Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Rate-of-Progress Emission Reduction Plans

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA-25-7197c; A-1-FRL-6444-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; Rate-of-Progress Emission Reduction Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the

[[Page 51944]]

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision establishes 15 percent and

post-1996 rate-of-progress plans for the Springfield Massachusetts

serious ozone nonattainment area. The intended effect of this action is

to propose approval of this SIP revision as meeting the requirements of

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.)

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 27, 1999.

Public comments on this document are requested and will be considered

before taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director,

Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ,

Boston, MA 02114-2023. Copies of the documents relevant to this action

are available for public inspection during normal business hours, by

appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston,

MA, and at the Division of Air Quality Control, Department of

Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA

02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McConnell, (617) 918-1046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking today?

B. Why was Massachusetts required to reduce its emissions of ozone

forming pollutants?

C. Which specific air pollutants are targeted by the Commonwealth's

plan?

D. What are the sources of these pollutants?

E. What harmful effects can these pollutants produce?

F. Should I be concerned if I live near an industry that emits a

significant amount of these pollutants?

G. To what degree do the Commonwealth's plans reduce emissions?

H. Why didn't EPA approve the Commonwealth's prior versions of these

plans?

I. How will the Commonwealth achieve these emission reductions?

J. The Commonwealth was supposed to achieve a portion of these

emission reductions by 1996, and the remainder by 1999. Has that

happened?

K. Why is EPA approving a plan that only covers the western part of

the State?

L. Have these emission reductions improved air quality in

Massachusetts?

M. Massachusetts is downwind of many large metropolitan areas. Do

pollutants emitted in other states affect air quality in

Massachusetts?

N. EPA recently required 22 eastern states, including Massachusetts,

to develop plans that will significantly reduce nitrogen oxide

emissions. Given that requirement, why is approval of these plans

needed?

O. Has Massachusetts met its contingency measure obligation?

P. Are conformity budgets contained in these plans?

A. What Action is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is proposing approval of rate-of-progress (ROP) emission

reduction plans submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the

Springfield serious ozone nonattainment area as revisions to the

Commonwealth's SIP. The ROP plans document how Massachusetts complied

with the provisions of sections 182 (b)(1) and (c)(2) of the Federal

Clean Air Act (the Act). These sections of the Act require states

containing certain ozone nonattainment areas to develop strategies to

reduce emissions of the pollutants that react to form ground level

ozone.

B. Why Was Massachusetts Required To Reduce Its Emissions of Ozone

Forming Pollutants?

Massachusetts was required to develop plans to reduce ozone

precursor emissions because it contains a serious ozone nonattainment

area. A final rule published by EPA on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694)

designated four counties in the western part of the State a serious

ozone nonattainment area. The four counties included are Berkshire,

Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties, and the area is referred to

as the Springfield, Massachusetts serious ozone nonattainment area.

Sections 182 (b)(1) and (c)(2) of the Act require that serious ozone

nonattainment areas develop ROP plans to reduce ozone forming pollutant

emissions in the nonattainment area.

As stated above, two provisions of the Act make achieving these

emission reductions necessary. Under section 182(b)(1), Massachusetts

needed to develop a plan to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions by 15 percent by 1996. These plans are referred to as ``15

percent ROP'' plans. Requirements in section 182(c)(2) of the Act

instruct Massachusetts to achieve additional emission reductions. These

additional reductions must lower ozone precursor emissions (VOC or

nitrogen oxides) by 9 percent by 1999. These plans are referred to as

``post 1996 ROP'' plans.

C. Which Specific Air Pollutants Are Targeted by the Commonwealth's

Plan?

The Commonwealth's plans are geared toward reducing emissions of

VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These compounds react in the

presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone, which is a primary

ingredient of smog.

D. What Are the Sources of These Pollutants?

VOCs are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor

vehicles, a variety of consumer and commercial products such as paints

and solvents, chemical plants, gasoline stations, and other industrial

sources. NOX is emitted from motor vehicles, power plants,

and other sources that burn fossil fuels.

E. What Harmful Effects Can These Pollutants Produce?

VOCs and NOX react in the atmosphere to form ozone, the

prime ingredient of smog in our cities and many rural areas of the

country. Though it occurs naturally at elevated levels in our

atmosphere, at ground level it is the prime ingredient of smog. When

inhaled, even at very low levels, ozone can:

Cause acute respiratory problems;

Aggravate asthma;

Cause significant temporary decreases in lung capacity in some healthy

adults;

Cause inflammation of lung tissue;

Lead to hospital admissions and emergency room visits; and

Impair the body's immune system defenses.

F. Should I Be Concerned if I Live Near an Industry That Emits a

Significant Amount of These Pollutants?

Industrial facilities that emit large amounts of these pollutants

are monitored by the Commonwealth's environmental agency, the

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Many facilities are

required to emit air pollutants through tall stacks to ensure that high

concentrations of pollutants do not exist at ground level. Permits

issued to these facilities include information on which pollutants are

being released, how much may be released, and what steps the source's

owner or operator is taking to reduce pollution. The Massachusetts DEP

makes permit applications and permits readily available to the public

for review. You can contact the Massachusetts DEP for more information

about air pollution emitted by industrial facilities in your

neighborhood.

G. To What Degree Do the Commonwealth's Plans Reduce Emissions?

By 1999, the Commonwealth's plans will reduce VOC emissions in the

Springfield area by 20 percent and NOX emissions by 8

percent compared to 1990 emission levels.

[[Page 51945]]

H. Why Didn't EPA Approve the Commonwealth's Prior Versions of

These Plans?

EPA proposed to approve a prior version of the Massachusetts 15

percent plan submitted to EPA in 1997 (see July 14, 1997 Federal

Register, 62 FR 37527). EPA did not grant final approval because the

Commonwealth did not meet the conditions EPA listed in that proposal.

Specifically, the Commonwealth did not meet its commitment to begin an

automobile emission ``inspection and maintenance'' (I/M) program. EPA

did not propose action on the Commonwealth's post 1996 ROP plan in the

July 14, 1999 document.

On April 1, 1999, June 25, 1999, and September 9, 1999,

Massachusetts submitted revisions to its 15 percent and post 1996 ROP

plans (the ``revised ROP plans''.) These revisions contain a new start-

up date for the Commonwealth's automobile I/M program, and revised

emission reduction estimates for this program.

I. How Will the Commonwealth Achieve These Emission Reductions?

The Commonwealth will achieve emission reductions using essentially

the same control strategy outlined in a previous submittal that was

dated March 31, 1997. EPA's July 14, 1997 proposed approval of that

version of the Massachusetts 15 percent plan noted that EPA had not

approved the Commonwealth's VOC reasonably available control technology

(RACT) rules , but would by the time final approval was granted to the

15 percent plan. EPA approved the referenced Massachusetts VOC RACT

rules in a document published in the Federal Register on September 3,

1999 (64 FR 48297).

One notable difference between the Commonwealth's prior 15 percent

ROP plan and the revised ROP plans is the amount of emission reductions

claimed from the I/M program. Massachusetts still assumes emission

reductions from its I/M program, but over a much shorter time-frame due

to the anticipated October 1, 1999 start date. The 15 percent plan

submitted by the Commonwealth in 1997 had assumed that the I/M program

would begin no later than January 1, 1998.

EPA is also proposing approval of the Massachusetts I/M program in

the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register. EPA notes that

there are minor differences between the characteristics of the I/M

program submitted by the Commonwealth and the parameters of the I/M

program that Massachusetts used to determine emission reduction credit

for its ROP plans. The primary difference is that the State's I/M SIP

includes provisions for a remote sensing program. This characteristic

was not accounted for when the State determined emission reductions

from I/M for use in its ROP plans. Inclusion of the new remote sensing

program in the Commonwealth's I/M strategy slightly lowers the amount

of emission reductions that I/M will achieve. However, the DEP has

supplied documentation that illustrates this impact is minimal,

particularly in light of the small amount of emission reduction credit

claimed due to the October 1, 1999 projected start date. EPA agrees

with Massachusetts' assessment that the remote sensing program will not

hinder the Commonwealth's ability to meet its ROP emission targets.

As mentioned above, the Massachusetts ROP plans contain a

demonstration that the amount of emission reductions required of 15

percent and post-96 plans can be achieved despite lessening the

emission reductions attributable to the I/M program. The Commonwealth

accomplished this primarily by changing the way that emission increases

due to growth were determined, and by considering November 15, 1999 the

evaluation date for achievement of the overall required reduction. The

Commonwealth's revised growth estimates are based upon 1996 emission

estimates, calculated using the same emission estimation procedures as

the base year emissions, projected to 1999. This methodology should

yield a more accurate projection of 1999 emission levels than the prior

estimates, which were projected from the 1990 base year.

EPA's July 14, 1997 proposed approval of the Massachusetts 15

percent ROP plan outlines the control strategy used by the Commonwealth

to generate emission reductions for that plan. Since the EPA's July 14,

1997 document only dealt with the Massachusetts 15 percent plan, that

notice does not describe measures included in the Commonwealth's post-

1996 plan. The Massachusetts post-1996 plan is described below.

Massachusetts used the appropriate EPA guidance to calculate the

1999 VOC and NOX emission target levels, and the amount of

reductions needed to achieve its emission target levels. Table 1

illustrates the steps used by Massachusetts to derive its 1999 emission

target levels for VOC and NOX. The ROP plans indicate that

1999 projected, controlled emissions are below the target levels for

the Springfield nonattainment area.

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

Target level calculations Springfield, VOC Emissions NOX Emissions

MA nonattainment area (tpsd) (tpsd)

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

1990 Base Year Inventory................ 436 115

Rate-of Progress Inventory (biogenics 153 115

and non-reactives subtracted)..........

non-creditable reductions \1\........... 13 10

Calculate required reduction (State will 2%*153=3 7%*115=8

use 2% VOC and 7% NOX for 1996 to 1999

ROP)...................................

Calculate Total Expected Reductions (sum 6 18

of FMVCP and required 9% reduction.)

\2\....................................

Set Target Level for 1999 \3\........... 115 97

Incorporate growth and controls to 115 97

determine 1999 emission levels.........

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

\1\ States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (new car emission standards)

promulgated prior to 1990 or for reductions resulting from

requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline

promulgated prior to 1990.

\2\ For VOC, 10 of the 13 tpsd non-creditable FMVCP reduction occurs

between 1990 and 1996, and is accounted for in the determination of

the State's 1996 emission target level.

\3\ The 1999 VOC target level is obtained by subtracting FMVCP

reductions that accrue between 1996 to 1999 (3 tpsd) and the

reductions need for ROP (also 3 tpsd), from the 1996 target.

The Commonwealth's post-1996 control strategy matches the control

strategy described in the EPA's July 14, 1997 proposed approval of the

Massachusetts 15 percent plan, and also includes emission reductions

from the

[[Page 51946]]

Commonwealth's NOX RACT rule, and emission reductions from

federal measures limiting emissions from non-road engines promulgated

between 1996 and 1999. Reductions from the NOX RACT rule and

from the federal non-road standards are described further below.

NOX RACT

Massachusetts has adopted a NOX RACT regulation, the

citation for which is 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 7.19. The

regulation applies to facilities with potential emissions of 50 tons

per year or greater. Facilities covered by the rule needed to comply by

May 31, 1995. Massachusetts submitted the rule to EPA on July 15, 1994,

as a revision to the Commonwealth's SIP. EPA approved the

Commonwealth's NOX RACT rule on September 2, 1999 (64 FR

48095). The rule will reduce NOX emissions from point

sources by 6 tons per day in the Springfield area.

Federal Non-Road Standards

In the July 3, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34581), EPA promulgated

the first phase of the regulations to control emissions from new non-

road spark-ignition engines. The regulation is found at 40 CFR part 90,

and is titled, ``Control of Emissions From Non-road Spark-Ignition

Engines.'' EPA has determined that the first phase of the new non-road

standards will cause a reduction of VOC emissions of 23.9 percent by

1999. Massachusetts applied this reduction percentage to its non-road

inventory. The sale of reformulated gasoline in Massachusetts also

reduces non-road emissions in the Commonwealth. The combined effect of

reformulated gasoline and the new non-road standards will lower non-

road VOC emissions by 7 tpsd in the Springfield area.

Table 2 summarizes the emission reductions contained within the

Massachusetts ROP plans.

Table 2.--Summary of Emission Reductions: Springfield, Massachusetts

Serious Ozone Nonattainment area

[tons/day]

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

VOC reduction

Control measure (tpsd) NOX reduction (tpsd)

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

Point Source RACT........... 5 6

Auto Refinishing............ 2 0

Commercial and Consumer 1 0

Products.

Architectural Coatings...... 1 0

On-road Control Measures: 23 16

Reformulated gas, I/M, Tier

1, CA-LEV, Stage II.

Non-road Control Measures: 7 (2 tpsd increase)

Reformulated gas, federal

non-road engine standards.

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

The Massachusetts ROP plans demonstrate that the VOC and NOX

emission reductions from the control strategy will achieve sufficient

emission reductions to lower 1999 emission levels below the target

levels calculated for each pollutant.

EPA believes that the Commonwealth's analysis of the reductions

that its adopted control measures will achieve is generally valid. Some

uncertainty exists in the amount of emission reductions that are

occurring from the Massachusetts stage II gasoline vapor recovery

regulation.4 But any shortfall in emissions reductions from

that program that might occur due to poor rule effectiveness will be

more than compensated for by excess emissions reductions from the

reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. EPA's survey of the actual content

of RFG in the Commonwealth indicates that the program is consistently

achieving greater VOC emissions reductions than required under the RFG

program.

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

\4\ There is evidence that suggests Massachusetts stage II rule

may not be as effective as DEP has assumed. Recent DEP and EPA

inspections have revealed substantial noncompliance at service

stations across the Commonwealth. In its July 27, 1998 one hour

ozone attainment demonstration submittal, Massachusetts committed to

address this poor compliance rate for its Stage II program by

modifying the regulation to enhance the compliance assurance

mechanisms designed into the rule. When EPA acts on the attainment

demonstration, we will evaluate whether Massachusetts has adequately

addressed these compliance issues.

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

J. The Commonwealth Was Supposed To Achieve a Portion of These

Emission Reductions by 1996, and the Remainder by 1999. Has That

Happened?

Although Massachusetts did not reduce its hydrocarbon emissions by

15 percent by November 15, 1996, the Commonwealth has shown that all of

the emission reductions required of 15 percent plans by 1996, and post-

1996 plans by 1999, will occur by November 15, 1999. EPA believes it

can approve both of these plans for the reasons provided below.

It is not possible for Massachusetts to demonstrate a 15 percent

emission reduction by November 15, 1996, as that date has passed. Once

a statutory deadline has passed and has not been replaced by a later

one, the deadline then becomes ``as soon as possible.'' Delaney v. EPA,

898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted this requirement

to be ``as soon as practicable.''

The EPA examined other potentially available SIP measures to

determine if they were practicable for the Springfield nonattainment

area, and if they would meaningfully accelerate the date by which the

area achieves emission reductions. EPA believes that the Commonwealth's

SIP submittal contains the appropriate measures. The rationale for this

determination is that although several area source measures exist which

the Commonwealth could implement, these measures would not achieve the

same level of emission reductions expected from the Commonwealth's I/M

program, and additionally, would not meaningfully accelerate the

achievement of the required reductions, as the Commonwealth would have

to go through its rule adoption process to implement these measures.

Therefore, EPA believes that the ROP plans for the Springfield area as

resubmitted to EPA on April 1, 1999, June 25, 1999, and September 9,

1999, meet the as soon as practicable requirement.

EPA has determined that it will approve Massachusetts' ROP plans if

these plans demonstrate that by November 15, 1999, ozone precursor

emissions are lowered by 24 percent. A 24 percent emission reduction

represents the combined total emission reduction that the 15 percent

and post-96 ROP plans must achieve by November 15, 1999. Under section

182(c)(2)(C) of the act, NOX emission reductions can only be

used after November 15, 1996, and therefore can only represent 9

percent of the 24 percent reduction required by November 15, 1999. EPA

believes it is appropriate to approve the plans

[[Page 51947]]

because although the 15 percent plan portion of the emission reduction

did not occur on time, the Massachusetts' plan accomplishes the

required amount of emission reductions as soon as is practicable.

Ultimately the overall environmental benefit required of sections

182(b) and (c)(2) of the Act will be achieved if ozone precursor

emissions are 24 percent lower than baseline levels by November 15,

1999.

K. Why Is EPA Approving a Plan That Only Covers the Western Part of

the State?

A plan is not needed for the Eastern Massachusetts serious area

because that area recently met the one-hour National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This determination is based upon

three years of complete, quality assured ambient air monitoring data

for the years 1996-98 that demonstrate that the one hour ozone NAAQS

has been attained in this area. On the basis of this determination, EPA

is also determining that certain ROP and attainment demonstration

requirements, along with certain other related requirements, of part D

of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act are not applicable to this area for so

long as the area continues to attain the one hour ozone NAAQS. The

Springfield nonattainment area in western Massachusetts continues to

monitor violations of the one hour ozone standard, and therefore

continues to be subject to ROP requirements.

L. Have These Emission Reductions Improved Air Quality in

Massachusetts?

Ozone levels have decreased in the Springfield area during the

1990's, due in part to emission reductions achieved by the

Commonwealth's plans. Pollution control measures implemented by States

upwind of Massachusetts have also helped ozone levels decline in this

area of the State.

M. Massachusetts Is Downwind of Many Large Metropolitan Areas. Do

Pollutants Emitted in Other States Affect Air Quality in

Massachusetts?

The pollutants that form ground level ozone can be transported

hundreds of miles, and so pollutants emitted in other States can

adversely impact air quality in Massachusetts. Air pollution emitted

from sources in Massachusetts contributes to the Commonwealth's air

quality problems, and can also negatively impact air quality in areas

downwind of Massachusetts. Air quality modeling performed by the New

England States and by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)

indicates that ozone levels in Massachusetts are highest when winds are

from the south-west, which supports the conclusion that air quality in

the Commonwealth is negatively impacted by the large metropolitan areas

downwind of the state.

N. EPA Recently Required 22 Eastern States, Including

Massachusetts, To Develop Plans That Will Significantly reduce

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions. Given That Requirement, Why Is Approval

of These Plans Needed?

The rate-of-progress plans prepared by Massachusetts and other

states with ozone nonattainment areas have helped lower ozone levels.

Approval of these plans by EPA, and the pollution control measures

associated with them, will ensure that improvements made in air quality

are maintained. Additionally, approval of the regulations associated

with them make the rules enforceable by EPA.

Despite the emission reductions achieved through implementation of

rate-of-progress plans, many areas of the country still do not meet the

one hour ozone standard. The modeling done by the OTAG for the eastern

half of the United States indicates that the long distance transport of

nitrogen oxides across state borders will prevent many areas from

attaining this standard by relying solely on emission reductions from

within their borders. The NOX SIP call, which was published

as a final rule on October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), will require large

NOX emission reductions across the eastern half of the

United States. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia ordered on May 26, 1999 that the EPA suspend implementation of

the NOX SIP call pending consideration of a lawsuit that has

challenged its requirements. In any case, these ROP plans are required

by the CAA. Combined with the NOX emission reductions EPA

hopes to achieve in up-wind states, these ROP plans should assure

progress toward attaining the one hour ozone standard.

O. Has Massachusetts Met its Contingency Measure Obligation?

Ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or above must

submit to the EPA, pursuant to sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the

Act, contingency measures to be implemented if an area misses an ozone

SIP milestone or does not attain the national ambient air quality

standard by the applicable date.

On September 9, 1999, the Commonwealth submitted an amendment to

its ROP plan for Western Massachusetts. The amendment included revised

1999 NOX emission estimates that were higher than the

Commonwealth's prior submittal, and is essence erased the

NOX emission reduction surplus the State had previously

forecast. Since Massachusetts had intended to use the surplus

NOX reductions to meet its contingency obligation, the

September 9, 1999 amended submittal from Massachusetts no longer

contains a contingency plan. The Commonwealth's September 9, 1999

submittal contains a commitment to submit a revised contingency plan

shortly, and indicates that phase II of the reformulated gasoline

program is likely to be cited as the control measure that will achieve

the necessary reductions. EPA agrees that this control measure is

likely to provide the necessary reductions, and will take action on the

Commonwealth's contingency plan after it is revised and submitted as a

SIP revision.

P. Are Conformity Budgets Contained in These Plans?

Section 176(c) of the Act, and 40 CFR 51.452(b) of the Federal

transportation conformity rule require states to establish motor

vehicle emissions budgets in any control strategy SIP that is submitted

for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Massachusetts will use

these budgets to determine whether proposed projects that attract

traffic will ``conform'' to the emissions assumptions in the SIP.

The Commonwealth's revised ROP plans contain motor vehicle emission

budgets for the year 1999. However, the Massachusetts DEP submitted an

ozone attainment demonstration plan to EPA in 1998 that contains mobile

source emission budgets for Western Massachusetts for 2003. Since the

year 2003 budgets are more restrictive, cover a time frame later than

the ROP plans (which include the current transportation analyses

milestone years), and are based on the attainment plan, these 2003 VOC

and NOX budgets take precedence over motor vehicle emission

budgets for earlier years. The specific 2003 budgets for the

Springfield area are 23.770 tpsd for VOC, and 49.110 tpsd for

NOX.

EPA's review of this material indicates that the Commonwealth has

met the ROP requirements of the Act. EPA is proposing to approve the

ROP plans that Massachusetts submitted as a SIP revision on April 1,

1999 and June 25, 1999. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues

discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments

will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may

participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written

comments to the EPA Regional

[[Page 51948]]

office listed in the Addresses section of this document.

II. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the rate-of-progress SIP revision

submitted by Massachusetts on April 1, 1999 and June 25, 1999 as a

revision to the SIP.

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 Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this action.

EPA is proposing approval of the Massachusetts I/M program

elsewhere in today's Federal Register. EPA intends to publish final

rules for the ROP and I/M SIPs simultaneously at the completion of the

public comment period, unless persuaded by comments that final approval

of either of these actions is inappropriate.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any new enforceable duties on

these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O.

12875 do not apply to this rule.

On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order

on federalism, Executive Order 13132, (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)),

which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current

Executive Order 12612, (52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)), on federalism

still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on

States, on the relationship between the national government and the

States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 12612.

The rule affects only Massachusetts, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power established in the Clean Air

Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not

``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and it

implements a previously promulgated health or safety-based Federal

standard.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve

or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities because approvals of SIP

submittals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air

Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements

that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP

approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-

State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v.

U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

[[Page 51949]]

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

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

Dated: September 17, 1999.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 99-25043 Filed 9-24-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P