Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30737 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–12338 Filed 5–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0446; A–1–FRL– 

9901–93–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Regulations Limiting 

Emissions of Volatile Organic 

Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. These revisions consist 

of updates and amendments to existing 

air pollution control requirements for 

stationary sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX). This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 30, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2008–0446. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., 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: Bob 

McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail 

code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1046, fax number (617) 918–0046, email 

mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. Additionally, the phrase ‘‘the 

Commonwealth’’ refers to the 

Commonwealth (or state) of 

Massachusetts. Organization of this 

document. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information 

in this preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On August 1, 2013 (78 FR 46552), 

EPA published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR) proposing to approve 

updates and amendments to existing air 

pollution control requirements for 

stationary sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) contained in the Massachusetts 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

proposed revisions were submitted by 

the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection to EPA on 

July 11, 2001, and September 14, 2006. 

The July 11, 2001 submittal was 

supplemented with two additional 

submittals, one on August 9, 2001, and 

a second on January 18, 2002 

(collectively referred to herein as the 

July 11, 2001 submittal). 

The July 11, 2001 submittal includes 

revisions to Title 310 of the Code of 

Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), 

section 7.19, Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for Sources 

of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX). The 

September 14, 2006 submittal includes 

revisions to 310 CMR 7.00, Definitions; 

7.05, Fuels All Districts; 7.18, Volatile 

and Halogenated Organic Compounds; 

7.19, RACT for Sources of NOX; and 

7.24, Organic Material Storage and 

Distribution. 

In addition, we note that our August 

1, 2013 NPR indicated we intended to 

take action on 310 CMR 7.18(8), Solvent 

Metal Degreasing, as submitted on 

September 14, 2006. However, in light 

of a June 1, 2010 submittal by 

Massachusetts to EPA of an updated 

version of 310 CMR 7.18(8), 

Massachusetts withdrew its SIP revision 

request relating to the September 14, 

2006 version of section 7.18(8) by letter 

dated January 18, 2013. Furthermore, 

we approved the updated version of 

section 7.18(8) that Massachusetts 

submitted on June 1, 2010 within a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on September 9, 2013. See 78 FR 54960. 

Our August 1, 2013 proposal 

indicated that the Commonwealth’s SIP 

revision request included a request that 

the definitions of 81 different terms be 

approved into the SIP. By letter dated 

August 8, 2013, Massachusetts informed 

EPA that nine of the 81 definitions had 

been unintentionally included in the 

SIP revision request. Therefore, by the 

August 8, 2013 letter, Massachusetts 

withdrew its request that those nine 

definitions be approved into the SIP. 

The nine terms are as follows: ‘‘Alter or 

alteration,’’ ‘‘Alternative fuel,’’ 

‘‘Alternative fuel vehicle,’’ ‘‘Asbestos,’’ 

‘‘Asbestos-containing material,’’ 

‘‘Construct or construction,’’ ‘‘Cooling 

tower,’’ ‘‘Friable asbestos containing 

material,’’ and ‘‘Non-road vehicle.’’ Our 

final rule, therefore, will not incorporate 

these terms into the Massachusetts SIP. 

The other specific SIP revisions that 

were included in Massachusetts’ 

submittals are explained in the NPR and 

are detailed in the description of 

amendments made to 40 CFR Part 52 

described at the end of this final rule. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received one comment letter on 

our proposal. The comments were 

submitted by Robert Ukeiley on behalf 

of the Sierra Club, by letter dated 

September 3, 2013. A summary of Sierra 

Club’s comments and our response to 

each is provided below. 

Comment 1: Sierra Club notes that our 

proposed action was overdue, given that 

Massachusetts’ submittals to EPA 

occurred as far back as 2001. Sierra Club 

also commented that our delay should 

not be used as justification for 

approving emission limits that are no 

longer protective of public health. 

Additionally, Sierra Club commented 

that there was very little analysis 

provided by EPA in the NPR as to why 

EPA was proposing approval of 

Massachusetts’ submittals. 

Response 1: We acknowledge that our 

action on these updates to regulations 

previously approved into the 

Commonwealth’s SIP was delayed. 

However, we note that, with the 

exception of the updates we are taking 

final action on today, the majority of the 

provisions of the regulations in question 

(including the pollutant emissions rate 

limits contained within those 

regulations) have been part of the 

Massachusetts SIP for many years, with 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
30738 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area 

Sources, Section 1.4 (EPA, January 1995). 

most being approved in the 1990’s. Our 

action today involves incorporating into 

the Massachusetts SIP minor 

amendments to previously approved 

NOX and VOC control requirements. 

Our original approval documents 

associated with these previously 

approved regulations contained a 

thorough analysis justifying our action 

for them. Consequently, we did not 

repeat our analysis in the NPR of the 

already-approved portions of the 

regulations in question. Rather, we 

provided in the NPR a brief summary of 

the changes being made commensurate 

with the nature of those relatively minor 

changes to the SIP as requested by 

Massachusetts. Our rationale for our 

previous approvals of the more 

substantive provisions of the 

Massachusetts SIP’s NOX and VOC 

requirements can be found in the 

individual rulemaking actions for them, 

which are chronicled within 40 CFR 

52.1167. 

In addition, Massachusetts’ NOX and 

VOC regulations were recently certified 

by Massachusetts, and approved by 

EPA, as representing RACT for the 1997 

ozone standard. See final approval at 78 

FR 54960 (September 9, 2013) and the 

analysis included in our proposed 

approval at 78 FR 10583 (February 14, 

2013). EPA did not receive any 

comments on the analysis presented in 

the proposed approval. 

Sierra Club’s comments on our 

proposed action primarily concerned 

Massachusetts’ NOX RACT regulation, 

310 CMR 7.19. Table 1 below provides 

a summary of the specific provisions of 

Massachusetts’ NOX RACT regulation 

that were included in the July 11, 2001 

and September 14, 2006 SIP submittals 

and which we are taking action on 

today. Additionally, our response below 

to Sierra Club’s second comment 

addresses Sierra Club’s assertion that 

EPA should disapprove 310 CMR 

7.19(1)(c)(9) because it allows sources to 

comply with outdated emissions limits. 

TABLE 1—CHANGES TO 310 CMR 7.19, NOX RACT 

Citation within 310 CMR 

7.19: Description of change 

7.19(4)(b)(3)(d) ............. Existing cross reference to 310 CMR 7.02(2) updated to reference 7.02(1), which contains the authority for Massachusetts to issue approvals establishing emission limits and/or restrictions. 

7.19(4)(c)(2) .................. Added the phrase ‘‘or NOX ERCs’’ to this provision to clarify that the use of NOX emission reduction credits (ERCs) is 

an option for sources seeking to comply via the alternative NOX RACT provision of 7.19(4)(c). The use of NOX

ERCs as one alternative compliance option had already been approved into the SIP at 7.19(2)(g). See 61 FR 41338 

(August 8, 1996). 

7.19(4)(c)(f) and 

7.19(5)(d).

The following sentence was added to both sections: ‘‘Notwithstanding this CO emission standard, the Department may 

approve a higher CO emission standard for a medium-size boiler as part of the emission control plan if the facility 

demonstrates that combustion conditions will not significantly deteriorate with the higher CO emission standard.’’ 

Explanation: Measurement of CO (carbon monoxide) is often used to monitor combustion efficiency, as higher CO levels can indicate a degradation of performance. Both 7.19(4)(c)(f) and 7.19(5)(d) contain CO exhaust concentration 

limits of 200 parts per million. In certain circumstances, adding NOX air pollution control equipment can lead to an 

increase in CO emissions.1 Given that Massachusetts has no CO nonattainment areas, allowing the state the discretion to exceed the CO limit is acceptable in instances where a source demonstrates that it is necessary to properly control NOX.

7.19(13)(a)(6) ................ Existing incorrect cross reference to stack testing provisions is corrected from 310 CMR 7.19(13)(d) to properly reference 310 CMR 7.19(13)(c). 

7.19(13)(c)(1) ................ Removed the word ‘‘written’’ from before the phrase ‘‘Department approval,’’ allowing the state to authorize pretest 

stack testing protocols without needing to do so in writing. Pursuant to 7.19(13)(c)(6), the Department must still approve, in writing, emission test reports. 

Numerous locations ...... Throughout 7.19, the word ‘‘million’’ is replaced with numeric 1,000,000. 

Comment 2: Sierra Club comments 

that EPA should disapprove the 

provision codified at 310 CMR 

7.19(1)(c)(9), which provides for an 

exemption from the NOX RACT 

requirements of section 7.19 for 

stationary sources that obtain a plan 

approval (or permit) that imposes a 

requirement to meet a level of control 

constituting best available control 

technology (BACT) or lowest achievable 

emission rate (LAER). Sierra Club 

contends that because reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

advances over time as technology 

advances, the provision in question 

denies the public the benefit of such 

advances in technology by allowing 

sources to rely on outdated control 

technology, e.g., by allowing sources to 

rely on technology that may have 

constituted LAER or BACT decades ago 

and is not as stringent as NOX RACT 

today. 

Sierra Club also commented that EPA 

must disapprove the provisions codified 

at section 310 CMR 7.19(2)(b)14 and 

7.19(2)(g) pertaining to the use of 

emission reduction credits and 

interstate emission trading programs to 

meet RACT requirements. Sierra Club 

asserts that RACT is a source specific 

emission limit and therefore cannot be 

met by buying emission reduction 

credits from another facility. Sierra Club 

further asserts that ‘‘EPA’s attempt to 

allow interstate trading programs to 

qualify as RACT has been rejected by 

the DC Circuit.’’ 

Response 2: EPA disagrees with Sierra 

Club’s interpretation of 310 CMR 

7.19(1)(c)(9). Sierra Club asserts that this 

requirement, ‘‘appears to exempt 

pollution emission sources from RACT 

if they obtained a plan approval that 

includes BACT and LAER which was as 

stringent as RACT at the time BACT or 

LAER was approved.’’ The provision in 

question does not, as Sierra Club’s 

comment suggests, relieve a source from 

meeting an emission rate that is 

equivalent to RACT, and, in fact, 

provides that a source must meet an 

emission rate at least as stringent as 

RACT pursuant to the source’s 

obligation to meet BACT or LAER 

emissions rates under a plan approval 

(or permit) issued by the 

Commonwealth. The provision only 

provides that the source would not be 

subject to the specific detailed 

requirements of 310 CMR 7.19, and does 

so because a qualifying source would 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30739 

2See the Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection’s Chapter 134 at section (1)(C)(2), and the 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management’s Air Pollution Control Regulation 

Number 27, at section 27.4.5, approved by EPA on 

April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20749) and September 2, 

1997 (62 FR 46202), respectively. 

3Sierra Club’s comment included the statement 

‘‘EPA’s attempt to allow interstate trading programs 

to qualify as RACT has been rejected by the D.C. 

Circuit.’’ The comment does not cite a D.C. Circuit 

opinion that would support Sierra Club’s broad 

assertion. 

necessarily be subject to a requirement 

to meet an emission rate that is at least 

as stringent. That is accomplished by 

the language of 7.19(1)(c)(9) requiring 

that the BACT or LAER emission rate in 

the relevant plan approval ‘‘be no less 

stringent than RACT.’’ When 

implementing this provision, 

Massachusetts must first determine 

what its NOX RACT regulation requires 

of the source being evaluated, and then 

confirm that the BACT or LAER 

requirement contained in the source’s 

plan approval (or permit) is ‘‘no less 

stringent than RACT.’’ In practice, 

sources to which this provision would 

apply are typically subject to more 

stringent (as opposed to equivalent) 

emissions rates pursuant to a BACT or 

LAER requirement; both BACT and 

LAER require, in almost all cases, a 

more stringent (as opposed to 

equivalent) level of emissions control 

than RACT. With respect to BACT, this 

fact is noted within EPA’s May 18, 2006 

guidance memorandum from William T. 

Harnett to EPA’s Regional Air Division 

Directors, entitled ‘‘RACT Qs and As— 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT): Questions and 

Answers,’’ which contains the 

following: 

BACT requires that new or modified 

sources adopt the best available controls and, 

as such, the analysis is a ‘‘top-down’’ 

analysis that first looks at the most stringent 

level of control available for a source. 

Industries applying for a construction permit 

list in their application what are the currently 

most stringent levels of control. The State 

verifies this by checking the application 

against other data sources including EPA’s 

RACT/BACT Clearinghouse. RACT requires 

that sources adopt controls that are 

reasonably available and thus they may not 

be the most stringent controls that have been 

adopted for other similar sources.’’ 

Similarly, 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii) 

provides that a LAER level of control 

also inherently is more stringent than 

RACT. 

Additionally, EPA’s implementation 

rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

(70 FR 71653, November 29, 2005) notes 

that states may use information from 

prior BACT or LAER analyses for 

purposes of showing that a source is 

meeting RACT requirements. 

With respect to Sierra Club’s assertion 

that the provision in question would 

allow a source to meet a level of control 

that is outdated, potentially by decades, 

we do not believe that could happen for 

the following reason. The most current 

NOX RACT obligation that applies to 

Massachusetts under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) relates to the 1997 ozone 

standard. EPA has approved the 

Commonwealth’s NOX RACT 

certification for the 1997 ozone 

standard. See proposed rule at 78 FR 

10583 (February 14, 2013) and final rule 

at 78 FR 54960 (September 9, 2013). 

This means that Massachusetts has 

demonstrated that its current NOX

RACT regulations meet the CAA’s 

requirements for implementation of 

NOX RACT under the 1997 ozone 

standard. The certification approved by 

EPA required Massachusetts to 

demonstrate that all sources subject to 

NOX RACT in Massachusetts are 

meeting NOX RACT under the 1997 

ozone standard. EPA has not yet 

promulgated in final form its 

implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 

standard and states are not yet required 

to submit SIP amendments in relation to 

NOX RACT for the 2008 standard. 

Furthermore, we note that EPA has 

previously approved provisions similar 

to Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.19(1)(c)(9) 

in other states’ RACT regulations, e.g., 

Maine’s VOC RACT regulations and 

Rhode Island’s NOX RACT regulations.2

Finally, as noted above, Sierra Club 

comments that EPA must disapprove 

the provisions at 310 CMR 7.19(2)(b)(14) 

and 310 CMR 7.19(2)(g), which address 

emission reduction credits and 

interstate trading of emissions credits to 

comply with NOX RACT. These 

provisions are not at issue in this action. 

EPA approved both 310 CMR 

7.19(2)(b)(14) and 310 CMR 7.19(2)(g) 

into the Massachusetts SIP in 1999 and 

1996, respectively. See 64 FR 48095 

(September 2, 1999) and 61 FR 41335 

(August 8, 1996). EPA’s August 1, 2013 

NPR did not propose to take any further 

action on these two provisions, nor is 

EPA taking action on these provisions 

through its action today. Consequently, 

Sierra Club’s comment is not germane to 

this action and no further response is 

necessary.3

Comment 3: Sierra Club commented 

extensively on 310 CMR 7.19(4), NOX

RACT for large boilers. Sierra Club’s 

comments include an extensive review 

of the permitted emission limits for a 

number of coal fired power plants in 

Massachusetts. Sierra Club contends 

that EPA must disapprove the NOX

RACT emission limits at 310 CMR 

7.19(4) for a number of reasons, 

including: (1) The Commonwealth’s 

failure to provide an explanation or 

basis for how these emission limits were 

developed; (2) because the emissions 

limits are significantly too high and thus 

not effective at moving Massachusetts 

towards attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS; (3) the Commonwealth did not 

consider using selective catalytic 

reduction as a control technology; (4) 

the units of measure and averaging 

times associated with the NOX RACT 

limits are flawed; and (5) the 

Commonwealth did not consider the use 

of cleaner burning fuels. 

Response 3: The final action we are 

taking today, which was also described 

in our notice of proposed rulemaking 

(78 FR 46552; August 1, 2013), involves 

revisions to a limited portion of the 

Massachusetts SIP, and consists of: (1) 

Various relatively minor amendments to 

regulations that EPA had already 

approved into the Massachusetts SIP in 

the past; and (2) the addition of certain 

definitions that help clarify the meaning 

of terms used in previously approved 

Massachusetts SIP provisions. None of 

the changes for which EPA proposed to 

take action, and on which EPA is taking 

final action today, includes the NOX

RACT provisions for large boilers that 

Sierra Club objects to in its third 

comment. The NOX RACT requirements 

referenced by Sierra Club had earlier 

been approved by EPA into the 

Massachusetts SIP, 64 FR 48095 

(September 2, 1999), and they were 

more recently certified by 

Massachusetts, and approved by EPA, as 

representing NOX RACT for the 1997 

ozone standard. 78 FR 54960 

(September 9, 2013). The proposed rule 

approving Massachusetts’ NOX RACT 

certification contains the relevant 

analysis. 78 FR 10583 (February 14, 

2013). 

Comment 4: Sierra Club commented 

on two of the definitions that 

Massachusetts seeks to incorporate into 

its SIP. Specifically, Sierra Club 

commented that the definition for 

‘‘federally enforceable’’ should include 

‘‘enforceable by the Administrator and 

any person, as person is defined under 

the Clean Air Act.’’ Additionally, Sierra 

Club commented that the definition of 

‘‘federal potential to emit’’ should 

include ‘‘actual emissions or maximum 

capacity to emit.’’ 

Response 4: The definitions for 

‘‘federal potential to emit’’ and 

‘‘federally enforceable’’ that 

Massachusetts has adopted and 

submitted to EPA for approval into the 

Commonwealth’s SIP are consistent 

with EPA’s definitions for these terms 

found at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(4) and (17), 

respectively. We therefore intend to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
30740 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

approve these two definitions into the 

Massachusetts SIP. 

With regard to the Massachusetts 

definition of ‘‘federal potential to emit,’’ 

we note that the definition we are 

approving already contains the words 

‘‘means the maximum capacity of a 

stationary source to emit.’’ If Sierra 

Club’s comment is intended to suggest 

that EPA require Massachusetts to add 

the words ‘‘actual emissions,’’ EPA 

responds as follows. First, the federal 

definition of that term does not include 

the words ‘‘actual emissions.’’ Second, a 

stationary source’s ‘‘maximum 

capacity’’ to emit would, by definition, 

always be equal to or greater than its 

‘‘actual emissions.’’ So, adding the 

words ‘‘actual emissions’’ as requested 

by Sierra Club would not add anything 

substantive to that definition. 

With regard to the definition of 

‘‘federally enforceable,’’ EPA notes that 

Massachusetts’ definition of the term 

already contains the term 

‘‘Administrator.’’ However, EPA’s 

definition of ‘‘federally enforceable’’ 

does not contain the words ‘‘and any 

person, as person is defined under the 

Clean Air Act.’’ The definition in 

question on its face relates to those 

provisions of regulations, permits, etc. 

that are ‘‘federally’’ enforceable. As 

such, a reference to the EPA 

Administrator’s authority to enforce is 

appropriate. Further, the absence in the 

definition of the words ‘‘and any 

person, as person is defined under the 

Clean Air Act’’ has no adverse effect 

upon any person’s right, pursuant to the 

CAA itself, to bring actions to enforce 

any provisions of regulations, permits, 

etc. 

Comment 5: The Sierra Club notes 

that Massachusetts withdrew a number 

of items contained within its July 11, 

2001 and September 14, 2006 submittals 

by letter dated January 18, 2013, and 

commented that EPA must clarify 

whether it is acting on the more current 

provisions noted within the withdrawal 

letter. 

Response 5: By this final rule we are 

approving the portions of 

Massachusetts’ July 11, 2001 and 

September 14, 2006 submittals that were 

not withdrawn through the 

Commonwealth’s January 18, 2013 

correspondence to EPA. As to NOX

RACT, specifically, the provisions of 

310 CMR 7.19 we are taking action on 

today are set forth clearly in Table I 

above. In addition, the information 

included within the docket for our 

proposed action contains detailed 

information regarding the specific 

provisions that Massachusetts withdrew 

pursuant to the January 18, 2013 letter. 

As to the July 11, 2001 and September 

14, 2006 submittals, EPA is not 

approving by today’s action anything 

other than the provisions contained in 

those two submittals and which were 

not withdrawn by Massachusetts’ 

January 18, 2013 letter. As noted in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking, our 

action includes certain additions and 

clarifications to sections of the 

Massachusetts SIP that had been 

previously approved into the 

Commonwealth’s SIP. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

SIP revisions submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

which included revisions to the 

following sections of 310 CMR: 7.00, 

Definitions; 7.05, Fuels All Districts; 

7.18, Volatile and Halogenated Organic 

Compounds; 7.19, RACT for Sources of 

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX); and 7.24, 

Organic Material Storage and 

Distribution. 

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 

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 July 28, 2014. 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30741 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 26, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received for publication by the Office of 

Federal Register on May 15, 2014. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart W—Massachusetts 

■ 2. Section 52.1120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(141) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(141) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted to EPA 

by the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.00, ‘‘Statutory Authority; 

Legend; Preamble; Definitions,’’ 

effective on August 3, 2001, the 

definition for compliance certification. 

(B) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.00, ‘‘Statutory Authority; 

Legend; Preamble; Definitions,’’ 

effective on September 23, 2005, the 

definitions for adhesion promoter, 

Administrator, anti-glare safety coating, 

aqueous cleaner, automotive refinishing 

facility, bakery, capture efficiency, 

CEMS, CFR, combined cycle 

combustion turbine, dry bottom, duct 

burner, elastomeric coating, emergency 

or standby engine, emission statement, 

energy input capacity, EPA, existing 

facility, face firing, facility, federally 

enforceable, federal potential to emit or 

federal potential emissions, ferrous 

cupola foundry, four-stage coating 

system, fuel cell, fugitive emissions, 

glass, glass melting furnace, halogenated 

organic compound, hardener, hazardous 

air pollutant (HAP), heat release rate, 

impact-resistant coating, lean burn 

engine, lowest achievable emission rate 

(LAER), malfunction, maximum 

achievable control technology, 

maximum design capacity, mobile 

equipment, MW, natural draft opening, 

nonattainment area, nonattainment 

review, non-criteria pollutant, potential 

emissions or potential to emit, 

pretreatment wash primer, primer 

sealer, primer surfacer, reducer, simple 

cycle combustion turbine, single-stage 

topcoat, soap, specialty coating, 

stationary combustion turbine, 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engine, stencil coating, 

stoker, surface preparation product, 

tangential firing, three-stage coating 

system, touch-up coating, two-stage 

topcoat, underbody coating, uniform 

finish blender. 

(C) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.00, ‘‘Statutory Authority; 

Legend; Preamble; Definitions,’’ 

effective on June 2, 2006, the definitions 

for water hold-out coating, weldthrough primer, VOC composite partial 

pressure. 

(D) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.05, ‘‘U Fuels All Districts,’’ 

paragraph (2), ‘‘U Use of Residual Fuel 

Oil or Hazardous Waste Fuel,’’ effective 

on September 23, 2005. 

(E) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.18, ‘‘U Volatile and Halogenated 

Organic Compounds,’’ effective on 

September 23, 2005, paragraph (1), ‘‘U 

Applicability and Handling 

Requirements,’’ subparagraphs (a) and 

(c) through (f); paragraph (2), ‘‘U 

Compliance with Emission Limitations’’ 

(as corrected in Massachusetts Register 

1037, October 21, 2005); paragraph (3), 

U Metal Furniture Coating, 

subparagraph (a); paragraph (4), U Metal 

Can Surface Coating, subparagraph (a); 

paragraph (11), ‘‘U Surface Coating of 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 

Products,’’ subparagraphs (a) through 

(d)(4.); paragraph (19), ‘‘Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacture,’’ 

subparagraphs (h) and (i); paragraph 

(20), ‘‘Emission Control Plans for 

Implementation of Reasonably Available 

Control Technology;’’ paragraph (21), 

‘‘Surface Coating of Plastic Parts,’’ 

subparagraphs (a) through (d) and (f) 

through (i); paragraph (22), ‘‘Leather 

Surface Coating,’’ subparagraphs (a) 

through (c); paragraph (23), ‘‘Wood 

Products Surface Coating,’’ 

subparagraphs (b) through (i); paragraph 

(24), ‘‘Flat Wood Paneling Surface 

Coating,’’ subparagraphs (a) through (c) 

and subparagraphs (h) and (i); paragraph 

(25), ‘‘Offset Lithographic Printing,’’ 

subparagraphs (a) through (c); paragraph 

(26), ‘‘Textile Finishing,’’ subparagraphs 

(c) through (i); paragraph (27), ‘‘Coating 

Mixing Tanks;’’ paragraph (28), 

‘‘Automotive Refinishing,’’ and 

paragraph (29), ‘‘Bakeries,’’ 

subparagraph (c) 2. 

(F) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.19, ‘‘U Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for Sources 

of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX),’’ effective 

on August 3, 2001; paragraph (1), 

‘‘Applicability,’’ subparagraph (c) 9. (as 

corrected in Massachusetts Register 938, 

January 4, 2002); paragraph (4), ‘‘Large 

Boilers,’’ subparagraphs (b)3.d. (as 

corrected in Massachusetts Register 938, 

January 4, 2002), (c) 2., and (f); 

paragraph (5), ‘‘Medium-size Boilers,’’ 

subparagraph (d). 

(G) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.19, ‘‘U Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for Sources 

of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX),’’ paragraph 

(13), ‘‘Testing, Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

Requirements,’’ subparagraphs (a), 

‘‘Applicability,’’ and (c), ‘‘Stack 

Testing’’, effective September 23, 2005. 

(H) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.24, ‘‘U Organic Material Storage 

and Distribution,’’ subparagraph (1), 

‘‘Organic Material Storage Tanks,’’ 

effective September 23, 2005. 

(I) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 

7.24, ‘‘U Organic Material Storage and 

Distribution,’’ subparagraph (4), ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Fuel Tank Trucks,’’ effective 

June 2, 2006. 

■ 3. In § 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is 

amended by: 

■ a. Adding 3 new entries to existing 

state citations for 310 CMR 7.00 in order 

of ‘‘Date submitted by state’’. 

■ b. Adding a new entry for 310 CMR 

7.05(2) in alphanumeric order. 

■ c. Adding a new entry for 310 CMR 

7.18(1)(a), (c)–(f) in alphanumeric order. 

■ d. Adding a new entry to the existing 

state citations for 310 CMR 7.18(2) in 

order of ‘‘Date submitted by state’’. 

■ e. Adding new entries for 310 CMR 

7.18(3)(a), 7.18(4)(a), 7.18(11)(a)–(d)4., 

and 7.18(19)(h), (i) in alphanumeric 

order. 

■ f. Adding a new entry to the existing 

state citations for 310 CMR 7.18(20) in 

order of ‘‘Date submitted by state’’. 

■ g. Adding new entries for 310 CMR 

7.18(21)(a) –(d), (f)–(i), 7.18(22)(a)–(c), 

7.18(23)(b)–(i), 7.18(24)(a)–(c), (h), (i), 

7.18(25)(a)–(c), and 7.18(26)(c)–(i) in 

alphanumeric order. 

■ h. Adding new entries to the existing 

state citations for 310 CMR 7.18(27) and 

7.18(28) in order of ‘‘Date submitted by 

state’’. 

■ i. Adding new entries for 310 CMR 

7.18(29)(c)(2), 7.19(1)(c)(9), (4)(b)(3)d, 

(f), (5)d, 7.19(13)(a), (c), 7.24(1), and 

7.24(4) in alphanumeric order. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts 

State regulations. 

* * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
30742 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS

[See Notes at end of Table] 

State citation Title/subject 

Date 

submitted 

by State 

Date 

approved 

by EPA 

Federal Register 

citation 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections 

*******

310 CMR 7.00 ..................................... Definitions ............ 8/9/01 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Approved the definition for compliance certification. 

310 CMR 7.00 ..................................... Definitions ............ 9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Approving the following definitions, 

effective 9/23/05: adhesion promoter, Administrator, anti-glare 

safety coating, aqueous cleaner, 

automotive refinishing facility, bakery, capture efficiency, CEMS, 

CFR, combined cycle combustion 

turbine, dry bottom, duct burner, 

elastomeric coating, emergency or 

standby engine , emission statement, energy input capacity, EPA, 

existing facility, face firing, facility, 

federally enforceable, federal potential to emit or federal potential 

emissions, ferrous cupola foundry, 

four-stage coating system, fuel cell, 

fugitive emissions, glass, glass 

melting furnace, halogenated organic compound, hardener, hazardous air pollutant (HAP), heat release rate, impact resistant coating, 

lean burn engine, lowest achievable emission rate (LAER), malfunction, maximum achievable control technology, maximum design 

capacity, mobile equipment, MW, 

natural draft opening, nonattainment area, nonattainment review, 

non-criteria pollutant, potential 

emissions or potential to emit, 

pretreatment wash primer, primer 

sealer, primer surfacer, reducer, 

simple cycle combustion turbine, 

single-stage topcoat, soap, specialty coating, stationary combustion turbine, stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engine, stencil 

coating, stoker, surface preparation 

product, tangential firing, threestage coating system, touch-up 

coating, two-stage topcoat, 

underbody coating, uniform finish 

blender. 

310 CMR 7.00 ..................................... Definitions ............ 9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Approving the following amended or 

added definitions, effective 6/2/06: 

water hold-out coating, weldthrough primer, VOC composite 

partial pressure. 

*******

310 CMR 7.05(2) ................................. U Fuels All Districts; U Use of 

Residual Fuel 

Oil or Hazardous Waste 

Fuel.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Removed landfill gas from requirements of section. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(1)(a), (c)–(f). ................ U Applicability and 

Handling Requirements.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Added requirements for proper storage of volatile organic compounds. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(2) ................................. U Compliance with 

Emission Limitations.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Addition of daily weighted averaging 

provision. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30743 

TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS—Continued 

[See Notes at end of Table] 

State citation Title/subject 

Date 

submitted 

by State 

Date 

approved 

by EPA 

Federal Register 

citation 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(3)(a) ............................. U Metal Furniture 

Coating.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Minor wording change. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(4)(a) ............................. U Metal Can Surface Coating.9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Minor wording change. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(11)(a)–(d)4. ................. U Surface Coating 

of Miscellaneous 

Metal Parts and 

Products.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Wording revision to clarify exemption 

requirements. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(19)(h), (i) ..................... Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacture.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Clarification of quarterly reporting 

submittal date. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(20) ............................... Emission Control 

Plans for Implementation Reasonably Available Control 

Technology.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Clarification of exemption requirements, and inclusion of provision 

allowing for additional requirements 

such as stack testing or emissions 

monitoring. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(21)(a)–(d), (f)–(i) ......... Surface Coating of 

Plastic Parts.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Added language strengthening compliance obligations. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(22)(a)–(c) .................... Leather Surface 

Coating.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Added language strengthening compliance obligations. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(23)(b)–(i) ..................... Wood Products 

Surface Coating.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Added language strengthening compliance obligations. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(24)(a)–(c), (h), (i) ........ Flat Wood Paneling Surface 

Coating.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Added language strengthening compliance obligations. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(25)(a)–(c) .................... Offset Lithographic 

Printing.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Added language strengthening compliance obligations. 

*******

310 CMR 7.18(26)(c)–(i) ...................... Textile Finishing ... 9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Added language strengthening compliance obligations. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
30744 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 103 / Thursday, May 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS—Continued 

[See Notes at end of Table] 

State citation Title/subject 

Date 

submitted 

by State 

Date 

approved 

by EPA 

Federal Register 

citation 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections 

310 CMR 7.18(27) ............................... Coating Mixing 

Tanks.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Minor wording changes to improve 

clarity of regulation. 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.18(28) ............................... Automotive Refinishing.9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 New emission limits, labeling, recordkeeping requirements, and exemptions added. 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.18(29)(c)(2) ...................... Bakeries ............... 9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Updated cross reference. 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.19(1)(c)(9), (4)(b)(3)d, (f), 

(5)d.

NOX RACT ........... 8/9/01; 1/18/ 

02 

5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Updates to sections pertaining to applicability, large boilers, and medium size boilers. 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.19(13)(a), (c) .................... NOX RACT ........... 9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Updates to applicability and stack 

testing requirements. 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.24(1) ................................. U Organic Material 

Storage and 

Distribution.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Updates to requirements for organic 

material storage tanks, effective 9/

23/05. 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.24(4) ................................. U Organic Material 

Storage and 

Distribution.

9/14/06 5/29/14 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

141 Updates to requirements for motor 

vehicle fuel tank trucks, effective 6/

2/06. 

* * * * * * * 

Notes: 

1This 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. 

2The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11687 Filed 5–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WT Docket Nos: 02–381, 01–14, and 03– 

202; FCC 04–166] 

Facilitating the Provision of SpectrumBased Services to Rural Areas and 

Promoting Opportunities for Rural 

Telephone Companies To Provide 

Spectrum-Based Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection requirements 

associated with Facilitating the 

Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to 

Rural Areas and Promoting 

Opportunities for Rural Telephone 

Companies To Provide Spectrum-Based 

Services, FCC 04–166. With this 

document the Commission is 

announcing OMB approval and the 

effective date of the revised 

requirements. 

DATES: The FCC Form 602 was approved 

by OMB on September 11, 2013 and is 

effective May 29, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information contact Cathy 

Williams, Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov, (202) 

418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that, on 

September 11, 2013, OMB approved the 

revised information collection 

requirements for Facilitating the 

Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to 

Rural Areas and Promoting 

Opportunities for Rural Telephone 

Companies To Provide Spectrum-Based 

Services, FCC 04–166, published at, 69 

FR 75144, December 15, 2004, the OMB 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES