Air Plan Approval; MA; Decommissioning of Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems, 85897-85901 [2016-28587]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
funded under the STOP Program. Funds
may not be used for conducting research
or evaluations. Applicants should
consider entering into partnerships with
research organizations that are
submitting simultaneous grant
applications to the National Institute of
Justice for this purpose.
§ 90.22
Review of State applications.
(a) General. The provisions of Part T
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3796gg et
seq., and of this subpart provide the
basis for review and approval or
disapproval of State applications and
amendments.
(b) Intergovernmental review. This
program is covered by Executive Order
12372 (Intergovernmental Review of
Federal Programs) and implementing
regulations at 28 CFR part 30. A copy
of the application submitted to the
Office on Violence Against Women
should also be submitted at the same
time to the State’s Single Point of
Contact, if there is a Single Point of
Contact.
§ 90.23 Annual grantee and subgrantee
reporting.
Subgrantees shall complete annual
progress reports and submit them to the
State, which shall review them and
submit them to OVW or as otherwise
directed. In addition, the State shall
complete an annual progress report,
including an assessment of whether or
not annual goals and objectives were
achieved.
§ 90.24 Activities that may compromise
victim safety and recovery.
Because of the overall purpose of the
STOP Program to enhance victim safety
and offender accountability, grant funds
may not be used to support activities
that compromise victim safety and
recovery. The grant program solicitation
each year will provide examples of such
activities.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 90.25
program, and does not propose
significant activities that compromise
victim safety. States should have the
following information on file to
document the lack of sufficient eligible
applications:
(1) A copy of their solicitation;
(2) Documentation on how the
solicitation was distributed, including
all outreach efforts to entities from the
allocation in question, which entities
the State reached out to that did not
apply, and, if known, why those entities
did not apply;
(3) An explanation of their selection
process;
(4) A list of who participated in the
selection process (name, title, and
employer);
(5) Number of applications that were
received for the specific allocation
category;
(6) Information about the applications
received, such as what agency or
organization they were from, how much
money they were requesting, and any
reasons the applications were not
funded;
(7) If applicable, letters from any
relevant State-wide body explaining the
lack of applications, such as from the
State Court Administrator if the State is
seeking to reallocate money from courts;
and
(8) For the culturally specific
allocation, in addition to the items in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this
section, demographic statistics of the
relevant racial and ethnic minority
groups within the State and
documentation that the State has
reached out to relevant organizations
within the State or national
organizations.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP). This revision includes
regulatory amendments that allow
gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) to
decommission their Stage II vapor
recovery systems as of January 2, 2015,
and a demonstration that such removal
is consistent with the Clean Air Act and
EPA guidance. This revision also
includes regulatory amendments that
strengthen Massachusetts’ requirements
for Stage I vapor recovery systems at
GDFs. The intended effect of this action
is to approve Massachusetts’ revised
vapor recovery regulations. This action
is being taken in accordance with the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on
December 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–
2015–0351. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://
www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail
code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–
3912, telephone number (617) 918–
1660, fax number (617) 918–0660, email
garcia.ariel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Organization of this document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a State
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
Dated: November 17, 2016.
Bea Hanson,
Principal Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 2016–28437 Filed 11–28–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–FX–P
Reallocation of funds.
This section implements 42 U.S.C.
3796gg–1(j), regarding reallocation of
funds.
(a) Returned funds. A State may
reallocate funds returned to the State,
within a reasonable amount of time
before the award end date.
(b) Insufficient eligible applications. A
State may also reallocate funds if the
State does not receive sufficient eligible
applications to award the full funding
under the allocations in 42 U.S.C.
3796gg–1(c)(4). An ‘‘eligible’’
application is one that is from an
eligible entity that has the capacity to
perform the proposed services, proposes
activities within the scope of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:25 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
85897
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0351; A–1–FRL–
9950–92–Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; MA;
Decommissioning of Stage II Vapor
Recovery Systems
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
85898
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background and Purpose
On March 9, 2016 (81 FR 12440), EPA
published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
NPR proposed approval of
Massachusetts’ revised regulations 310
Code of Massachusetts Regulations
(CMR) 7.00, Air Pollution Control:
Definitions, 310 CMR 7.24(3),
Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuel, 310
CMR 7.24(4), Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank
Trucks, and 310 CMR 7.24(6),
Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel. These
regulations had been amended to allow
the decommissioning of Stage II vapor
recovery systems and to strengthen
Stage I vapor recovery requirements.
The SIP revision was submitted by the
MassDEP on May 5, 2015 and also
included a demonstration that the
decommissioning of Stage II vapor
recovery systems at gasoline dispensing
facilities is consistent with the Clean
Air Act and EPA guidance.
A detailed discussion of
Massachusetts’ May 5, 2015 SIP revision
and EPA’s rationale for proposing
approval of the SIP revision were
provided in the NPR and will not be
restated in this notice, except to the
extent relevant to our responses to
public comments we received on our
proposal.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received one comment on the
NPR from the Vapor Recovery
Association. That comment is
summarized below with EPA’s
response.
Comment: The commenter opposes
EPA’s proposed approval of
Massachusetts’ revised Stage II vapor
recovery regulation. The commenter
believes that eliminating Stage II vapor
recovery systems at GDFs and relying
solely on Onboard Refueling Vapor
Recovery (ORVR) systems located
within the vehicles to mitigate refueling
emissions will have a negative impact
on air quality; cause adverse health
impacts to motorists, GDF employees,
and members of the community; and
result in a severe negative burden in
Environmental Justice (EJ) areas in
Massachusetts.
Furthermore, the commenter asserts
that MassDEP’s rationale for
decommissioning Stage II vapor
recovery systems is not based in science
and that it can be mathematically shown
that emissions will be increased rather
than decreased as a result of the
elimination of the Stage II vapor
recovery program. However, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:25 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
commenter did not submit any
calculations in support of its claims of
the increased emissions, health impacts,
and the impacts on EJ areas that the
commenter alleges would result from
decommissioning Stage II vapor
recovery systems at GDFs in
Massachusetts. Nor did the commenter
specify what specific aspects of the
technical analyses conducted by the
MassDEP in support of its SIP revision
were scientifically unsupportable.
Finally, the commenter believes that
in terminating the Massachusetts Stage
II vapor recovery program, the MassDEP
is not adhering to its mission statement.
The commenter also believes that the
technical details of fuel storage tank
evaporative losses and the alleged
significant increase in refueling
emissions impacts caused by
Massachusetts’ removal of Stage II vapor
recovery, should have received more
thought, analysis and quantification.
Again, however, the commenter did not
provide specific criticism of the
analyses conducted by MassDEP, did
not identify any specific aspects of those
analyses that the commenter believes
are incorrect, and did not assert any
alternative specific results or
conclusions that the commenter
believes would result if the issues were
evaluated according to the commenter’s
unspecified preferred alternative
methodology.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
Vapor Recovery Association’s assertion
that there will be significant increased
emissions from this action.
Massachusetts’ May 5, 2015 SIP revision
contains a Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(l) demonstration which was
performed in accordance with EPA’s
final rule determining that ORVR is now
in widespread use in the national motor
vehicle fleet (77 FR 28770, May 16,
2012) and with EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on
Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Control Programs from State
Implementation Plans and Assessing
Comparable Measures’’ (EPA–457/B–
12–001, August 7, 2012), hereafter,
EPA’s August 7, 2012 Guidance (a copy
of this guidance has been placed in the
public docket for this action).
The Massachusetts rule allows GDFs
to decommission Stage II systems as of
January 2, 2015, and requires all GDFs
equipped with Stage II vapor recovery
systems to decommission their Stage II
systems by January 2, 2017 (by the end
of 2016). As discussed in the NPR,
Appendix Table A–1 of EPA’s August 7,
2012 Guidance illustrates that by the
end of 2016, approximately 85% of the
vehicles in the national motor vehicle
fleet will be equipped with ORVR. The
number of ORVR-equipped vehicles in
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Massachusetts will likely be even higher
due to Massachusetts having a more
accelerated motor vehicle fleet turnover
when compared to the national motor
vehicle fleet.1 Appendix Table A–1 also
illustrates that by the end of 2016, about
89% of the gasoline dispensed
nationally will be to ORVR-equipped
vehicles, which is also likely to be
higher in Massachusetts due to a newer
motor vehicle fleet. At that point in
time, since a vast majority of
Massachusetts vehicles being refueled at
gasoline dispensing facilities will be
equipped with ORVR systems, the
ORVR systems will be controlling the
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, making Stage II vapor
recovery systems a redundant, and
potentially incompatible, emissions
control technology in Massachusetts.
Therefore, removing the Stage II systems
is not expected to result in a significant
emissions increase, and is actually
expected to avoid emissions increases
resulting from the incompatibility of
some Stage II systems with ORVR
controls.
EPA also disagrees with the
commenter’s assertion that the alleged
increase in emissions resulting from the
removal of Stage II controls will result
in a large increase in adverse health
impacts to motorists, GDF employees,
and members of the community. EPA’s
August 7, 2012 Guidance states that
‘‘EPA believes it is reasonable to
conclude that the incremental emissions
control that Stage II achieves beyond
ORVR is de minimis if it is less than 10
percent of the area-wide emissions
inventory associated with refueling
highway motor vehicles.’’ As noted in
the NPR, Massachusetts appropriately
calculated the increase in refuelingassociated emissions from the
decommissioning of Stage II systems in
2013 as 5.2 percent of that inventory,
thus meeting this de minimis threshold.
As also noted in the NPR, the increase
in emissions from Stage II system
decommissioning calculated by
Massachusetts for 2013 (463 tons of
VOC) is only about 0.3 percent of the
total anthropogenic VOC emissions in
Massachusetts (see EPA’s 2011 National
Emissions Inventory database Version 2
1 Air Program Support for Stage I and Stage II
Programs in Massachusetts Final Report, Eastern
Research Group, Inc. and de la Torre-Klausmeier
Consulting, December 12, 2012, includes an
analysis of vehicle registration data, from the
Massachusetts motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program database, illustrating that
76% of motor vehicles inspected in 2011
throughout Massachusetts had ORVR controls. This
is much more accelerated than EPA’s end of 2011
calendar year national estimate that 67.1% of
vehicles in the national motor vehicle fleet were
equipped with ORVR.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/
2011inventory.html). Also, as explained
in EPA’s ORVR rulemaking and in
EPA’s August 7, 2012 Guidance, these
foregone emissions reductions in the
near term continue to diminish rapidly
over time as ORVR phase-in continues.
Therefore, since the de minimis criteria
discussed in EPA’s August 7, 2012
Guidance have been met, EPA is
approving Massachusetts’ SIP revision.
Furthermore, we note that
Massachusetts’ revised 310 CMR 7.24(3)
regulation also includes new Stage I
vapor recovery requirements that will
lead to additional emission reductions.
Specifically, the regulation requires
GDFs to upgrade their Stage I vapor
recovery systems to Stage I Enhanced
Vapor Recovery (EVR) systems certified
by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) or a Stage I vapor recovery
system composed of EVR system
components (Stage I EVR component
systems). The upgrade to Stage I EVR
systems or Stage I EVR component
systems is required upon facility startup for facilities beginning operation or
installing a fuel storage tank as of
January 2, 2015. In addition, as of
January 2, 2015, any component of a
pre-existing Stage I vapor recovery
system that is replaced is required to be
replaced with a CARB-certified Stage I
EVR component. The Massachusetts
regulation further requires that all Stage
I systems be CARB-certified Stage I EVR
systems or Stage I EVR component
systems by January 2, 2022. CARBcertified Stage I EVR systems have been
certified to achieve a 98 percent
reduction in VOC emissions, as
compared to 95 percent for pre-EVR
Stage I systems. Thus, when pre-EVR
Stage I systems in Massachusetts are
replaced with CARB-certified Stage I
EVR systems, a greater emission
reduction will be achieved. Also, when
a component of a pre-EVR Stage I
system is replaced with a CARBcertified Stage I EVR component, a
somewhat greater reduction is expected
to be achieved. These additional
reductions will further mitigate any
temporary declining emissions
increases, which are already de
minimis, resulting from the removal of
Stage II equipment.
Although the commenter generally
asserted that MassDEP’s analyses and
demonstrations were not scientifically
supported and that emissions increases
could be mathematically shown to
result from the removal of Stage II
equipment, the commenter provided no
information, data, or analytical critiques
to support these allegations. The
commenter has therefore not raised with
reasonable specificity any objections to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:25 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
the underlying analyses and
demonstrations supporting EPA’s
proposed approval of Massachusetts’
SIP revision. Consequently, it is not
possible for EPA to respond to any
specific criticisms that the commenter
may have had of the MassDEP’s
analyses, other than to reiterate that
EPA concludes that Massachusetts has
conducted its demonstration
consistently with EPA’s applicable
regulations and guidance under the
Clean Air Act, as described and
evaluated in detail in the NPR. See, 81
FR at 12442–43.
Finally, EPA disagrees with the
comment that MassDEP is not adhering
to its mission statement and that an
insufficient amount of thought, analysis,
and quantification was provided by
MassDEP regarding the impacts of
decommissioning Stage II vapor
recovery systems in Massachusetts.
MassDEP’s analysis was conducted in
accordance with EPA’s ORVR
rulemaking and EPA’s August 7, 2012
Guidance. In fact, prior to the issuance
of EPA’s August 7, 2012 Guidance,
MassDEP hired independent consultants
to conduct an analysis on the emissions
impacts of the proposed changes to the
Massachusetts Stage I and Stage II vapor
recovery programs.2 One of the
noteworthy results presented in the
consultant’s report was the analysis of
whether removal of Stage II controls
would result in disproportionate air
quality impacts in EJ communities. The
consultant’s analysis determined that,
previous to the April 2012 point at
which EPA determined ORVR to have
become in widespread use, EJ
communities had a slightly lower
proportion of ORVR-equipped vehicles
(73% of the motor vehicle fleet) than
non-EJ communities (77% of the motor
vehicle fleet), based on 2011 data in
Massachusetts. Although this shows
that continuing to operate Stage II
systems in Massachusetts EJ
communities would not as quickly
become redundant and potentially
incompatible with ORVR controls as in
non-EJ Massachusetts communities,
Appendix Table A–1 of EPA’s August 7,
2012 Guidance illustrates that only
about 67% of the national motor vehicle
fleet consisted of ORVR-equipped
vehicles in 2011, which is still less than
the 73% rate for EJ communities in
Massachusetts. The commenter has
provided no information indicating that
the rate of fleet turnover and the rate at
which gasoline is dispensed to ORVR
2 Air Program Support for Stage I and Stage II
Programs in Massachusetts Final Report, Eastern
Research Group, Inc. and de la Torre-Klausmeier
Consulting, December 12, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
85899
equipped vehicles in Massachusetts EJ
communities has subsequently fallen
behind the corresponding national rates
they were exceeding in 2011. Therefore,
in response to the comment, EPA has no
reason to believe that the emissions
impact of decommissioning Stage II
vapor recovery systems in EJ
communities in Massachusetts is more
significant than that discussed in EPA
guidance as an acceptable national
average impact.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving Massachusetts’ May
5, 2015 SIP revision. Specifically, EPA
is approving, and incorporating into the
Massachusetts SIP, the following
amended Massachusetts regulations:
310 CMR 7.00, ‘‘Air Pollution Control:
Definitions;’’ 310 CMR 7.24(3),
‘‘Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuel;’’
310 CMR 7.24(4), ‘‘Motor Vehicle Fuel
Tank Trucks;’’ and 310 CMR 7.24(6),
‘‘Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel.’’
EPA is approving this SIP revision
because it meets all applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act and
EPA guidance, and it will not interfere
with any applicable requirement
concerning National Ambient Air
Quality Standards attainment and
reasonable further progress or with any
other applicable requirement of the
Clean Air Act.
Massachusetts’ May 5, 2015 SIP
revision satisfies the ‘‘comparable
measures’’ requirement of CAA section
184(b)(2), because as stated in EPA’s
August 7, 2012 Guidance, ‘‘the
comparable measures requirement is
satisfied if phasing out a Stage II control
program in a particular area is estimated
to have no, or a de minimis, incremental
loss of area-wide emissions control.’’ As
noted in the NPR, Massachusetts’ SIP
revision meets the de minimis criteria
outlined in EPA’s August 7, 2012
Guidance. In addition, since emissions
are de minimis, the anti-back sliding
requirements of CAA section 110(l) have
also been satisfied.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the
Massachusetts regulations described in
the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents
generally available through https://
www.regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
85900
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:25 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by January 30, 2017.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 1, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W—Massachusetts
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(144) to read as
follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 52.1120
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(144) Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection on May 5,
2015.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulation 310 CMR 7.00 entitled
‘‘Air Pollution Control: Definitions,’’ the
definitions listed below, effective
January 2, 2015, as published in the
Massachusetts Register, Issue S1277,
January 2, 2015:
(1) Aboveground Storage Tank or
AST;
(2) Business Day;
(3) California Air Resources Board (or
California ARB or CARB);
(4) Commence Operations;
(5) Emergency Motor Vehicle;
(6) Emergency Situation;
(7) Executive Order;
(8) Minor Modification;
(9) Monthly Throughput;
(10) Motor Vehicle;
(11) Motor Vehicle Fuel;
(12) Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing
Facility;
(13) Responsible Official;
(14) Routine Maintenance;
(15) Stage I CARB Enhanced Vapor
Recovery (EVR) Component or EVR;
(16) Stage I CARB Enhanced Vapor
Recovery (EVR) System;
(17) Stage I Component Enhanced
Vapor Recovery (EVR) System;
(18) Stage I Minor Modification;
(19) Stage I Non-Enhanced Vapor
Recovery System;
(20) Stage I Routine Maintenance;
(21) Stage I Substantial Modification;
(22) Stage I System;
(23) Stage II Minor Modification;
(24) Stage II Routine Maintenance;
(25) Stage II Substantial Modification;
(26) Stage II System;
(27) Submerged Filling;
(28) Tank Truck;
(29) Vacuum Assist System;
(30) Vapor;
(31) Vapor Balance System;
(32) Vapor-Mounted Seal; and
(33) Vapor-Tight.
(B) Regulation 310 CMR 7.24,
‘‘Organic Material Storage and
Distribution,’’ the sections listed below,
effective January 2, 2015, as published
in the Massachusetts Register, Issue
S1277, January 2, 2015:
(1) 7.24(3) ‘‘Distribution of Motor
Vehicle Fuel’’;
(2) 7.24(4) ‘‘Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank
Trucks’’; and
(3) 7.24(6) ‘‘Dispensing of Motor
Vehicle Fuel’’.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
85901
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Protection, dated May 5, 2015,
submitting a revision to the
Massachusetts State Implementation
Plan.
3. In § 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is
amended by adding new entries for the
existing state citations for 310 CMR
7.00, 310 CMR 7.24(3), 310 CMR 7.24(4),
and 310 CMR 7.24(6) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts
State regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS
[See Notes at end of table]
State
citation
Date
submitted
by State
Title/subject
Date
approved
by EPA
Federal Register
citation
52.1120(c)
*
310 CMR
7.00.
*
Air Pollution Control:
Definitions.
*
5/5/15
*
[Insert Federal Register citation].
*
11/29/16
*
310 CMR
7.24(3).
*
Distribution of Motor
Vehicle Fuel.
*
5/5/15
*
[Insert Federal Register citation].
*
11/29/16
310 CMR
7.24(4).
Motor Vehicle Fuel
Tank Trucks.
5/5/15
11/29/16
*
310 CMR
7.24(6).
*
Dispensing of Motor
Vehicle Fuel.
*
5/5/15
11/29/16
*
*
*
144
144
[Insert Federal Register citation].
*
[Insert Federal Register citation].
*
144
*
144
Comments/unapproved sections
*
*
Revises definitions that relate to
Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery systems.
*
*
Revised to require Stage I Enhanced Vapor Recovery systems certified by the California
Air Resources Board.
Revised to make minor clarifying
amendments.
*
*
Revised to require the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems.
*
*
*
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2016–28587 Filed 11–28–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. EP 734]
Dispute Resolution Procedures Under
the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act of 2015
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rules.
AGENCY:
The Surface Transportation
Board (Board) adopts final rules to
implement passenger rail-related
dispute resolution provisions under the
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
Act of 2015 (FAST Act).
DATES: These rules are effective on
December 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Information or questions
regarding these final rules should
reference Docket No. EP 734 and be in
writing addressed to: Chief, Section of
Administration, Office of Proceedings,
Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:25 Nov 28, 2016
Title XI of
the FAST Act,1 entitled ‘‘Passenger Rail
Reform and Investment Act of 2015,’’
adds to the Board’s existing passenger
rail adjudicatory responsibilities related
to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak). Among other
things, Title XI includes new provisions
involving cost recovery by Amtrak for
Amtrak’s operation of ‘‘state-supported
routes’’ and for the costs allocated to
states (including state entities) using the
Northeast Corridor rail facilities for their
commuter rail operations. As relevant
here, Title XI gives the Board
jurisdiction to resolve cost allocation
and access disputes between Amtrak,
the states, and potential non-Amtrak
operators of intercity passenger rail
service.2 The FAST Act directs the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
49 CFR Part 1109
ACTION:
Scott M. Zimmerman, (202) 245–0386.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339.
Jkt 241001
1 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of
2015, Public Law 114–94 (signed Dec. 4, 2015).
2 Currently, Amtrak is the only operator of
regularly scheduled, common carrier intercity
passenger rail service in the United States. Certain
statutory provisions contemplate the possibility, in
the future, of other such intercity passenger rail
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Board to establish procedures for the
resolution of certain of these disputes,
‘‘which may include the provision of
professional mediation services.’’ 49
U.S.C. 24712(c)(2) and 24905(c)(4).
On July 28, 2016, the Board issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
(81 FR 51147), seeking comment on
proposed rules pursuant to the FAST
Act. In the NPR, the Board noted that
because it does not have in place a
general set of procedural rules to govern
the presentation and conduct of
proceedings involving passenger rail
matters under 49 U.S.C. 24101–24910,3
which would include contested matters
arising under Title XI of the FAST Act,
parties seeking to bring contested
matters before the Board should be
guided by the Board’s existing Rules of
Practice (49 CFR parts 1100–1129), as
applicable. However, the potential to
offer ‘‘professional mediation services’’
is unique to the authority granted under
the FAST Act, and the Board’s existing
Rules of Practice contain no applicable
operators. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 24711 and 49 U.S.C.
24308(f).
3 See 49 CFR 1100.1 (limiting the scope of the
Rules of Practice to matters under title 49, subtitle
IV of the United States Code, 49 U.S.C. 10101 et
seq.).
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85897-85901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28587]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0351; A-1-FRL-9950-92-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; MA; Decommissioning of Stage II Vapor Recovery
Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). This revision
includes regulatory amendments that allow gasoline dispensing
facilities (GDFs) to decommission their Stage II vapor recovery systems
as of January 2, 2015, and a demonstration that such removal is
consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance. This revision also
includes regulatory amendments that strengthen Massachusetts'
requirements for Stage I vapor recovery systems at GDFs. The intended
effect of this action is to approve Massachusetts' revised vapor
recovery regulations. This action is being taken in accordance with the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on December 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0351. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air
Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1660, fax number (617) 918-
0660, email garcia.ariel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
[[Page 85898]]
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On March 9, 2016 (81 FR 12440), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The NPR
proposed approval of Massachusetts' revised regulations 310 Code of
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.00, Air Pollution Control:
Definitions, 310 CMR 7.24(3), Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuel, 310
CMR 7.24(4), Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank Trucks, and 310 CMR 7.24(6),
Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel. These regulations had been amended to
allow the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems and to
strengthen Stage I vapor recovery requirements. The SIP revision was
submitted by the MassDEP on May 5, 2015 and also included a
demonstration that the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery
systems at gasoline dispensing facilities is consistent with the Clean
Air Act and EPA guidance.
A detailed discussion of Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP revision
and EPA's rationale for proposing approval of the SIP revision were
provided in the NPR and will not be restated in this notice, except to
the extent relevant to our responses to public comments we received on
our proposal.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received one comment on the NPR from the Vapor Recovery
Association. That comment is summarized below with EPA's response.
Comment: The commenter opposes EPA's proposed approval of
Massachusetts' revised Stage II vapor recovery regulation. The
commenter believes that eliminating Stage II vapor recovery systems at
GDFs and relying solely on Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR)
systems located within the vehicles to mitigate refueling emissions
will have a negative impact on air quality; cause adverse health
impacts to motorists, GDF employees, and members of the community; and
result in a severe negative burden in Environmental Justice (EJ) areas
in Massachusetts.
Furthermore, the commenter asserts that MassDEP's rationale for
decommissioning Stage II vapor recovery systems is not based in science
and that it can be mathematically shown that emissions will be
increased rather than decreased as a result of the elimination of the
Stage II vapor recovery program. However, the commenter did not submit
any calculations in support of its claims of the increased emissions,
health impacts, and the impacts on EJ areas that the commenter alleges
would result from decommissioning Stage II vapor recovery systems at
GDFs in Massachusetts. Nor did the commenter specify what specific
aspects of the technical analyses conducted by the MassDEP in support
of its SIP revision were scientifically unsupportable.
Finally, the commenter believes that in terminating the
Massachusetts Stage II vapor recovery program, the MassDEP is not
adhering to its mission statement. The commenter also believes that the
technical details of fuel storage tank evaporative losses and the
alleged significant increase in refueling emissions impacts caused by
Massachusetts' removal of Stage II vapor recovery, should have received
more thought, analysis and quantification. Again, however, the
commenter did not provide specific criticism of the analyses conducted
by MassDEP, did not identify any specific aspects of those analyses
that the commenter believes are incorrect, and did not assert any
alternative specific results or conclusions that the commenter believes
would result if the issues were evaluated according to the commenter's
unspecified preferred alternative methodology.
Response: EPA disagrees with the Vapor Recovery Association's
assertion that there will be significant increased emissions from this
action. Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP revision contains a Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 110(l) demonstration which was performed in
accordance with EPA's final rule determining that ORVR is now in
widespread use in the national motor vehicle fleet (77 FR 28770, May
16, 2012) and with EPA's ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing
Comparable Measures'' (EPA-457/B-12-001, August 7, 2012), hereafter,
EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance (a copy of this guidance has been placed
in the public docket for this action).
The Massachusetts rule allows GDFs to decommission Stage II systems
as of January 2, 2015, and requires all GDFs equipped with Stage II
vapor recovery systems to decommission their Stage II systems by
January 2, 2017 (by the end of 2016). As discussed in the NPR, Appendix
Table A-1 of EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance illustrates that by the end
of 2016, approximately 85% of the vehicles in the national motor
vehicle fleet will be equipped with ORVR. The number of ORVR-equipped
vehicles in Massachusetts will likely be even higher due to
Massachusetts having a more accelerated motor vehicle fleet turnover
when compared to the national motor vehicle fleet.\1\ Appendix Table A-
1 also illustrates that by the end of 2016, about 89% of the gasoline
dispensed nationally will be to ORVR-equipped vehicles, which is also
likely to be higher in Massachusetts due to a newer motor vehicle
fleet. At that point in time, since a vast majority of Massachusetts
vehicles being refueled at gasoline dispensing facilities will be
equipped with ORVR systems, the ORVR systems will be controlling the
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, making Stage II vapor
recovery systems a redundant, and potentially incompatible, emissions
control technology in Massachusetts. Therefore, removing the Stage II
systems is not expected to result in a significant emissions increase,
and is actually expected to avoid emissions increases resulting from
the incompatibility of some Stage II systems with ORVR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Air Program Support for Stage I and Stage II Programs in
Massachusetts Final Report, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and de la
Torre-Klausmeier Consulting, December 12, 2012, includes an analysis
of vehicle registration data, from the Massachusetts motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program database, illustrating that 76%
of motor vehicles inspected in 2011 throughout Massachusetts had
ORVR controls. This is much more accelerated than EPA's end of 2011
calendar year national estimate that 67.1% of vehicles in the
national motor vehicle fleet were equipped with ORVR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the alleged
increase in emissions resulting from the removal of Stage II controls
will result in a large increase in adverse health impacts to motorists,
GDF employees, and members of the community. EPA's August 7, 2012
Guidance states that ``EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that
the incremental emissions control that Stage II achieves beyond ORVR is
de minimis if it is less than 10 percent of the area-wide emissions
inventory associated with refueling highway motor vehicles.'' As noted
in the NPR, Massachusetts appropriately calculated the increase in
refueling-associated emissions from the decommissioning of Stage II
systems in 2013 as 5.2 percent of that inventory, thus meeting this de
minimis threshold. As also noted in the NPR, the increase in emissions
from Stage II system decommissioning calculated by Massachusetts for
2013 (463 tons of VOC) is only about 0.3 percent of the total
anthropogenic VOC emissions in Massachusetts (see EPA's 2011 National
Emissions Inventory database Version 2
[[Page 85899]]
at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html). Also, as explained in
EPA's ORVR rulemaking and in EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance, these
foregone emissions reductions in the near term continue to diminish
rapidly over time as ORVR phase-in continues. Therefore, since the de
minimis criteria discussed in EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance have been
met, EPA is approving Massachusetts' SIP revision.
Furthermore, we note that Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.24(3)
regulation also includes new Stage I vapor recovery requirements that
will lead to additional emission reductions. Specifically, the
regulation requires GDFs to upgrade their Stage I vapor recovery
systems to Stage I Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) systems certified by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) or a Stage I vapor recovery
system composed of EVR system components (Stage I EVR component
systems). The upgrade to Stage I EVR systems or Stage I EVR component
systems is required upon facility start-up for facilities beginning
operation or installing a fuel storage tank as of January 2, 2015. In
addition, as of January 2, 2015, any component of a pre-existing Stage
I vapor recovery system that is replaced is required to be replaced
with a CARB-certified Stage I EVR component. The Massachusetts
regulation further requires that all Stage I systems be CARB-certified
Stage I EVR systems or Stage I EVR component systems by January 2,
2022. CARB-certified Stage I EVR systems have been certified to achieve
a 98 percent reduction in VOC emissions, as compared to 95 percent for
pre-EVR Stage I systems. Thus, when pre-EVR Stage I systems in
Massachusetts are replaced with CARB-certified Stage I EVR systems, a
greater emission reduction will be achieved. Also, when a component of
a pre-EVR Stage I system is replaced with a CARB-certified Stage I EVR
component, a somewhat greater reduction is expected to be achieved.
These additional reductions will further mitigate any temporary
declining emissions increases, which are already de minimis, resulting
from the removal of Stage II equipment.
Although the commenter generally asserted that MassDEP's analyses
and demonstrations were not scientifically supported and that emissions
increases could be mathematically shown to result from the removal of
Stage II equipment, the commenter provided no information, data, or
analytical critiques to support these allegations. The commenter has
therefore not raised with reasonable specificity any objections to the
underlying analyses and demonstrations supporting EPA's proposed
approval of Massachusetts' SIP revision. Consequently, it is not
possible for EPA to respond to any specific criticisms that the
commenter may have had of the MassDEP's analyses, other than to
reiterate that EPA concludes that Massachusetts has conducted its
demonstration consistently with EPA's applicable regulations and
guidance under the Clean Air Act, as described and evaluated in detail
in the NPR. See, 81 FR at 12442-43.
Finally, EPA disagrees with the comment that MassDEP is not
adhering to its mission statement and that an insufficient amount of
thought, analysis, and quantification was provided by MassDEP regarding
the impacts of decommissioning Stage II vapor recovery systems in
Massachusetts. MassDEP's analysis was conducted in accordance with
EPA's ORVR rulemaking and EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance. In fact, prior
to the issuance of EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance, MassDEP hired
independent consultants to conduct an analysis on the emissions impacts
of the proposed changes to the Massachusetts Stage I and Stage II vapor
recovery programs.\2\ One of the noteworthy results presented in the
consultant's report was the analysis of whether removal of Stage II
controls would result in disproportionate air quality impacts in EJ
communities. The consultant's analysis determined that, previous to the
April 2012 point at which EPA determined ORVR to have become in
widespread use, EJ communities had a slightly lower proportion of ORVR-
equipped vehicles (73% of the motor vehicle fleet) than non-EJ
communities (77% of the motor vehicle fleet), based on 2011 data in
Massachusetts. Although this shows that continuing to operate Stage II
systems in Massachusetts EJ communities would not as quickly become
redundant and potentially incompatible with ORVR controls as in non-EJ
Massachusetts communities, Appendix Table A-1 of EPA's August 7, 2012
Guidance illustrates that only about 67% of the national motor vehicle
fleet consisted of ORVR-equipped vehicles in 2011, which is still less
than the 73% rate for EJ communities in Massachusetts. The commenter
has provided no information indicating that the rate of fleet turnover
and the rate at which gasoline is dispensed to ORVR equipped vehicles
in Massachusetts EJ communities has subsequently fallen behind the
corresponding national rates they were exceeding in 2011. Therefore, in
response to the comment, EPA has no reason to believe that the
emissions impact of decommissioning Stage II vapor recovery systems in
EJ communities in Massachusetts is more significant than that discussed
in EPA guidance as an acceptable national average impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Air Program Support for Stage I and Stage II Programs in
Massachusetts Final Report, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and de la
Torre-Klausmeier Consulting, December 12, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
EPA is approving Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP revision.
Specifically, EPA is approving, and incorporating into the
Massachusetts SIP, the following amended Massachusetts regulations: 310
CMR 7.00, ``Air Pollution Control: Definitions;'' 310 CMR 7.24(3),
``Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuel;'' 310 CMR 7.24(4), ``Motor
Vehicle Fuel Tank Trucks;'' and 310 CMR 7.24(6), ``Dispensing of Motor
Vehicle Fuel.'' EPA is approving this SIP revision because it meets all
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance, and it
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning National
Ambient Air Quality Standards attainment and reasonable further
progress or with any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.
Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP revision satisfies the ``comparable
measures'' requirement of CAA section 184(b)(2), because as stated in
EPA's August 7, 2012 Guidance, ``the comparable measures requirement is
satisfied if phasing out a Stage II control program in a particular
area is estimated to have no, or a de minimis, incremental loss of
area-wide emissions control.'' As noted in the NPR, Massachusetts' SIP
revision meets the de minimis criteria outlined in EPA's August 7, 2012
Guidance. In addition, since emissions are de minimis, the anti-back
sliding requirements of CAA section 110(l) have also been satisfied.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Massachusetts regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52
set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 85900]]
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 30, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 1, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W--Massachusetts
0
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(144) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(144) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on May 5, 2015.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulation 310 CMR 7.00 entitled ``Air Pollution Control:
Definitions,'' the definitions listed below, effective January 2, 2015,
as published in the Massachusetts Register, Issue S1277, January 2,
2015:
(1) Aboveground Storage Tank or AST;
(2) Business Day;
(3) California Air Resources Board (or California ARB or CARB);
(4) Commence Operations;
(5) Emergency Motor Vehicle;
(6) Emergency Situation;
(7) Executive Order;
(8) Minor Modification;
(9) Monthly Throughput;
(10) Motor Vehicle;
(11) Motor Vehicle Fuel;
(12) Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facility;
(13) Responsible Official;
(14) Routine Maintenance;
(15) Stage I CARB Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) Component or EVR;
(16) Stage I CARB Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) System;
(17) Stage I Component Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) System;
(18) Stage I Minor Modification;
(19) Stage I Non-Enhanced Vapor Recovery System;
(20) Stage I Routine Maintenance;
(21) Stage I Substantial Modification;
(22) Stage I System;
(23) Stage II Minor Modification;
(24) Stage II Routine Maintenance;
(25) Stage II Substantial Modification;
(26) Stage II System;
(27) Submerged Filling;
(28) Tank Truck;
(29) Vacuum Assist System;
(30) Vapor;
(31) Vapor Balance System;
(32) Vapor-Mounted Seal; and
(33) Vapor-Tight.
(B) Regulation 310 CMR 7.24, ``Organic Material Storage and
Distribution,'' the sections listed below, effective January 2, 2015,
as published in the Massachusetts Register, Issue S1277, January 2,
2015:
(1) 7.24(3) ``Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuel'';
(2) 7.24(4) ``Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank Trucks''; and
(3) 7.24(6) ``Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel''.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
[[Page 85901]]
Protection, dated May 5, 2015, submitting a revision to the
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
0
3. In Sec. 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding new entries for
the existing state citations for 310 CMR 7.00, 310 CMR 7.24(3), 310 CMR
7.24(4), and 310 CMR 7.24(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.
* * * * *
Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
[See Notes at end of table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Date
State citation Title/subject submitted approved Federal Register 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved
by State by EPA citation sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.00......................... Air Pollution Control: 5/5/15 11/29/16 [Insert Federal 144 Revises definitions
Definitions. Register citation]. that relate to Stage I
and Stage II vapor
recovery systems.
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.24(3)...................... Distribution of Motor 5/5/15 11/29/16 [Insert Federal 144 Revised to require
Vehicle Fuel. Register citation]. Stage I Enhanced Vapor
Recovery systems
certified by the
California Air
Resources Board.
310 CMR 7.24(4)...................... Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank 5/5/15 11/29/16 [Insert Federal 144 Revised to make minor
Trucks. Register citation]. clarifying amendments.
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.24(6)...................... Dispensing of Motor 5/5/15 11/29/16 [Insert Federal 144 Revised to require the
Vehicle Fuel. Register citation]. decommissioning of
Stage II vapor
recovery systems.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this
date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.
[FR Doc. 2016-28587 Filed 11-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
