[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57487-57496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22692]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0025; A-1-FRL-9732-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Massachusetts; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Massachusetts State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first 
planning period from 2008 through 2018. The revision was submitted by 
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on 
December 30, 2011, with supplemental final submittals on August 9, 2012 
and August 28, 2012. These submittals address the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require States to prevent any 
future, and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility in 
mandatory Class I Areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from 
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to 
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure 
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural 
visibility conditions in Class I areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0025. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the 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 either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, 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 to 
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available 
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at 
the Division of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental 
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 
02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, 
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 57488]]

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 24, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPR) for the State of Massachusetts. See 77 FR 30932. The NPR proposed 
approval of the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 
addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through 
2018. In that rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve the MassDEP Regional 
Haze State Implementation Plan dated December 30, 2011, and also 
proposed to approve under parallel processing, proposed revisions to 
the Massachusetts Haze SIP dated February 17, 2012.\1\ Specifically, 
EPA proposed to approve the following adopted elements of 
Massachusetts' Haze Plan: (1) 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 
(CMR) 7.29 ``Emission Standards for Power Plants;'' (2) 310 CMR 
7.26(50)-(54) ``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters;'' (3) Amended Emission 
Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated May 15, 2009; (4) Facility 
Shutdown of Somerset Power, LLC dated June 22, 2011; (5) Modified 
Emission Control Plan for General Electric Aviation--Lynn dated March 
24, 2011; and (6) Modified Emission Control Plan for Wheelabrator 
Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012. Furthermore, pursuant to MassDEP's 
May 2, 2012 request for parallel processing, EPA proposed approval of 
the following SIP elements that were still in the proposed stage: (1) 
Massachusetts' proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.00 ``Definitions;'' (2) 
Massachusetts' proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.05 ``Fuels All 
Districts;'' (3) proposed Amended Emission Control Plan Approval for 
Salem Harbor Station dated February 17, 2012; and (4) proposed Amended 
Emission Control Plan Approval for Brayton Point Station dated February 
16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MassDEP submitted ``Proposed Revisions to Massachusetts 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)'' dated February 17, 
2012, for parallel processing on May 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012, MassDEP submitted additional 
elements and a revised SIP narrative as a supplement to the 
Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP. EPA has reviewed the August 9, 2012 
and August 28, 2012 submittals and has determined that the State's 
formal SIP submittal does not contain significant changes which 
occurred after EPA's May 24, 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking.
    A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs, 
as well as EPA's analysis of Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP 
submittal, was provided in the NPR and is not restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments from Dominion Energy New England, Inc. 
(Dominion) and a joint letter from the Sierra Club and Conservation Law 
Foundation. The Dominion comments were generally supportive of the 
Massachusetts Alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
demonstration and long term strategy and therefore require no response. 
The following discussion summarizes and responds to the relevant 
adverse comments submitted by the Sierra Club and Conservation Law 
Foundation (for brevity, ``Sierra Club'') on EPA's proposed approval of 
Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP.
    Comment A: The Sierra Club contends that Section 169A of the CAA 
does not allow EPA to exempt BART-eligible sources \2\ from BART, and 
that EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), which allows states to 
develop alternative programs in lieu of BART, is contrary to the CAA. 
The Sierra Club acknowledges that its position has been rejected by two 
federal court decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 40 CFR 51.301 defines a BART-eligible source as an existing 
facility which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was 
in existence on August 7, 1977, has the potential to emit 250 tons 
per year or more of any air pollutant, and meets one of the 26 
listed stationary source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response A: As the Sierra Club notes, EPA's interpretation of the 
CAA was upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 
(D.C. Cir. 2006). See 77 FR 33642, 33645-46 (June 7, 2012) for a more 
detailed explanation.
    Comment B.1: The Sierra Club contends that Massachusetts' proposed 
Alternative to BART analysis is flawed due to the lack of source-by-
source BART determinations. The commenter cited recent source-by-source 
BART determinations which were more stringent than the benchmark BART 
limits used in the Massachusetts alternative to BART analysis. The 
commenter suggested that MassDEP must undertake the five step source-
by-source BART determination for each of the subject BART sources to 
demonstrate that the alternative to BART provides greater reasonable 
progress than the source-by-source BART. The commenter contends that 
comparing emissions, based on the category-wide benchmark limits that 
Massachusetts used, to the emissions from the alternative to BART 
measures underestimates the reductions achievable through a five factor 
determination and therefore does not conclusively show that the 
Massachusetts alternative to BART measures provide greater reasonable 
progress than source-by-source BART determinations.
    Response B.1: The primary requirement, as specified in CAA section 
169A, is for major stationary sources to procure, install, and operate 
BART. In some cases this requirement is met with an analysis of 
potential controls considering five factors given in EPA's Regional 
Haze Rule (RHR). See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). EPA has interpreted this 
requirement to be met if an alternative set of emission limits are 
established which mandate greater reasonable progress toward visibility 
improvement than direct application of BART on a source-by-source 
basis. In promulgating the RHR, EPA stated that to demonstrate that 
emission reductions of an alternative program would result in greater 
emission reductions, ``the State must estimate the emission reductions 
that would result from the use of BART-level controls. To do this, the 
State could undertake a source-specific review of the sources in the 
State subject to BART, or it could use a modified approach that 
simplifies the analysis.'' 64 FR 35742 (July 1, 1999).
    In final rulemaking published October 13, 2006, EPA offered further 
clarification for States for assessing alternative strategies, in 
particular regarding the benchmark definition of BART to use in judging 
whether the alternative is better. See 71 FR 60612, 60615-20. In this 
rulemaking, EPA stated in the preamble that the presumptive BART levels 
given in the BART guidelines would be a suitable baseline against which 
to compare alternative strategies where the alternative has been 
designed to meet a requirement other than BART. See 71 FR at 60618; see 
also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). MassDEP's analysis is fully consistent 
with EPA's conclusions in this rulemaking.
    While EPA recognizes that a case-by-case BART analysis may result 
in emission limits more stringent than the presumptive limits, the 
presumptive limits are reasonable and appropriate for use in assessing 
an alternative emissions reductions scenario such as the Massachusetts 
plan when comparing it to the BART scenario. See 71 FR 60619 (stating 
``the presumptions represent a reasonable estimate of a stringent case 
BART . . . because . . . they would be applied across the board to a 
wide variety of units with varying impacts on visibility, at power 
plants of varying size and distance from Class I areas''). In other 
words, while in some instances case-by-case BART could result in limits 
more stringent than the presumptive limits, in other instances 
consideration of all five statutory BART factors could

[[Page 57489]]

result in limits less stringent than the presumptive limits, and EPA's 
considered conclusion is that the presumptive BART is, overall, ``a 
reasonable estimate of a stringent case BART.'' \3\ Furthermore, 
Massachusetts went beyond EPA's presumptive level of control and used 
the more stringent Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) 
recommended level of control to develop its benchmark.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For this reason, the fact that facilities in other states 
(with different facts for each of the BART factors) have received 
BART determinations more stringent than the presumptive BART is not 
directly relevant here.
    \4\ The MANE-VU recommended level of BART control can be found 
in Appendix R of the Massachusetts December 30, 2011 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The components of Massachusetts' plan were developed to reduce 
mercury emissions, bring Massachusetts into attainment with the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone by CAA 
deadlines, and to meet long term strategy requirements. The 
Massachusetts plan imposes limitations on sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and mercury 
emissions from coal-fired electrical generating units (EGUs), sulfur in 
fuel oil limits and NOX limits for oil fired EGUs, and 
enforceable EGU shutdowns. Massachusetts is also now using these 
controls as an alternative to BART for its EGU BART-eligible sources as 
permitted pursuant to EPA's RHR (40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). Therefore, the 
use of the benchmark limits for the alternative to BART analysis is 
appropriate. EPA agrees with Massachusetts' analysis that emission 
reductions from the units subject to MassDEP's alternative plan will 
result in emission reductions that will provide greater reasonable 
progress than would BART alone as described more fully in the NPR.
    Comment B.2.a: The Sierra Club contends that, even based on the 
framework Massachusetts used, its BART alternative results in fewer 
emission reductions for SO2 and NOX than would 
BART. The Sierra Club argues that Massachusetts' analysis compares 
emission reductions at the full set of sources subject to its BART 
alternative to the much smaller set of subject-to-BART sources, and 
this is impermissible under the regulations.
    Response B.2.a: EPA does not agree with the commenter's 
interpretation of the regional haze rule. If a State opts to implement 
or require participation in an emission trading program or other 
alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to 
install, operate, and maintain BART, the State must ``demonstrat[e] 
that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will 
achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the 
installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in 
the State and covered by the alternative program.'' 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(i). This demonstration must include a list of all BART-
eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the 
alternative program and an analysis of the best system of continuous 
emission control technology available. ``This analysis must be 
conducted by making a determination of BART for each source within the 
State subject to BART and covered by the alternative program as 
provided for in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, unless the emission 
trading program or other alternative measure has been designed to meet 
a requirement other than BART (such as the core requirement to have a 
long term strategy to achieve the reasonable progress goals established 
by the States). In this case, the State may determine the best system 
of continuous emission control technology and associated emission 
reductions for similar types of sources within a source category based 
on both source-specific and category wide information as appropriate.'' 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). This language indicates that BART 
determinations are to be made for each source that is both subject to 
BART and included in the alternative measure as provided for in 
paragraph (e)(1). Paragraph (e)(1) calls for a BART determination for 
BART-eligible sources. EPA does not agree that the language implies 
that source-by-source BART determinations are required for units which 
do not meet the definition of BART-eligible.\5\ Non-BART sources which 
are included as members of the alternative measure need not be subject 
to a BART analysis. Put simply, EPA's regulations allow a state to 
develop an alternative that encompasses (and obtains emissions 
reductions from) non-BART sources, and to compare that alternative to a 
BART benchmark consisting only of subject-to-BART sources. Therefore, 
Massachusetts was correct in only including benchmark emissions from 
the BART sources in the baseline for comparison to the alternative 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See definition stated in footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.2.b: The Sierra Club argues that Brayton Point Station's 
baseline SO2 emissions are lower than Massachusetts assumed.
    Response B.2.b: Massachusetts conducted its analysis under 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2) by developing two tables for SO2. The first 
table, Table 16 of MassDEP's August 9, 2012 submittal, subtracted each 
BART-eligible facility's projected SO2 emissions if the 
MANE-VU SO2 BART emissions rate were achieved from that 
facility's baseline SO2 emissions in 2002. The sum of those 
differences constitutes the expected reductions from installation of 
benchmark BART. The second table, Table 17 of MassDEP's August 9, 2012 
submittal, subtracted each facility's alternative BART expected 
SO2 emissions from its emissions for the same baseline year 
(2002). The sum of those differences constitutes the expected 
reductions from installation of Massachusetts' BART alternative. The 
comment essentially argues that Brayton Point's baseline SO2 
emissions are overstated because, as of 2010, Brayton Point achieved 
greater control than in 2002. However, Massachusetts' use of the 2002 
emissions inventory as a baseline is consistent with MANE-VU's regional 
approach and EPA's national approach. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii); see 
also 64 FR 35742 (explaining that the ``baseline date of the SIP'' in 
this context means ``the date of the emissions inventories on which the 
SIP relies''), 70 FR 39104, 39143 (``The baseline date for regional 
haze SIPs is 2002. . . .'') & id. n.84. Furthermore, EPA notes that 
Massachusetts used the same baseline SO2 emissions for 
Tables 16 and 17, so even if the baseline emissions were overstated, 
they would be overstated by the same amount in both cases, and the 
overstatement would neither benefit nor prejudice the BART alternative 
for comparison.
    Comment B.2.c: The Sierra Club contends that Brayton Point 
Station's SO2 and NOX emissions under BART would 
be lower than Massachusetts assumed.
    Response B.2.c: As noted above in Response B.1, while in some 
instances case-by-case BART could result in limits more stringent than 
the presumptive limits, in other instances consideration of all five 
statutory BART factors could result in limits less stringent than the 
presumptive limits, and EPA's considered conclusion is that the 
presumptive BART is, overall, a reasonable estimate of a stringent case 
BART. EPA has concluded that ``there is no need to develop a precise 
estimate of the emissions reductions that could be achieved by BART in 
order simply to compare two programs'' and that ``the State may 
establish a BART benchmark based on an analysis that includes 
simplifying assumptions about BART control levels for sources within a 
source category.'' See 70 FR 60618. Massachusetts used the MANE-VU 
recommended level of control to develop its benchmark.

[[Page 57490]]

    Comment B.2.d: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts 
improperly takes credit in its BART alternative for the Salem Harbor 
Station shutdown by (1) assuming for purposes of the BART benchmark 
that Salem Harbor Unit 4 would continue to operate past 2014 when in 
fact it will not (due to a consent decree), and then (2) crediting the 
emission reductions from the pending shutdown of Units 1 through 4 to 
Massachusetts's BART alternative, when these reductions will happen 
regardless of what Massachusetts does, due to the same consent decree.
    Response B.2.d: The consent decree requires that Salem Harbor 
``remove from service'' Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2011, and Units 3 
and 4 by June 1, 2014.\6\ However, the consent decree defines ``remove 
from service'' as ceasing to generate electricity to supply the power 
grid. The consent decree does not prohibit these units from operating 
for purposes other than generating electricity to supply the power 
grid. Consequently, the consent decree is not a federally enforceable 
limit on emissions from these units. The facility requested, and 
MassDEP granted, a modified emission control plan under Massachusetts 
regulation 310 CMR 7.29 which caps NOX and SO2 
emissions from the various units. This emission control plan, along 
with the Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.29, will become federally 
enforceable with this action. MassDEP's permit restrictions apply 
regardless of the use to which the station owner might wish to put the 
units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The consent decree is available at http://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Signed-Consent-Decree-12_11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the consent decree is, by its terms, enforceable by 
the parties thereto (Conservation Law Foundation, HealthLink, Dominion 
Energy New England, Inc., and Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC), 
whereas a state permit restriction incorporated into a federally 
enforceable SIP is enforceable by Massachusetts, EPA, and citizens, 
under state law and under the federal Clean Air Act.
    The Sierra Club suggests that the absence of specific public plans 
for an alternative use of Salem Harbor's units (i.e., a use that would 
be allowed under the consent decree but prohibited under Massachusetts' 
SIP revision) means that it is unlikely that Salem Harbor will operate 
regardless of what Massachusetts does in its SIP and therefore the 
reductions that Massachusetts attributes by its permit restrictions are 
only hypothetical.
    EPA believes Massachusetts' approach was reasonable, for several 
reasons. First, in Tables 16 and 18, Massachusetts used a reasonable 
(and consistent) method to derive the BART benchmark emissions, namely, 
multiplying each BART-eligible unit's 2002 heat input \7\ by the MANE-
VU recommended BART emission rates. See also Response B.2.b. This 
streamlined calculation was conducted at all BART-eligible facilities 
without examining whether the facilities' more recent operating 
scenarios involve a higher or lower heat input. Thus, it was reasonable 
and consistent for Massachusetts to include Salem Harbor Unit 4 in 
Tables 16 and 18 as operating at 2002 heat input levels. The comment 
essentially argues that, even if Massachusetts had not imposed any 
permit restrictions, Salem Harbor's likely future actual emissions 
would be much lower than its full potential to emit, and therefore the 
BART benchmark calculation should use Salem Harbor Unit 4's likely 
future actual emissions under anticipated business scenarios (i.e., 
zero), rather than simply apply the benchmark BART emission rate to its 
2002 heat input rate. However, the Sierra Club points to no provision 
of the Regional Haze Rule requiring states to project likely future 
actual emissions under anticipated business scenarios, rather than use 
the approach that Massachusetts used.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The heat input is a proxy for the quantity of fuel used.
    \8\ If anything, the Regional Haze Rule focuses on facilities' 
potential to emit. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.301 (definition of 
``existing stationary facility''); accord 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, 
Sec.  II.A Step 3 (explaining that potential to emit is developed 
``considering all federally enforceable and State enforceable permit 
limits''). Using potential to emit, rather than 2002 heat input 
rate, would result in higher BART benchmark emissions in Tables 16 
and 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in Massachusetts' analysis of its alternative program in 
Tables 17 and 19, the Commonwealth conservatively assumed that all 
units covered by the alternative program would operate at their 2002 
heat input rate, and took credit only for legally enforceable 
restrictions on potential to emit. The Sierra Club focuses on the 
reductions at Salem Harbor Units 1-4 in Tables 17 and 19, arguing that 
Massachusetts is taking credit for reductions that would have happened 
anyway and therefore that Tables 17 and 19 overstate the additional 
reductions achieved through the alternative program. However, 
Massachusetts' underlying assumption that any facility without an 
operational restriction would operate at 2002 levels is in fact 
conservative and likely substantially overstates emissions (i.e., 
understates reductions) for several facilities in Tables 17 and 19. 
Many of the still active units listed in Tables 17 and 19 are in fact 
now operating well below 2002 heat input levels. For example, according 
to 2011 data,\9\ the annual heat input was 18,244,945 MMBtu for Brayton 
Point Unit 3 and 500,264 MMBtu for Canal Station Unit 1. The 2002 
benchmark annual heat inputs for these units were 36,339,809 MMBtu and 
27,295,648 MMBtu, respectively.\10\ In other words, the logic under 
which Massachusetts did count Salem Harbor's reductions in Tables 17 
and 19 (because Massachusetts attributes the reductions to a legally 
enforceable emission control plan) is the same logic under which 
Massachusetts did not count likely actual reductions at other 
facilities in those tables. This methodology is reasonable and 
internally consistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For 2011 EGU emission data, see EPA's Air Markets Program 
Web page at http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
    \10\ See Tables 16 and 18 of the Massachusetts Regional Haze 
State Implementation Plan dated August 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Sierra Club argues that, if the facility owner planned 
to use the Salem Harbor units for a purpose not prohibited by the 
consent decree, it would be required to apply for new permits ``because 
the permits issued to the units to operate as electric generating units 
would no longer be valid.'' While there are certainly scenarios in 
which re-use of the units (as coal generating units but not for 
supplying electricity to the grid) could require new permit 
applications, the comment identifies no provisions of the pre-existing 
permits (or of Massachusetts or federal law) indicating that this would 
be necessary in all cases. Therefore, it was reasonable for 
Massachusetts to assume that its permit restriction would achieve 
reductions that would not be legally required to occur otherwise.
    Comment B.3: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts has not 
demonstrated that the SO2 and NOX emissions 
reductions relied on it its BART alternative are properly surplus for 
purposes of BART. The Sierra Club stated that in order to claim credit 
under the BART requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for emission 
reductions attributable to a BART alternative, Massachusetts must 
demonstrate that ``the emission reductions resulting from the . . . 
alternative measures will be surplus to those reductions resulting from 
measures adopted to meet requirements of the [Clean Air Act] as of the 
baseline date of the SIP.'' The Sierra Club claims that Massachusetts

[[Page 57491]]

has not identified what portion, if any, of the emission reductions 
exceeded those necessary to comply with the purposes for which the 
regulations were designed.
    Response B.3: As part of the alternative to BART demonstration, 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv) requires a ``demonstration that the emission 
reductions resulting from the emission trading program or other 
alternative measures will be surplus to those reductions resulting from 
measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline 
date of the SIP.'' In promulgating the RHR in 1999, EPA explained that 
the ``baseline date of the SIP'' in this context means ``the date of 
the emissions inventories on which the SIP relies.'' 64 FR 35742; see 
also 70 FR 39104, 39143 (``The baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 
2002. . . .'') & id. n.84.
    Any measure, including a measure to meet a requirement of the CAA, 
adopted after 2002 is accordingly ``surplus'' under 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(iv). Massachusetts is using regulation 310 CMR 7.29 in 
conjunction with the sulfur in fuel oil standard and emission control 
plans as an alternative to BART for its EGU BART-eligible sources as 
permitted by the RHR and as discussed in the NPR. EPA agrees with 
Massachusetts' analysis that emission reductions from the alternative 
program will result in emission reductions that are surplus to the 
baseline date of the SIP. As discussed in the NPR, Massachusetts' use 
of the 310 CMR 7.29 (with a compliance year of 2008) as an alternative 
to BART for EGUs, in addition to the newly adopted revised sulfur in 
fuel oil requirements and revised emission control plans, are in 
accordance with and satisfies the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) 
for BART alternatives, including the requirement that the emission 
reductions be surplus to the baseline date of the SIP. The NPR also 
discusses how Massachusetts estimated the emission reductions required 
by the alternative plan. EPA is not restating that analysis here. 
Finally, the Sierra Club has not identified any specific elements of 
Massachusetts' alternative program that it believes are not surplus to 
reductions from measures adopted to meet CAA requirements.
    Comment B.4: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts has not 
demonstrated that the distribution of the emissions under its BART 
alternative is substantially similar to that under BART or conducted 
dispersion modeling to show the BART alternative results in greater 
reasonable progress toward achieving natural baseline visibility 
conditions in affected Class I areas. Under EPA's RHR, it is 
insufficient to simply compare the total emissions reductions from 
source-specific BART and a State's BART alternative; the State must 
take into consideration the location of these emission reductions. 
Where the distribution of emissions under BART and the alternative are 
substantially different, the State proposing to rely on a BART-
alternative must conduct dispersion modeling to show the difference in 
visibility under each program for each impacted Class I area on the 
worst and best 20 percent days. The Sierra Club commented that the mere 
fact that all the subject-to-BART units are a subset of the alternative 
BART units, does not demonstrate that similar geographic distribution. 
The Sierra Club contends that to assess the emission distribution, 
``the State would have to compare the magnitude of emission reductions 
at units common to both schemes and evaluate whether the additional 
units covered by the BART alternative are proximate to subject to BART 
sources.'' The Sierra Club further states that Massachusetts would also 
need to consider, for example, whether differences in stack heights 
among the sources would result in different geographic distribution. 
The Sierra Club states that neither Massachusetts nor EPA has presented 
any further analysis, and therefore neither has demonstrated that the 
BART alternative produces a similar distribution of emission reductions 
to BART.
    Response B.4: The RHR states that ``[i]f the distribution of 
emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the 
alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the 
alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable 
progress.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). EPA discussed in the NPR how 
Massachusetts' alternative to BART was acceptable and met the 
requirements for a BART alternative program in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA 
finds that the distribution of emission reductions in Massachusetts 
sources included in the alternative program are comparable to, and not 
substantially different from, emission reductions under BART at subject 
units. See 77 FR 30943. The emission reductions from the alternative to 
BART are discussed in detail in the NPR. Massachusetts' alternative 
program covers all of the BART-subject EGU sources and also includes 
additional EGUs which are too old to be BART-subject sources.
    All of the emission reductions, with the exception of Mount Tom, 
are from EGUs located in eastern Massachusetts and, in many cases, at 
the same physical location as the BART-eligible EGUs. For example, as 
compared to the BART benchmark, the BART alternative achieves fewer 
reductions from Brayton Point Station, but greater reductions from 
Somerset Power, which is located in the same municipality as Brayton 
Point. Similarly, as compared to the BART benchmark, the BART 
alternative achieves fewer reductions from Canal Station (on the south 
shore of Massachusetts, about 60 miles south of Boston) and Mystic 
Station (just a few miles north of Boston), but much greater reductions 
from Salem Harbor (on the north shore of Massachusetts, about 20 miles 
north of Boston). As for Mount Tom Unit 1, it is located in Holyoke, 
Massachusetts, approximately 80 miles west of Boston. The contribution 
of the Mount Tom emission reductions to the Massachusetts alternative 
to BART is 6% of the SO2 reduction and 9% of the 
NOX reduction. While this does create a minor variation in 
the geographic distribution of emission reductions, this does not lead 
to a substantial difference in geographic distribution of the emission 
reduction, particularly since the distances between the units involved 
are generally much less than the distances from any of the units to the 
relevant Class I areas.
    Moreover, to the extent that there are any differences in 
geographic distribution, they may be beneficial for regional haze 
purposes. As noted above, the principal difference in distribution is 
that the BART benchmark relies more heavily on reductions at Brayton 
Point and Canal Station (both in Massachusetts's southeast corner), 
whereas the alternative to BART relies more heavily on reductions at 
Salem Harbor (slightly closer to Maine and New Hampshire, with their 
five Class I areas) and Mount Tom (slightly closer to the Lye Brook 
Wilderness in Vermont and the Brigantine Wilderness Area in New 
Jersey). While neither Massachusetts nor EPA has modeled the impact of 
these slight geographic differences, the fact that the reductions occur 
slightly closer to the Class I areas makes it unlikely that the 
alternative would result in less visibility benefits to those areas.
    Therefore, EPA finds that Massachusetts was reasonable in the 
determination that the geographic distribution of the emission 
reductions from the alternative plan is not substantially different 
from the emission reduction distribution projected under BART.
    Comment C: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts has not 
demonstrated that the State will achieve

[[Page 57492]]

the reasonable progress goals established by MANE-VU for 2018. 
Specifically, the Sierra Club noted that Massachusetts is not projected 
to achieve the 90% SO2 reduction target by 2018 at major 
EGUs and instead projects emission reductions of between 67 and 87% 
from the affected units. The Sierra Club contends that even though 
Brayton Point Units 1 and 2 are achieving 90% control, Massachusetts 
must require as an enforceable operating condition the continuous 
operation of the spray dry absorbers. In addition, Massachusetts should 
require at least 96% control for the dry scrubber to be installed on 
Brayton Point Unit 3. Finally, Sierra Club states that Massachusetts 
should require Mount Tom to continuously operate its installed dry 
scrubber.
    Response C: Through the consultation process, Massachusetts agreed 
to pursue the MANE-VU ``Ask'' (Ask) as part of the long term strategy 
to ensure reasonable progress toward the goal of natural visibility 
conditions in Class I areas impacted by emissions from Massachusetts. 
The Ask consists of the implementation of BART, the adoption of the low 
sulfur in fuel oil strategy, and a 90% percent reduction in 
SO2 emissions from the greatest impacting EGUs or comparable 
SO2 reductions. Emission reductions resulting from these 
strategies were incorporated into the projected 2018 emissions 
inventory. The 2018 emission inventory was used to model the expected 
visibility improvement at the end of the first planning period. Based 
on the inventories developed for the MANE-VU states and the resulting 
modeling, the MANE-VU Class I States determined that the control 
strategies for the first planning period were sufficient to meet the 
reasonable progress goals for the Class I areas. As stated in the NPR, 
the 2018 modeling inventory for Massachusetts EGUs, based on the 
implementation of the Ask, is 45,941 tons SO2. Massachusetts 
targeted EGUs' 2011 SO2 emissions were only 22,165 tons 
SO2 in 2011, and under the most conservative (worst case) 
long term strategy projected emission inventory, Massachusetts EGUs are 
limited to 26,811 tons SO2 in 2018 (and more likely 10,505 
tons, which is below the level that would be achieved by the 90% 
target). The long term strategy limit is 19,130 tons SO2 
less than the inventory used to model visibility improvement in 2018. 
Since the long term strategy program is outcome-based, rather than 
technology-based, Massachusetts may develop a program that will achieve 
emissions reductions that are adequate for Class I states' reasonable 
progress goals even if it does not rely on the particular reductions 
that were used to develop the assumptions upon which those reasonable 
progress goals were based. It is worth noting that the MANE-VU Ask does 
not itself establish federal regulatory requirements. States' 
obligations are defined by the Regional Haze Rule, not the Ask.
    Finally, since future emission projections are somewhat uncertain, 
the RHR requires States to submit a 5-year progress report. At the time 
of this progress report, MassDEP will determine if the controls 
approved into the Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to achieve 
reasonable progress at the impacted Class I areas for the first 
planning period.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Massachusetts Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan, submitted on December 30, 2011 with supplemental 
submittals on August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012, as meeting the 
applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. Included as 
part of the Regional Haze Plan are the following Appendices, which EPA 
is approving and incorporating by reference into the SIP: (1) Appendix 
BB. Modified Emission Control Plan for General Electric Aviation--Lynn 
dated March 24, 2011; (2) Appendix CC. Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.26(50)-
(54) ``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters;'' (3) Appendix DD. Massachusetts 310 
CMR 7.29 ``Emission Standards for Power Plants,'' the sections relating 
to NOX and SO2; (4) Appendix EE. Amended Emission 
Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated May 15, 2009; (5) Appendix FF. 
Amended Emission Control Plan Approval for Salem Harbor Station dated 
March 27, 2012; (6) Appendix GG. Amended Emission Control Plan Approval 
for Brayton Point Station dated April 12, 2012; (7) Appendix HH. 
Facility Shutdown of Somerset Power, LLC dated June 22, 2011; (8) 
Appendix II. Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.00 ``Definitions;'' and 310 CMR 
7.05 ``Fuels All Districts;''and (9) Appendix JJ. Modified Emission 
Control Plan for Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012.

IV. 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 Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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, 
this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not 
approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes 
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments 
or preempt tribal law.
    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

[[Page 57493]]

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 November 18, 2013. 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: September 12, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the 
Federal Register September 13, 2013.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended 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. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(139) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (139) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan regarding Regional 
Haze submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection on December 30, 2011, August 9, 2012, and August 28, 2012.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.00, ``Definitions,'' amended 
definition of SULFUR IN FUEL, effective August 3, 2012.
    (B) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.05, ``U Fuels All 
Districts,'' effective August 3, 2012, with the following exceptions 
which are not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
    (1) 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)(3);
    (2) 310 CMR 7.05(2) through (4); and
    (3) 310 CMR 7.05(7) through (9).
    (C) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.29, ``Emissions Standards 
for Power Plants,'' effective on January 25, 2008 (which includes 
previous sections effective on June 29, 2007), with the following 
exceptions which are not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to 
BART:
    (1) In 310 CMR 7.29(1), the reference to mercury (Hg), carbon 
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) in the first sentence and the phrase ``. . . 
and CO2 and establishing a cap on CO2 and Hg 
emissions from affected facilities. CO2 emissions standards 
set forth in 310 CMR 7.29(5)(a)5.a. and b. shall not apply to emissions 
that occur after December 31, 2008'' in the second sentence;
    (2) In 310 CMR 7.29(2), the definitions of Alternate Hg Designated 
Representative, Automated Acquisition and Handling System or DAHS, 
Mercury (Hg) Designated Representative, Mercury Continuous Emission 
Monitoring System or Mercury CEMS, Mercury Monitoring System, Sorbent 
Trap Monitoring System, and Total Mercury;
    (3) 310 CMR 7.29(5)(a)(3) through (5)(a)(6);
    (4) In 310 CMR 7.29(5)(b)(1), reference to compliance with the 
mercury emissions standard in the second sentence;
    (5) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(a)(3) through (6)(a)(4);
    (6) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(b)(10);
    (7) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(h)(2);
    (8) The third and fourth sentences in 310 CMR 7.29(7)(a);
    (9) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1), the reference to CO2 and 
mercury;
    (10) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(a), the reference to CO2 
and mercury;
    (11) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(b) through 7.29(7)(b)(1)(d);
    (12) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(3), the reference to CO2 and 
mercury;
    (13) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(4)(b), the reference to CO2 
and mercury; and
    (14) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(e) through 7.29(7)(i).
    (D) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.26, ``Industry Performance 
Standards, Outdoor Hydronic Heaters'' paragraphs (50) through (54) and 
related footnotes effective December 26, 2008.
    (1) 310 CMR 7.26(50) Outdoor Hydronic Heaters--Applicability;
    (2) 310 CMR 7.26(51) Definitions;
    (3) 310 CMR 7.26(52) Requirements for Operators;
    (4) 310 CMR 7.26(53) Requirements for Sellers; and
    (5) 310 CMR 7.26(54) Requirements for Manufacturers.
    (E) The sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX), and PM2.5 provisions of the Massachusetts 
Department of Environmental Protection Emission Control Plan ``Saugus--
Metropolitan, Boston/Northeast Region, 310 CMR 7.08(2)--Municipal Waste 
Combustors, Application No. MBR-98-ECP-006, Transmittal No. W003302, 
Emission Control Plan Modified Final Approval'' dated March 14, 2012 to 
Mr. Jairaj Gosine, Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. and signed by Cosmo 
Buttaro and James E. Belsky, with the following exceptions which are 
not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to BART.
    (1) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2 Unit Load Restriction/Operating 
Practices;
    (2) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2 Emission Limit/Standard for 
Opacity, HCl, Dioxin/Furon, Cd, Pb, CO, Hg, NH3, and associated 
footnotes;
    (3) In Table 2, EU3 Fugitive Ash requirement and associated 
footnote.
    (4) In Table 2, Footnote 1 which is a State Only Requirement.
    (F) The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
Emission Control Plan ``Lynn--Metropolitan, Boston/Northeast Region, 
310 CMR 7.19, Application No. MBR-94-COM-008, Transmittal No. X235617, 
Modified Emission Control Plan Final Approval'' dated March 24, 2011 to 
Ms. Jolanta Wojas, General Electric Aviation and signed by Marc 
Altobelli and James E. Belsky. Note, this document contains two section 
V; V. RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS and V. GENERAL 
REQUIREMENTS/PROVISIONS.
    (G) The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
Emission Control Plan, ``Holyoke Western Region 310 CMR 7.29 Power 
Plant Emission Standards, Application No. 1-E-01-072, Transmittal No. 
W025214, Amended Emission Control Plan'' dated May 15, 2009 to Mr. John 
S. Murry, Mt. Tom Generating Company, LLC and signed by Marc Simpson, 
with the following exceptions which are not

[[Page 57494]]

applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
    (1) In Table 2, the EU 1 Emission Limit/Standard for Hg, CO, 
CO2, and PM2.5 and related footnotes;
    (2) In Table 3, the EU1 Monitoring/Testing Requirements for 
CO2, CO, PM2.5, and Hg;
    (3) In Table 4, the EU 1 Record Keeping Requirements for 
CO2, CO, PM2.5, and Hg;
    (4) In Table 5, the EU1 Reporting Requirements for Hg;
    (5) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting requirements
    (6) In Table 6, the Compliance Paths for Hg and CO2 and 
related footnote;
    (7) In Section 4, Special Conditions for ECP, Item 4, applicable to 
CO2;
    (8) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
    (9) Section 7, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act; and
    (10) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
    (H) The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
Emission Control Plan ``Salem--Metropolitan Boston/Northeast Region, 
310 CMR 7.29 Power Plant Emission Standards, Application No. NE-12-003, 
Transmittal No. X241756, Final Amended Emission Control Plan Approval'' 
dated March 27, 2012 to Mr. Lamont W. Beaudette, Dominion Energy Salem 
Harbor, LLC and signed by Edward J. Braczyk, Cosmo Buttaro, and James 
E. Belsky with the following exceptions which are not applicable to the 
Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
    (1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Emission Limit/Standard 
for Hg and related footnotes;
    (2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Emission Limit/
Standard for CO, CO2, PM2.5 and related 
footnotes;
    (3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing 
Requirements for CO2, CO, and PM2.5;
    (4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Monitoring/Testing 
Requirements for Hg;
    (5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Record Keeping 
Requirements for CO2, CO, and PM2.5;
    (6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Record Keeping 
Requirements for Hg;
    (7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Reporting 
Requirements for CO2;
    (8) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Reporting Requirements for 
Hg;
    (9) In Section 3, Compliance Schedule, the 3rd paragraph text which 
reads ``In order to meet the regulatory Hg limits which are effective 
on October 1, 2012, the facility owner/operator has proposed using a 
combination strategy involving fuel mix optimization (for 
SO2 compliance but this action will benefit Hg compliance as 
well) and installation of a Calcium Bromide injection system. In order 
to meet the 310 CMR 7.29 CO2 emission targets, the Dominion 
Energy Salem Harbor, LLC facility owner/operator procured offset 
credits from both its Dominion Energy Brayton Point facility and third 
party contacts and paid into the Greenhouse Gas Expendable Trust;''
    (10) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
    (11) Section 7, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act; and
    (12) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
    (I) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Emission 
Control Plan ``Amended Emission Control Plan Final Approval Application 
for: BWP AQ 25, 310 CMR 7.29 Power Plant Emission Standards, 
Transmittal Number X241755, Application Number SE-12-003, Source 
Number: 1200061'' dated April 12, 2012 to Peter Balkus, Dominion Energy 
Brayton Point, LLC and signed by John K. Winkler, with the following 
exceptions which are not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to 
BART:
    (1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Emission Limit/Standard 
for Hg;
    (2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, EU 4 Emission Limit/Standard 
for CO, CO2, PM2.5 and related footnotes;
    (3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing 
Requirements for CO2, Hg, CO, and PM2.5;
    (4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Monitoring/Testing 
Requirements for Hg;
    (5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Record Keeping 
Requirements for CO2, Hg, CO, and PM2.5;
    (6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Record Keeping 
Requirements for Hg;
    (7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Reporting Requirements for 
Hg and CEMS monitoring and certification;
    (8) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting Requirements;
    (9) In Table 6, the Compliance Path for CO2, and Hg;
    (10) In Section 4, Special Conditions for ECP, the CO2 
requirement in Item 2;
    (11) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
    (12) Section 7, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act; and
    (13) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
    (J) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection letter 
``Facility Shutdown, FMF Facility No. 316744'' dated June 22, 2011 to 
Jeff Araujo, Somerset Power LLC and signed by John K. Winkler.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) ``Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation Plan'' dated 
August 9, 2012.

0
3. In Sec.  52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding new entries to 
existing state citations for 310 CMR 7.00, 310 CMR 7.05, 310 CMR 7.08, 
and 310 CMR 7.19 in order of ``Date approved by EPA''; and by adding 
new state citations for 310 CMR 7.26 and 310 CMR 7.29 in order of 
``State citation'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1167  EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.

* * * * *

[[Page 57495]]



                                                    Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
                                                               [See notes at end of table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Date          Date
       State citation              Title/Subject       submitted by   approved by      Federal Register       52.1120(c)    Comments/unapproved sections
                                                           State          EPA              citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.00...............  Definitions.............        8/9/12       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Approving the definition of
                                                                                    page number where the                   ``Sulfur in Fuel.''
                                                                                    document begins].
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.05...............  U Fuels All Districts...        8/9/12       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Approves the sulfur content
                                                                                    page number where the                   of fuel oil. The following
                                                                                    document begins].                       sections were not submitted
                                                                                                                            as part of the SIP:
                                                                                                                            (1)(a)(3), (2), (3), (4),
                                                                                                                            (7), (8), (9).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.08(2)............  MWC NOX requirements....        8/9/12       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific MWC
                                                                                    page number where the                   Emission Control Plan for
                                                                                    document begins].                       Wheelabrator Saugus revises
                                                                                                                            the NOX limits to 185 ppm by
                                                                                                                            volume at 7% O2 dry basis
                                                                                                                            (30-day rolling average).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.19...............  NOX RACT................      12/30/11       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific NOX RACT
                                                                                    page number where the                   for General Electric
                                                                                    document begins].                       Aviation Boiler No. 3 to cap
                                                                                                                            annual SO2 and NOX emissions
                                                                                                                            at 249.0 tons each.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.26...............  Industry Performance          12/30/11       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Only approving the Outdoor
                              Standards.                                            page number where the                   Hydronic Heaters (50)-(54).
                                                                                    document begins].
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.29...............  Emissions Standards for       8/9/2012       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Only approving the SO2 and
                              Power Plants.                                         page number where the                   NOX requirements.
                                                                                    document begins].
310 CMR 7.29...............  Emission Standards for        8/9/2012       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific Emission
                              Power Plants.                                         page number where the                   Control Plan requirement for
                                                                                    document begins].                       Brayton Point Station Unit
                                                                                                                            1, 2, 3, and 4 which
                                                                                                                            disallows the use of 310 CMR
                                                                                                                            7.29 SO2 Early Reduction
                                                                                                                            Credits or Federal Acid Rain
                                                                                                                            allowances for compliance
                                                                                                                            with 310 CMR 7.29 after June
                                                                                                                            1, 2014.
310 CMR 7.29...............  Emission Standards for        8/9/2012       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific Emission
                              Power Plants.                                         page number where the                   Control Plan requirement for
                                                                                    document begins].                       Mt. Tom Station which
                                                                                                                            disallows the use of 310 CMR
                                                                                                                            7.29 SO2 Early Reduction
                                                                                                                            Credits or Federal Acid Rain
                                                                                                                            allowances for compliance
                                                                                                                            with 310 CMR 7.29 after
                                                                                                                            October 1, 2009.

[[Page 57496]]

 
310 CMR 7.29...............  Emission Standards for        8/9/2012       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific Emission
                              Power Plants.                                         page number where the                   Control Plan for Salem
                                                                                    document begins].                       Harbor Station Units 1, 2,
                                                                                                                            3, and 4 which limits NOX
                                                                                                                            emissions from Unit 1 to 276
                                                                                                                            tons per rolling 12 month
                                                                                                                            period starting 1/1/2012,
                                                                                                                            limits NOX emissions for
                                                                                                                            Unit 2 to 50 tons per
                                                                                                                            rolling 12 month period
                                                                                                                            starting 1/1/2012, limits
                                                                                                                            SO2 emissions form Unit 2 to
                                                                                                                            300 tons per rolling 12
                                                                                                                            month period starting 1/1/
                                                                                                                            2012, shuts down units 3 and
                                                                                                                            4 effective 6/1/2014.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 2013-22692 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P