Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period, 55891-55895 [2024-14632]
Download as PDF
55891
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 52.385—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS—Continued
Dates
Connecticut State
citation
Title/subject
22a–174–4a .........
Source monitoring, record keeping, and reporting.
*
22a–174–20 .........
*
*
Control of organic compound
emissions.
*
22a–174–22e .......
*
*
Control of nitrogen oxides emissions from fuel-burning equipment at major stationary
sources of nitrogen oxides.
*
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0185; FRL–11616–
02–R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving the regional
haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by Massachusetts on
July 22, 2021, and supplemented on
June 15, 2022, as satisfying applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule for
the program’s second implementation
period. Massachusetts’ SIP submission
addresses the requirement that states
must periodically revise their long-term
strategies for making reasonable
progress towards the national goal of
preventing any future, and remedying
any existing, anthropogenic impairment
of visibility, including regional haze, in
mandatory Class I Federal areas. The
SIP submission also addresses other
applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional
haze program. The EPA is taking this
action pursuant to sections 110 and
169A of the Clean Air Act.
SUMMARY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
10/28/2022
Jkt 262001
7/8/2024
*
10/28/2022
7/8/2024
*
10/28/2022
7/8/2024
*
Federal Register citation
Section 52.370
[Insert Federal
Register citation].
(c)(131) .............
Replaces 22a–174–
4.
*
[Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
(c)(131) .............
*
Amends 22a–174–
20(a)(12).
*
[Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
(c)(131) .............
*
Amends 22a–174–
2e(m)(1) and
(m)(4).
*
This rule is effective on August
7, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–
2023–0185. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov website. 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
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 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 and
facility closures due to COVID–19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite
100, (Mail code 5–MI), Boston, MA
02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1628, email
rackauskas.eric@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
DATES:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
15:42 Jul 05, 2024
Date
approved by
EPA
*
[FR Doc. 2024–14620 Filed 7–5–24; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Date
adopted by
State
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comments/
description
*
*
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On July 22, 2021, and supplemented
on June 15, 2022, the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) submitted a revision to its
SIP to address regional haze for the
second implementation period.
MassDEP made this SIP submission to
satisfy the requirements of the CAA’s
regional haze program pursuant to CAA
sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR
51.308.
On January 10, 2024, the EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in which the EPA
proposed to approve Massachusetts’
July 22, 2021 (as supplemented on June
15, 2022),1 SIP submission as satisfying
the regional haze requirements for the
second implementation period
contained in the CAA and 40 CFR
51.308. The EPA is now determining
that the Massachusetts regional haze SIP
submission for the second
implementation period meets the
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements and thus approves
Massachusetts’ submission into its SIP.
Other specific requirements of the
Massachusetts submittal and the
rationale for the EPA’s proposed action
are explained in the NPRM and will not
be restated here.
1 Massachusetts submitted a letter on May 3,
2024, to clarify the intent of their June 15, 2022
supplement regarding the incorporation of the
Canal permit provisions into the SIP.
E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM
08JYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
55892
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
II. Response to Comments
In response to the NPRM, the EPA
received a comment letter signed by the
National Parks Conservation
Association, Sierra Club, Appalachian
Mountain Club, and the Coalition to
Protect America’s National Parks
(collectively, the ‘‘Conservation
Groups’’ or the ‘‘Groups’’) and is
providing responses to the comments
raised in the letter. The Conservation
Groups state in their comment letter that
they ‘‘do not oppose EPA’s proposal to
approve Massachusetts’ [Regional Haze]
SIP Revision,’’ but rather ‘‘urge EPA to
address the issues raised [in the
comment letter] before finalizing’’ the
approval. EPA also received a comment
letter from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANEVU) in support
of the proposed action. The specific
comments may be viewed under Docket
ID Number EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0185
on the https://www.regulations.gov
website.
Comment: The Conservation Groups
contend that MANEVU’s visibility
modeling and source selection method
used an inappropriately high threshold.
The Conservation Groups comment that
the MANEVU threshold on which
Massachusetts relied (3.0 Mm¥1)
identified only two sources for a FourFactor Analysis—Brayton Unit 4 and
Canal Unit 1—and failed to select other
significant sources, such as municipal
waste combustors (MWCs), that have
higher NOX emissions. The Groups state
that ‘‘Massachusetts should have used a
lower threshold that captured a
meaningful portion of in-state sources,
such as a Q/d of 5 or lower, or an
equivalent threshold.’’ As the 3.0 Mm¥1
threshold identified only two sources in
the entire State for a four-factor analysis,
the Groups claim that Massachusetts
failed to conduct a rigorous and
meaningful source selection process.
Response: As explained in the NPRM,
the EPA does not necessarily agree that
the 3.0 inverse megameters (Mm¥1)
visibility impact is a reasonable
threshold for source selection. The
Regional Haze Rule recognizes that, due
to the nature of regional haze visibility
impairment, numerous and sometimes
relatively small sources may need to be
selected and evaluated for
implementation of control measures to
make reasonable progress.2 As EPA has
explained, while states have discretion
to choose any source selection threshold
that is reasonable, ‘‘[a] state that relies
2 See
Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, at 4 (July 8, 2021) (‘‘2021
Clarifications Memo’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
on a visibility (or proxy for visibility
impact) threshold to select sources for
four-factor analysis should set the
threshold at a level that captures a
meaningful portion of the state’s total
contribution to visibility impairment to
Class I areas.’’ In this case, the 3.0
Mm¥1 threshold used in MANEVU Ask
2 identified only two sources in
Massachusetts (and only 22 across the
entire MANEVU region), indicating that
it may, in some cases, be unreasonably
high. But these were not the only
sources Massachusetts selected for
analysis. As EPA noted in the NPRM,
Massachusetts considered a large set of
sources that burn fuel oil throughout
much of the Commonwealth and
considered the four statutory factors to
develop sulfur in fuel regulations that
control SO2 emissions from them.3
Massachusetts also examined the
emissions from, and the controls that
apply to, its largest operating electric
generating unit (EGU) and industrial/
commercial/institutional boiler (ICI
boiler) sources.4 In addition,
Massachusetts examined emissions from
peaking combustion turbines that have
the potential to run on high electric
demand days and identified existing
stringent controls for such sources or
equivalent alternative reductions
achieved through retirements.5
Massachusetts also examined emissions
from the municipal waste combustors
(MWCs) identified by the National Park
Service through the federal land
manager (FLM) consultation process,
and thus demonstrated that it relied
upon previously EPA-approved NOx
emission limits for both large and small
MWCs in its long-term strategy, and
reasonably explained its decision not to
conduct four factor analyses at this time
for the four MWCs included in the
National Park Service’s final list.6
Furthermore, the Regional Haze Rule
does not require states to consider
controls for all sources, all source
categories, or any or all sources in a
particular source category. Rather, states
have discretion to choose any source
selection methodology or threshold that
is reasonable, provided that the choices
they make are reasonably explained.7 To
this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires
that a state’s SIP submission must
include ‘‘a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or
groups of sources it evaluated.’’ The
technical basis for source selection must
FR 1482, 1499 (January 10, 2024).
at 1495, 1499.
5 Id. at 1496, 1499.
6 Id. at 1504; Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP
Revision at 104–08.
7 See Clarifications Memo at sections 2 and 2.1.
PO 00000
3 89
4 Id.
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). In
this instance, EPA proposed to find that
Massachusetts had demonstrated that
the sources of SO2 and NOX within the
Commonwealth that would be expected
to contribute to visibility impairment
have small emissions of those
pollutants, are subject to stringent SIPapproved emission control measures, or
both. Massachusetts’ information and
explanation indicate that the State in
fact examined a reasonable set of
sources, including sources captured by
the other MANEVU Asks and sources
flagged by the FLMs, and reasonably
concluded that additional four-factor
analyses were not necessary because the
outcome would be that no further
emission reductions would be
reasonable for this planning period.
Comment: Relying on EPA Regional
Haze guidance documents and
legislative history of the Clean Air Act,
the Conservation Groups state that
Massachusetts improperly exempts from
four factor analysis sources that are
‘‘Effectively Controlled’’ under other
CAA programs. The Groups assert that
EPA cannot excuse Massachusetts’
failure to conduct four-factor analyses
for sources ‘‘just because they are
subject to controls under the [National
Ambient Air Quality Standards]
NAAQS program.’’ The comment states
that ‘‘none of these existing measures
are included in Massachusetts’ longterm strategy or the SIP Revision’s
regulatory requirements, so neither
Massachusetts nor EPA can rely on
them to demonstrate that the State is
making reasonable progress under the
Regional Haze program.’’ The comment
further states: ‘‘Massachusetts relied on
existing air permits to exempt sources
from complete four-factor analyses and
adopting additional controls,’’ and
‘‘EPA cannot rely on control
requirements or emission limits in stateissued permits that are not incorporated
into the SIP Revision’s long-term
strategy or regulatory requirements to
justify its proposed approval of
Massachusetts’ SIP Revision.’’
Response: EPA’s approval of
Massachusetts’ regional haze SIP is
based on Massachusetts’ satisfaction of
the applicable regulatory requirements
for the second planning period in 40
CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). These
requirements include that states must
evaluate and determine the emission
reduction measures necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the
four statutory factors and that the
measures that are necessary for
reasonable progress must be in the SIP.
Massachusetts’ submission includes
four-factor analyses in response to Asks
E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM
08JYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
2 (for NOX and SO2 emissions from
Canal Unit 1) and 3 (for SO2 emissions
from sources across the
Commonwealth). As EPA explained in
the NPRM, in assessing its compliance
with these Asks Massachusetts
explicitly engaged with the statutory
and regulatory requirement to determine
measures necessary for reasonable
progress based on the four factors.8 As
a result, EPA proposed in the NPRM to
find that Massachusetts’ SIP submittal
satisfies the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) that a State determine the
emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
by considering the four factors.9
Further, Massachusetts requested that
EPA approve the new permit conditions
for Canal Unit 1 into the SIP. In
addition, Massachusetts relied on
several State air pollution control
regulations already approved into the
SIP, including 310 CMR 7.05(1), Fuels
All Districts, Sulfur Content of Fuels,
310 CMR 7.08(2), Incinerators,
Municipal Waste Combustors, and 310
CMR 7.19, Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Sources
of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX). Thus, EPA
is appropriately finalizing its approval
of Massachusetts’ Regional Haze SIP
revision based on EPA’s determination
that Massachusetts’ SIP, including its
long-term strategy, satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i),
and additional four-factor analyses are
not required.
Furthermore, contrary to commenters’
arguments, Massachusetts’ reliance on
already effective controls in lieu of fourfactor analyses for other sources in the
Commonwealth is not inconsistent with
the Clean Air Act legislative history or
EPA Regional Haze Guidance. As the
comment notes, EPA stated in the
NPRM that Congress determined that ‘‘a
visibility protection program is needed
in addition to the [Clean Air Act]’s
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
[NAAQS] and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration programs, as further
emission reductions may be necessary
to adequately protect visibility in Class
I areas throughout the country.’’ 10
Contrary to commenters’ arguments,
however, this statement does not say
that Congress determined that every
State must analyze the four factors for
all sources, or for sources that are
already well controlled. Indeed, EPA
recognized that reasonable progress
analyses will vary from State to State.11
FR at 1498–99.
at 1500.
10 89 FR at 1485 (citing H.R. Rep No. 95–294 at
205).
11 Id. at 1484–85.
Further, EPA specified that further
emissions reductions ‘‘may be’’
necessary, which recognizes that
additional reductions will not always be
necessary, depending on the
effectiveness of other existing programs.
Accordingly, in both guidance
documents, EPA recognized that a State
may reasonably decide not to select
sources that have recently installed
effective controls.12 As EPA put it in the
2021 Clarifications Memo, ‘‘The
underlying rationale for the ‘effective
controls’ flexibility is that if a source’s
emissions are already well controlled, it
is unlikely that further cost-effective
reductions are available.’’ Thus,
contrary to the claim in the comment,
both guidance documents recognize that
a State may reasonably decide not to
select sources that have recently
installed effective controls. In such a
scenario, per the guidance, the State
should explain why it is reasonable to
assume that a full four-factor analysis
would likely result in the conclusion
that no further controls are necessary.13
Massachusetts did not decline to
conduct four-factor analyses for certain
sources ‘‘just because they are subject to
controls under the NAAQS program,’’ as
commenters argue. Instead,
Massachusetts evaluated these sources,
including applicable facility permits
and regulations, and demonstrated that
the high level of control already
required makes it reasonable to
conclude that a full four-factor analysis
would likely result in the conclusion
that no further controls are necessary.
Comment: The Conservation Groups
claim that the State should, and that the
EPA must, consider the environmental
justice implications of Massachusetts’
SIP revision. The Groups cite EPA
Regional Haze guidance and 1994 and
2023 Executive orders addressing
environmental justice and use the EPA
EJ Screen tool to identify communities
near several municipal waste
combustors that may have higher
percentages of low-income populations
and people of color than the rest of the
State as a whole.
Response: The regional haze statutory
provisions do not explicitly address
considerations of environmental justice,
and neither do the regulatory
requirements of the second planning
period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i).
However, the lack of explicit direction
does not preclude the State from
addressing EJ in the State’s SIP
submission. As explained in ‘‘EPA Legal
8 89
9 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
12 2019 Guidance at 22–25; 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 5.
13 2019 Guidance at 23; 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55893
Tools to Advance Environmental
Justice’’ 14 and EPA Regional Haze
guidance,15 the CAA provides states
with the discretion to consider
environmental justice in developing
rules and measures related to regional
haze. While a State may consider
environmental justice under the
reasonable progress factors, neither the
statute nor the regulation compels states
or the EPA to conduct an environmental
justice analysis in developing or
evaluating a SIP submission.
In this instance, Massachusetts
explained in its SIP submission that the
‘‘SIP revision includes measures that
reduce air pollutant emissions and will
not create any burdens on
environmental justice populations.’’ 16
MassDEP noted that it ‘‘considers
environmental justice in all of its
programs as described in the Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental
Affair’s 2017 Environmental Justice
Policy,’’ which ‘‘directs [Massachusetts]
agencies to engage in enhanced public
participation for certain projects and to
conduct enhanced analysis and review
of impacts and mitigation for certain
projects.’’ 17 MassDEP explained that
while its Regional Haze SIP revision did
not trigger the project criteria in the
State policy, MassDEP nonetheless
translated the Notice of Public Hearing
and Comment into several languages
and sent the notice to a broad array of
stakeholders, including environmental
justice advocacy organizations.18 In
addition, MassDEP explained that
‘‘Massachusetts has and is continuing to
take significant actions to reduce air
pollution that affects environmental
justice communities, including adopting
California low and zero emissions
standards for cars and trucks; providing
grants for electric buses and rebates for
purchase of electric cars and trucks,
providing grants for electric vehicle
charging stations and for diesel truck
emissions controls and electrification;
and implementing a net-zero climate
goal that prioritizes reducing air
pollution from fossil fuel combustion in
over-burdened and environmental
justice communities.’’ 19
The commenter also provided
additional information from an EJ
Screen analysis that the State did not
consider as part of its regional haze
14 See EPA Legal Tools to Advance
Environmental Justice, at 35–36 (May 2022),
available at https://www.epa.gov/ogc/epa-legaltools-advance-environmental-justice.
15 Clarifications Memo at 16.
16 Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP Submission,
App. 43 at page 8.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM
08JYR1
55894
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
decision making. The EPA
acknowledges the EJ Screen information
provided as part of the comment, which
identifies certain demographic and
environmental information regarding
areas across Massachusetts. The focus of
the SIP at issue here, the regional haze
SIP for Massachusetts, is SO2 and NOX
emissions and their impacts on
visibility impairment at the 156
mandatory federal Class I areas. This
action addresses Massachusetts’ choices
to reduce these emissions at several
EGUs and other sources of air pollution
across the State. As discussed in the
NPRM and in this notice of final
rulemaking, EPA has evaluated
Massachusetts’ SIP submission against
the statutory and regulatory regional
haze requirements and determined that
it satisfies those minimum
requirements. The CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require an evaluation of
environmental justice with a SIP. With
respect to the EPA’s adherence with the
Executive orders, see section V below.
Comment: MANEVU commented to
support the EPA’s proposal to approve
Massachusetts’ regional haze State
implementation plan (SIP). MANEVU
also stated that it supports the EPA’s
thorough approach in reviewing
Massachusetts’ SIP, including its
response to each MANEVU Ask.
MANEVU also noted that it ‘‘expects
EPA will review other states’ responses
to the MANEVU Ask in a similar
manner, including states outside the
MANEVU region, particularly those
found by MANEVU technical analysis to
be reasonably anticipated to contribute
to visibility impairment at one or more
of MANEVU’s Class I areas.’’
Response: The EPA acknowledges the
comment.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving the
‘‘Massachusetts Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan Revision for the
Second Planning Period (2018–2028)’’,
submitted July 22, 2021, and ‘‘Regional
Haze SIP Revision for Massachusetts—
Supplement’’ source specific
requirements for Canal Generating
Station, submitted May 26, 2022, as
collectively satisfying the regional haze
requirements for the second
implementation period contained in 40
CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i).
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 ‘‘Regional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
Haze SIP Revision for Massachusetts—
Supplement’’ source specific
requirements for Canal Generating
Station (Permit number 21–AQ02F–
011–APP), submitted June 15, 2022 (and
clarified on May 3, 2024) to limit the
sulfur content of fuel oil, 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 and at the EPA
Region 1 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
State implementation plan, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.20
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
PO 00000
20 62
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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); and
• 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.
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection did not
evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and
did not consider EJ in this action. Due
to the nature of the action being taken
here, this action is expected to have a
neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM
08JYR1
55895
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for
people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
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 September 6,
2024. 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: June 27, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA amends part 52 of
chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W—Massachusetts
2. Amend § 52.1120 by:
a. In the table in paragraph (d), adding
an entry for ‘‘Canal Generating Station’’
at the end of the table; and
■ b. In the table in paragraph (e), adding
an entry for ‘‘Massachusetts Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan
Revision for the Second Planning Period
(2018–2028)’’ at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 52.1120
*
Identification of plan
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA APPROVED MASSACHUSETTS SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Name of source
Permit number
*
Canal Generating Station.
*
21–AQ02F–011–APP
State effective date
EPA approval
date 2
*
*
*
May 26, 2022 ............. 7/8/2024 [Insert Federal Register citation ].
Explanations
*
*
Regional Haze SIP Revision Supplement:
fuel oil purchased for EU1 restricted to
0.3% sulfur content limit.
2 To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for
the particular provision.
(e) * * *
MASSACHUSETTS NONREGULATORY
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
Name of non-regulatory SIP provision
*
*
Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision for the Second
Planning Period (2018–2028).
State submittal date/
effective date
*
*
*
Statewide ................... Submitted July 22,
2021.
EPA approved date
3
*
7/8/2024 [Insert Federal Register citation].
Explanations
*
3 To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for
the particular provision.
[FR Doc. 2024–14632 Filed 7–5–24; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:42 Jul 05, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM
08JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55891-55895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14632]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0185; FRL-11616-02-R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by
Massachusetts on July 22, 2021, and supplemented on June 15, 2022, as
satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation
period. Massachusetts' SIP submission addresses the requirement that
states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future,
and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility,
including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP
submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking
this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on August 7, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0185. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 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 and facility closures due to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MI), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1628, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On July 22, 2021, and supplemented on June 15, 2022, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second
implementation period. MassDEP made this SIP submission to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA
sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.
On January 10, 2024, the EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in which the EPA proposed to approve Massachusetts'
July 22, 2021 (as supplemented on June 15, 2022),\1\ SIP submission as
satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second implementation
period contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. The EPA is now
determining that the Massachusetts regional haze SIP submission for the
second implementation period meets the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements and thus approves Massachusetts' submission
into its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Massachusetts submitted a letter on May 3, 2024, to clarify
the intent of their June 15, 2022 supplement regarding the
incorporation of the Canal permit provisions into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other specific requirements of the Massachusetts submittal and the
rationale for the EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and
will not be restated here.
[[Page 55892]]
II. Response to Comments
In response to the NPRM, the EPA received a comment letter signed
by the National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club,
Appalachian Mountain Club, and the Coalition to Protect America's
National Parks (collectively, the ``Conservation Groups'' or the
``Groups'') and is providing responses to the comments raised in the
letter. The Conservation Groups state in their comment letter that they
``do not oppose EPA's proposal to approve Massachusetts' [Regional
Haze] SIP Revision,'' but rather ``urge EPA to address the issues
raised [in the comment letter] before finalizing'' the approval. EPA
also received a comment letter from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANEVU) in support of the proposed action. The
specific comments may be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-
2023-0185 on the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Comment: The Conservation Groups contend that MANEVU's visibility
modeling and source selection method used an inappropriately high
threshold. The Conservation Groups comment that the MANEVU threshold on
which Massachusetts relied (3.0 Mm-1) identified only two
sources for a Four-Factor Analysis--Brayton Unit 4 and Canal Unit 1--
and failed to select other significant sources, such as municipal waste
combustors (MWCs), that have higher NOX emissions. The
Groups state that ``Massachusetts should have used a lower threshold
that captured a meaningful portion of in-state sources, such as a Q/d
of 5 or lower, or an equivalent threshold.'' As the 3.0 Mm-1
threshold identified only two sources in the entire State for a four-
factor analysis, the Groups claim that Massachusetts failed to conduct
a rigorous and meaningful source selection process.
Response: As explained in the NPRM, the EPA does not necessarily
agree that the 3.0 inverse megameters (Mm-1) visibility
impact is a reasonable threshold for source selection. The Regional
Haze Rule recognizes that, due to the nature of regional haze
visibility impairment, numerous and sometimes relatively small sources
may need to be selected and evaluated for implementation of control
measures to make reasonable progress.\2\ As EPA has explained, while
states have discretion to choose any source selection threshold that is
reasonable, ``[a] state that relies on a visibility (or proxy for
visibility impact) threshold to select sources for four-factor analysis
should set the threshold at a level that captures a meaningful portion
of the state's total contribution to visibility impairment to Class I
areas.'' In this case, the 3.0 Mm-1 threshold used in MANEVU
Ask 2 identified only two sources in Massachusetts (and only 22 across
the entire MANEVU region), indicating that it may, in some cases, be
unreasonably high. But these were not the only sources Massachusetts
selected for analysis. As EPA noted in the NPRM, Massachusetts
considered a large set of sources that burn fuel oil throughout much of
the Commonwealth and considered the four statutory factors to develop
sulfur in fuel regulations that control SO2 emissions from
them.\3\ Massachusetts also examined the emissions from, and the
controls that apply to, its largest operating electric generating unit
(EGU) and industrial/commercial/institutional boiler (ICI boiler)
sources.\4\ In addition, Massachusetts examined emissions from peaking
combustion turbines that have the potential to run on high electric
demand days and identified existing stringent controls for such sources
or equivalent alternative reductions achieved through retirements.\5\
Massachusetts also examined emissions from the municipal waste
combustors (MWCs) identified by the National Park Service through the
federal land manager (FLM) consultation process, and thus demonstrated
that it relied upon previously EPA-approved NOx emission limits for
both large and small MWCs in its long-term strategy, and reasonably
explained its decision not to conduct four factor analyses at this time
for the four MWCs included in the National Park Service's final
list.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, at 4 (July 8, 2021)
(``2021 Clarifications Memo'').
\3\ 89 FR 1482, 1499 (January 10, 2024).
\4\ Id. at 1495, 1499.
\5\ Id. at 1496, 1499.
\6\ Id. at 1504; Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP Revision at
104-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the Regional Haze Rule does not require states to
consider controls for all sources, all source categories, or any or all
sources in a particular source category. Rather, states have discretion
to choose any source selection methodology or threshold that is
reasonable, provided that the choices they make are reasonably
explained.\7\ To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a
state's SIP submission must include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection must also be appropriately
documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). In this instance,
EPA proposed to find that Massachusetts had demonstrated that the
sources of SO2 and NOX within the Commonwealth
that would be expected to contribute to visibility impairment have
small emissions of those pollutants, are subject to stringent SIP-
approved emission control measures, or both. Massachusetts' information
and explanation indicate that the State in fact examined a reasonable
set of sources, including sources captured by the other MANEVU Asks and
sources flagged by the FLMs, and reasonably concluded that additional
four-factor analyses were not necessary because the outcome would be
that no further emission reductions would be reasonable for this
planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Clarifications Memo at sections 2 and 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Relying on EPA Regional Haze guidance documents and
legislative history of the Clean Air Act, the Conservation Groups state
that Massachusetts improperly exempts from four factor analysis sources
that are ``Effectively Controlled'' under other CAA programs. The
Groups assert that EPA cannot excuse Massachusetts' failure to conduct
four-factor analyses for sources ``just because they are subject to
controls under the [National Ambient Air Quality Standards] NAAQS
program.'' The comment states that ``none of these existing measures
are included in Massachusetts' long-term strategy or the SIP Revision's
regulatory requirements, so neither Massachusetts nor EPA can rely on
them to demonstrate that the State is making reasonable progress under
the Regional Haze program.'' The comment further states:
``Massachusetts relied on existing air permits to exempt sources from
complete four-factor analyses and adopting additional controls,'' and
``EPA cannot rely on control requirements or emission limits in state-
issued permits that are not incorporated into the SIP Revision's long-
term strategy or regulatory requirements to justify its proposed
approval of Massachusetts' SIP Revision.''
Response: EPA's approval of Massachusetts' regional haze SIP is
based on Massachusetts' satisfaction of the applicable regulatory
requirements for the second planning period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g),
and (i). These requirements include that states must evaluate and
determine the emission reduction measures necessary to make reasonable
progress by considering the four statutory factors and that the
measures that are necessary for reasonable progress must be in the SIP.
Massachusetts' submission includes four-factor analyses in response to
Asks
[[Page 55893]]
2 (for NOX and SO2 emissions from Canal Unit 1)
and 3 (for SO2 emissions from sources across the
Commonwealth). As EPA explained in the NPRM, in assessing its
compliance with these Asks Massachusetts explicitly engaged with the
statutory and regulatory requirement to determine measures necessary
for reasonable progress based on the four factors.\8\ As a result, EPA
proposed in the NPRM to find that Massachusetts' SIP submittal
satisfies the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that a State
determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the four factors.\9\ Further,
Massachusetts requested that EPA approve the new permit conditions for
Canal Unit 1 into the SIP. In addition, Massachusetts relied on several
State air pollution control regulations already approved into the SIP,
including 310 CMR 7.05(1), Fuels All Districts, Sulfur Content of
Fuels, 310 CMR 7.08(2), Incinerators, Municipal Waste Combustors, and
310 CMR 7.19, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX). Thus, EPA is appropriately
finalizing its approval of Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP revision
based on EPA's determination that Massachusetts' SIP, including its
long-term strategy, satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i),
and additional four-factor analyses are not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 89 FR at 1498-99.
\9\ Id. at 1500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, contrary to commenters' arguments, Massachusetts'
reliance on already effective controls in lieu of four-factor analyses
for other sources in the Commonwealth is not inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act legislative history or EPA Regional Haze Guidance. As the
comment notes, EPA stated in the NPRM that Congress determined that ``a
visibility protection program is needed in addition to the [Clean Air
Act]'s National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration programs, as further emission reductions may
be necessary to adequately protect visibility in Class I areas
throughout the country.'' \10\ Contrary to commenters' arguments,
however, this statement does not say that Congress determined that
every State must analyze the four factors for all sources, or for
sources that are already well controlled. Indeed, EPA recognized that
reasonable progress analyses will vary from State to State.\11\
Further, EPA specified that further emissions reductions ``may be''
necessary, which recognizes that additional reductions will not always
be necessary, depending on the effectiveness of other existing
programs. Accordingly, in both guidance documents, EPA recognized that
a State may reasonably decide not to select sources that have recently
installed effective controls.\12\ As EPA put it in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, ``The underlying rationale for the `effective
controls' flexibility is that if a source's emissions are already well
controlled, it is unlikely that further cost-effective reductions are
available.'' Thus, contrary to the claim in the comment, both guidance
documents recognize that a State may reasonably decide not to select
sources that have recently installed effective controls. In such a
scenario, per the guidance, the State should explain why it is
reasonable to assume that a full four-factor analysis would likely
result in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary.\13\
Massachusetts did not decline to conduct four-factor analyses for
certain sources ``just because they are subject to controls under the
NAAQS program,'' as commenters argue. Instead, Massachusetts evaluated
these sources, including applicable facility permits and regulations,
and demonstrated that the high level of control already required makes
it reasonable to conclude that a full four-factor analysis would likely
result in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 89 FR at 1485 (citing H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205).
\11\ Id. at 1484-85.
\12\ 2019 Guidance at 22-25; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5.
\13\ 2019 Guidance at 23; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The Conservation Groups claim that the State should, and
that the EPA must, consider the environmental justice implications of
Massachusetts' SIP revision. The Groups cite EPA Regional Haze guidance
and 1994 and 2023 Executive orders addressing environmental justice and
use the EPA EJ Screen tool to identify communities near several
municipal waste combustors that may have higher percentages of low-
income populations and people of color than the rest of the State as a
whole.
Response: The regional haze statutory provisions do not explicitly
address considerations of environmental justice, and neither do the
regulatory requirements of the second planning period in 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (i). However, the lack of explicit direction does
not preclude the State from addressing EJ in the State's SIP
submission. As explained in ``EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental
Justice'' \14\ and EPA Regional Haze guidance,\15\ the CAA provides
states with the discretion to consider environmental justice in
developing rules and measures related to regional haze. While a State
may consider environmental justice under the reasonable progress
factors, neither the statute nor the regulation compels states or the
EPA to conduct an environmental justice analysis in developing or
evaluating a SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, at
35-36 (May 2022), available at https://www.epa.gov/ogc/epa-legal-tools-advance-environmental-justice.
\15\ Clarifications Memo at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, Massachusetts explained in its SIP submission
that the ``SIP revision includes measures that reduce air pollutant
emissions and will not create any burdens on environmental justice
populations.'' \16\ MassDEP noted that it ``considers environmental
justice in all of its programs as described in the Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental Affair's 2017 Environmental Justice Policy,''
which ``directs [Massachusetts] agencies to engage in enhanced public
participation for certain projects and to conduct enhanced analysis and
review of impacts and mitigation for certain projects.'' \17\ MassDEP
explained that while its Regional Haze SIP revision did not trigger the
project criteria in the State policy, MassDEP nonetheless translated
the Notice of Public Hearing and Comment into several languages and
sent the notice to a broad array of stakeholders, including
environmental justice advocacy organizations.\18\ In addition, MassDEP
explained that ``Massachusetts has and is continuing to take
significant actions to reduce air pollution that affects environmental
justice communities, including adopting California low and zero
emissions standards for cars and trucks; providing grants for electric
buses and rebates for purchase of electric cars and trucks, providing
grants for electric vehicle charging stations and for diesel truck
emissions controls and electrification; and implementing a net-zero
climate goal that prioritizes reducing air pollution from fossil fuel
combustion in over-burdened and environmental justice communities.''
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP Submission, App. 43 at page
8.
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also provided additional information from an EJ
Screen analysis that the State did not consider as part of its regional
haze
[[Page 55894]]
decision making. The EPA acknowledges the EJ Screen information
provided as part of the comment, which identifies certain demographic
and environmental information regarding areas across Massachusetts. The
focus of the SIP at issue here, the regional haze SIP for
Massachusetts, is SO2 and NOX emissions and their
impacts on visibility impairment at the 156 mandatory federal Class I
areas. This action addresses Massachusetts' choices to reduce these
emissions at several EGUs and other sources of air pollution across the
State. As discussed in the NPRM and in this notice of final rulemaking,
EPA has evaluated Massachusetts' SIP submission against the statutory
and regulatory regional haze requirements and determined that it
satisfies those minimum requirements. The CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an evaluation of
environmental justice with a SIP. With respect to the EPA's adherence
with the Executive orders, see section V below.
Comment: MANEVU commented to support the EPA's proposal to approve
Massachusetts' regional haze State implementation plan (SIP). MANEVU
also stated that it supports the EPA's thorough approach in reviewing
Massachusetts' SIP, including its response to each MANEVU Ask. MANEVU
also noted that it ``expects EPA will review other states' responses to
the MANEVU Ask in a similar manner, including states outside the MANEVU
region, particularly those found by MANEVU technical analysis to be
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at one or
more of MANEVU's Class I areas.''
Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving the ``Massachusetts Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan Revision for the Second Planning Period (2018-
2028)'', submitted July 22, 2021, and ``Regional Haze SIP Revision for
Massachusetts--Supplement'' source specific requirements for Canal
Generating Station, submitted May 26, 2022, as collectively satisfying
the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period
contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i).
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 ``Regional
Haze SIP Revision for Massachusetts--Supplement'' source specific
requirements for Canal Generating Station (Permit number 21-AQ02F-011-
APP), submitted June 15, 2022 (and clarified on May 3, 2024) to limit
the sulfur content of fuel oil, 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
and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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); and
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.
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection did not
evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no
[[Page 55895]]
information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O.
12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
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 September 6, 2024. 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: June 27, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends part 52 of
chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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. Amend Sec. 52.1120 by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (d), adding an entry for ``Canal
Generating Station'' at the end of the table; and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e), adding an entry for ``Massachusetts
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision for the Second
Planning Period (2018-2028)'' at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1120 Identification of plan
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA Approved Massachusetts Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective EPA approval
Name of source Permit number date date\ 2\ Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Canal Generating Station....... 21-AQ02F-011-APP. May 26, 2022..... 7/8/2024 [Insert Regional Haze SIP
Federal Register Revision Supplement:
citation ]. fuel oil purchased
for EU1 restricted to
0.3% sulfur content
limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal
Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
(e) * * *
Massachusetts NonRegulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State submittal
Name of non-regulatory SIP geographic or date/effective EPA approved date Explanations
provision nonattainment area date \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Massachusetts Regional Haze Statewide......... Submitted July 22, 7/8/2024 [Insert ..................
State Implementation Plan 2021. Federal Register
Revision for the Second citation].
Planning Period (2018-2028).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal
Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
[FR Doc. 2024-14632 Filed 7-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P