[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