations, laboratory analyses, and
surveys; maintain such records; and perform such other acts as it deems
necessary to conduct an adequate air pollution control program . . .
.'' The agency is further authorized to require sources to report
monitoring and emissions data. MassDEP accomplishes these objectives
via a number of regulations, including the following:

310 CMR 7.02, Plan Approval and Emission Limitations;
310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration;
310 CMR 7.14, Monitoring Devices and Reports; and,
310 CMR 7.00, Appendix A--Emissions Offsets and Nonattainment
Review.

    The state also collaborates with the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC), the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, and EPA in
order to perform large scale urban airshed modeling. EPA proposes that

Massachusetts has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees

    This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary
source pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
    Massachusetts implements and operates the Title V permit program,
which EPA approved on September 28, 2001. See 66 FR 49541. In addition,
M.G.L. c. 21A, section 18 authorizes MassDEP to promulgate regulations
establishing fees. To collect fees from sources of air emissions, the
MassDEP promulgated and implements 310 CMR 4.00, Timely Action Schedule
and Fee Provisions. These regulations set permit compliance fees,
including fees for Title V operating permits. EPA proposes that the
Commonwealth has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

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

    To satisfy element M, states must consult with, and allow
participation from, local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
Pursuant to M.G.L. c.111, section 142D, MassDEP must hold public
hearings prior to revising its SIP. In addition, M.G.L. c. 30A,
Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act, requires MassDEP to
provide notice and the opportunity for public comment and hearing prior
to adoption of any regulation. Moreover, the Commonwealth's Executive
Order No. 145 requires state agencies, including MassDEP, to provide
notice to the Local Government Advisory Committee to solicit input on
the impact of proposed regulations and other administrative actions on
local governments. Therefore, EPA proposes that Massachusetts has met
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve most portions of the SIP submissions
from Massachusetts certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to
meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of certain aspects
relating to PSD which we have either already made, or are proposing, a
finding of failure to submit. Additionally, we are proposing to
conditionally approve several aspects of the Commonwealth's submittals.
EPA's proposed action for each element for each NAAQS is stated in
Table 1 below.

                 Table 1--Proposed Action on MA Infrastructure SIP Submittals for Various NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Element                        1997 Ozone    2008 Pb   2008 Ozone   2010 NO2    2010 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control measures.....           CA          CA          CA          CA          CA
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system.          A           A           A           A           A
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures.................          A           A           A           A           A
(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major             PF          PF          PF          FS          FS
 modifications......................................
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and            A           A           A           A           A
 minor modifications................................
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere             NI           A          NS           A          NS
 with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1 and 2).........
(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3)...........................        PF/CA       PF/CA       PF/CA       FS/CA       FS/CA
(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4).........          A           A           A           A           A
(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement.............         PF          PF          PF          FS          FS
(D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement..........          A           A           A           A           A
(E)(i): Adequate resources..........................          A           A           A           A           A
(E)(ii): State boards...............................          A           A           A           A           A
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local         NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
 agencies...........................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system............          A           A           A           A           A
(G): Emergency power................................           CA         A            CA         A            CA
(H): Future SIP revisions...........................          A           A           A           A           A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under          +           +           +           +           +
 part D.............................................
(J)(i): Consultation with government officials......         FS          FS          FS          FS          FS
(J)(ii): Public notification........................          A           A           A           A           A
(J)(iii): PSD.......................................         PF          PF          PF          FS          FS
(J)(iv): Visibility protection......................          +           +           +           +           +
(K): Air quality modeling and data..................          A           A           A           A           A
(L): Permitting fees................................          A           A           A           A           A
(M): Consultation and participation by affected               A           A           A           A           A
 local entities.....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
A--Approve.
CA--Conditional approval.
FS--Finding of failure to submit.
NA--Not applicable.
NI--Not included in submittal we are acting on in today's action.
NS--No Submittal.
PF--Prior finding of failure to submit.
+--Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.

    In addition, we are proposing to incorporate into the Massachusetts
SIP sections 6 and 6A of the state's Conflict of Interest law, which
the Commonwealth submitted on June 6, 2014, and are proposing to remove
40 CFR 52.1160 regarding Massachusetts LEV in that it is legally
obsolete.
    As shown in Table 1, we are proposing to issue a finding of failure
to submit for sub-element J(i) pertaining to the requirement for
consultation with FLMs for all five of the cited NAAQS, and note that
in light of the PSD FIP, this finding will not result in sanctions or
new FIP obligations. Additionally, we are also proposing to issue
findings of failure to submit with respect to the PSD-related elements
in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for

the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As noted above,
Massachusetts is already subject to a FIP for PSD, and so EPA will have
no additional FIP obligations under section 110(c) of the Act if this
action is finalized as proposed. Furthermore, the state will not be
subject to mandatory sanctions as a result of these actions.
    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve an aspect of the
Commonwealth's submittal for element 110(a)(2)(A) pertaining to ambient
air quality standards because the current, SIP-approved version of 310
CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control, does not reflect the current version
of the various NAAQS we are proposing to act on in this rulemaking.
However, by letter dated June 14, 2016, the Commonwealth committed to
add a definition of NAAQS 310 CMR 7.00 that includes a calendar date to
address this issue. For this reason, EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve this SIP revision provided that the Commonwealth submits to EPA
an updated version of 310 CMR 7.00. Additionally, we are proposing to
conditionally approve the Commonwealth's submittals for element
110(a)(2)(G) pertaining to contingency plans for the 1997 and 2008
ozone NAAQS, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, pursuant to Massachusetts
commitment within their June 14, 2016 letter, to submit a regulation
meeting the contingency plan requirement of element 110(a)(2)(G) by a
date no later than one year from EPA's final action on these
infrastructure SIPs. And last, we are proposing to conditionally
approve the aspect of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS
pertaining to the Commonwealth's NNSR program pursuant to the state's
June 14, 2016 letter committing to submit portions of 310 CMR 7.00:
Appendix A, to EPA as a SIP revision request by one year from our final
action on these ISIPs.
    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a
plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain, but not later than one year from the date
of approval. If EPA conditionally approves these commitments in a final
rulemaking action, Massachusetts must meet its commitments to: Submit
an updated version of 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control, containing a
calendar date to clarify which NAAQS are being referenced, to fully
meet the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(A); submit revisions to its
SIP-approved nonattainment new source review regulations to fully meet
the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II); and, submit a
regulation addressing the contingency plan requirement of section
110(a)(2)(G). If the State fails to do so, this action will become a
disapproval one year from the date of final approval. EPA will notify
the State by letter that this action has occurred. At that time, these
commitments will no longer be a part of the approved Massachusetts SIP.
EPA subsequently will publish a document in the Federal Register
notifying the public that the conditional approval(s) automatically
converted to a disapproval(s). If the State meets its commitments
within the applicable time frame, the conditionally approved
submissions will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action
approving or disapproving them. If EPA disapproves the new submittals,
the conditionally approved regulations will also be disapproved at that
time. If EPA approves the submittals, the regulations will be fully
approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally approved program
in the SIP. If EPA determines that it cannot issue a final conditional
approval or if the conditional approvals are converted to disapprovals,
such action will trigger the Federal implementation plan (FIP)
requirement under section 110(c).
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register, or by submitting comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier following the
directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference into the Massachusetts SIP M.G.L c. 268A,
sections 6 and 6A of the Commonwealth's Conflict of Interest law
submitted to EPA on June 6, 2014. The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, this document generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have

tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur Oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: July 5, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-17069 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19090-19092]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8161]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1016 ; FRL-9290-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Refrigerant Recycling
and Emissions Reduction Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1016 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Newberg; Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric
Programs; Mail Code 6205J; Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
343-9870; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On December 14, 2010 (75 FR 77864), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during
the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be
submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ -2010-1016, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone

number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: National Refrigerant Recycling and Emissions Reduction
Program (Renewal)
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1626.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0256.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2011.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA has developed regulations under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (the Act) establishing standards and requirements
regarding the use and disposal of class I and class II ozone-depleting
substances used as refrigerants during the service, maintenance,
repair, or disposal of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.
Section 608(c) of the Act states that effective July 1, 1992 it is
unlawful for any person in the course of maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment
to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release or dispose of any
class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in the equipment in
a manner which permits the substance to enter the environment.
    In 1993, EPA promulgated regulations under section 608 of the Act
for the recycling of ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the
servicing and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
These regulations were published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660) and
codified in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (Sec.  82.150 et seq.).
    The regulations require persons servicing refrigeration and air-
conditioning equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce
emissions of ozone depleting refrigerants. The regulations also
establish certification programs for technicians, recycling and
recovery equipment, and off-site refrigerant reclaimers. In addition,
EPA requires that ozone depleting refrigerants contained ``in bulk'' in
appliances be removed prior to disposal of the appliances and that all
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, except for small
appliances and room air conditioners, be provided with a servicing
aperture that facilitates recovery of the refrigerant. Moreover, the
Agency requires that substantial refrigerant leaks in equipment be
repaired when they are discovered. These regulations significantly
reduce emissions of ozone depleting refrigerants, and therefore aid
U.S. and global efforts to minimize damage to the ozone layer and the
environment as a whole.
    To facilitate compliance with and enforcement of section 608
requirements, EPA requires reporting and record keeping requirements of
technicians; technician certification programs; equipment testing
organizations; refrigerant wholesalers and purchasers; refrigerant
reclaimers; refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment owners; and
other establishments that perform refrigerant removal, service, or
disposal. The recordkeeping requirements and periodic submission of
reports to EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, occur on an annual, biannual, one-time or occasional basis
depending on the nature of the reporting entity and the length of time
that the entity has been in service. Specific reporting and
recordkeeping requirements were published in 58 FR 28660 and codified
under 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (i.e., Sec.  82.166). These reporting
and recordkeeping requirements also allow EPA to evaluate the
effectiveness of the refrigerant regulations, and help the Agency
determine if we are meeting the obligations of the Unites States, under
the 1987 Montreal Protocol, to reduce use and emissions of ozone-
depleting substances to the lowest achievable level.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected are
those that recover, recycle, reclaim, sell or distribute in interstate
commerce ozone-depleting refrigerants that contain chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) or hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs); and those that service,
maintain, repair, or dispose of appliances containing CFC or HCFC
refrigerants. In addition, the owners or operators of appliances
containing more than 50 pounds of CFC or HCFC refrigerants are
regulated.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 663,669.
    Frequency of Response: Primarily annually, with the exception of
technician testing organizations that are required to report
biannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,404,913.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $96,364,851, which includes $0
annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no increase of hours in the
total estimated individual respondent burden compared with that
identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This is due to the
fact that there have been no changes in any program requirement, no
changes in EPA's estimates of the time required to submit reports and
maintain records, and no changes in EPA's estimates of the overall
number of respondents. However, due to a correction of miscalculated
estimates in the ICR currently approved by OMB, there is a change in
the estimated number of

respondents from that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.
There is also an increase in the estimated total annual cost as a
result of changes in EPA's estimates of labor rates.

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-8161 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 143 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40820-40821]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP15-554-009 and CP15-555-007]

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, Eastern Gas Transmission and
Storage, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Restoration Project and Supply Header Restoration Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft supplemental environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC's (Atlantic)
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Restoration Project, and Eastern Gas
Transmission and Storage, Inc.'s (EGTS) Supply Header Restoration
Project (Restoration Projects), in the above-referenced dockets.
Atlantic and EGTS request authorization to implement the Restoration
Projects in order to stabilize lands affected by previous construction
efforts for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project,
respectively, and to facilitate cessation of all project-related
activities. Implementation of the plans is proposed because Atlantic
and EGTS have cancelled their respective projects and do not intend to
complete them.
    The draft supplemental EIS assesses the potential impacts that
would result

from the Restoration Projects, in accordance with the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).\1\ The FERC staff
concludes that the proposed actions, with the additional mitigation
measures recommended in the supplemental EIS, would continue to avoid
or reduce impacts to less than significant levels with the exception of
climate change impacts, which FERC staff is unable to determine
significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The construction and operation impacts of the then-proposed
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project were evaluated in
a final EIS, which was issued by the Commission on July 21, 2017, in
Docket Nos. CP15-554-00, CP15-554-001; and CP15-555-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service participated as
cooperating agencies in the preparation of the draft supplemental EIS.
Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and
participate in the NEPA analysis.
    The draft supplemental EIS addresses the potential environmental
effects of the following activities:
     Atlantic proposes to leave all installed pipeline in place
(approximately 31.4 miles of the pipeline right-of-way), restore lands
that were cleared and graded (approximately 82.7 miles of the pipeline
right-of-way), and leave felled trees in place in areas where trees
have not yet been cleared (approximately 25.2 miles of the pipeline
right-of-way). For aboveground facilities, Atlantic proposes to restore
the sites and manage the disposition of the materials and land through
an investment recovery process. Workspace for these activities would
occur in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina.
     EGTS proposes to leave all installed pipeline in place
(approximately 11.7 miles), leave approximately 0.13 mile of felled
trees in place, and complete final restoration of approximately 9 miles
of the pipeline right-of-way that EGTS previously cleared and/or
graded. EGTS proposes to stabilize all aboveground facility sites and
prepare assets for long term preservation. Workspace for these
activities would occur in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability for the
draft supplemental EIS to federal, state, and local government
representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected
landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers
and libraries in the project area. The draft supplemental EIS is only
available in electronic format. It may be viewed and downloaded from
the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the Environmental Documents page
(https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In addition, the final supplemental EIS may
be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on
the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), click on
General Search, and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number''
field, (i.e., CP15-554 or CP15-555). Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The draft EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission
staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the
Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this
proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the draft supplemental EIS
may do so. Your comments should focus on the EIS's disclosure and
discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives,
and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. To ensure
consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final
supplemental EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your
comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 13, 2021.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of
formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' If you
are filing a comment on a particular project, please select ``Comment
on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Your written comments must reference the Project docket
number CP15-554-009 and/or CP15-555-007. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are
more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/ferc-online/how-guides. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants
affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor
status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and
direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately
represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you
intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.

Questions?

    Additional information about the proposals is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview.

    Dated: July 23, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16164 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA From: " Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO kent. satterlee@ shell. com>

cc:

Subject: RE: EPA CWIS 09/ 30/ 2002 02: 43 PM Carey,

Attached is Shell's updated information. Platforms EI331B & MC810A have been updated. This completes all of the platforms except for GB426A ( Auger).

Kent Satterlee, III Shell Exploration and Production Company ( SEPCo) Regulatory Affairs P. O. Box 61933 New Orleans, LA. 70161 Phone: ( 504) 728 4143 Fax: ( 504) 728 4567 Email: kent. satterlee@ shell. com  Original Message From: Johnston. Carey@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Johnston. Carey@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9: 56 AM To: Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO Subject: RE: EPA CWIS Dear Kent:

Thanks again for all your help on this project. We are compiling the data and soon set to start developing various options ( including the no regulation option). Your 08/ 22/ 02 message stated that you were expecting more data from two more Shell platforms. Any updates? Last call for data is 9/ 30. Thanks!

Carey A. Johnston, P. E. U. S. EPA, Office of Water ph: ( 202) 566 1014 fx: ( 202) 566 1053 johnston. carey@ epa. gov " Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO" To: " Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO" < kent. satterlee@ s < kent. satterlee@ shell. com>, Carey hell. com> Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc:

08/ 22/ 02 03: 33 PM Subject: RE: EPA CWIS Sorry Carey. I forgot to include the file. << CWIS. zip>> Kent Satterlee, III Shell Exploration and Production Company ( SEPCo) Regulatory Affairs P. O. Box 61933 New Orleans, LA. 70161 Phone: ( 504) 728 4143 Fax: ( 504) 728 4567 Email: kent. satterlee@ shell. com  Original Message From: Satterlee, Kent S SEPCO Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2: 32 PM To: Johnston Carey ( E mail) Subject: EPA CWIS Carey, Attached is a new zip file with the Shell data ( pdf file) included. We are still lacking data from two platforms and will update this when we are able to get with the engineers.

Kent Satterlee, III Shell Exploration and Production Company ( SEPCo) Regulatory Affairs P. O. Box 61933 New Orleans, LA. 70161 Phone: ( 504) 728 4143 Fax: ( 504) 728 4567 Email: kent. satterlee@ shell. com ( See attached file: EPA_ CWIS_ PROJECT_ LINKED 9 30 02. pdf)