[Federal Register: May 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27775-27776]
[DOCID:fr18my10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 13212-001;13211-001]

Kenai Hydro, LLC; Notice of Scoping Meetings, Environmental Site
Review, and Soliciting Scoping Comments

May 11, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Original Minor License.
    b. Project Nos.: P-13212-001 and P-13211-001.
    c. Date Filed: August 6, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Kenai Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Grant Lake, Grand Creek, and Falls Creek on the Kenai
Peninsula, near the community of Moose Pass, Alaska. The project would
occupy lands within the Chugach National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brad Zubeck, Kenai Hydro, LLC, 3977 Lake
Street, Homer, Alaska 99603;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Ivy at<PHONE_NUMBER> or mark.ivy @ferc.gov.
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: July 6, 2010.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The project would consist of: a new 10-foot-high, 120-foot-wide
concrete gravity dam on Grant Lake, with a 60-foot-wide spillway
section at elevation 709 feet mean sea level (msl); the 1,790-acre
Grant Lake with active storage of 48,000 acre-feet of storage between
675 and 706 feet msl; a new multi-level intake at Grant Lake; a new
2,800-foot-long, 10-foot-high horseshoe power tunnel; a new 8-foot-
diameter, 110-foot-high surge tank; a new 650-foot-long, 66-inch-
diameter steel penstock; a new powerhouse containing two Francis
generating units with total installed capacity of 4.5 MW; a new 200-
foot-long open channel tailrace; a 3.5-mile-long, overhead or
underground transmission line at 115, 69, or 24.9-kilovolt (kV), or
twelve 15-kV; a new 3.4-mile-long access road; and appurtenant
facilities.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Scoping Process.
    The Commission intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA)
on the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action.

Scoping Meetings

    FERC staff will conduct one daytime scoping meeting and one evening
scoping meeting. The daytime scoping meeting will focus on resource
agency and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening
scoping meeting is primarily for public input. All interested
individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or
both of the meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope
of the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The
times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010.
    Time: 7 p.m. (Alaska ST).
    Place: Moose Pass Community Hall.
    Address: Mile 29.5 Seward Highway, Moose Pass, AK 99631.

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010.
    Time: 10 a.m. (Alaska ST).
    Place: Moose Pass Community Hall.
    Address: Mile 29.5 Seward Highway, Moose Pass, AK 99631.
    Copies of the Scoping Document 1 (SD1) outlining the subject areas
to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the
Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the
scoping meeting or may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link [see item (m) above].

Environmental Site Review

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project environmental
site review beginning at 8 a.m. (Alaska ST) on June 2, 2010. All
interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to
attend. Participants should meet at Scenic Mountain Air boat launch,
31702 Depot Road, Moose Pass, AK 99631. Participants should be in good
health and prepared/able to hike without assistance in unimproved trail
conditions for the entire day ( 3 miles with 200 feet of
elevation gain). Participants should also pack their own lunch, snacks
and water, wear waterproof, rugged footwear, and be prepared for
inclement and potentially cold weather conditions. Anyone with
questions about the environmental site review (or needing directions)
should contact Jenna Borovansky at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Those individuals planning to
participate in the environmental site review should notify Ms.
Borovansky of their intent, no later than May 23, 2010.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2)
solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public on issues that should be
analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the

resource issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those
issues that require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that
do not require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.
    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to
assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed
in the EA.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11783 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85897-85901]
[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 http://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 http://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<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0660, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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 http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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