Ja~SED STqp~ s'2 

## o 3 y a ~V EG~~ lqC PROI

Memorandum Date: July 10, 2012

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 1 5Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109-3912

Subject: Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Massachusetts Submittals to Fulfill

the Requirements for 1997 and 2006 PM2,5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air Act Under Section 110(a)(2) From : W Thru: Alison Simcox, Environmental Scientist

Anne Arnold, Manager Air Quality Planning Unit To: Docket for Massachusetts Section 110 PM2,5Infrastructure Submittals

(EPA-ROI-OAR-2009-0459 and EPA-ROI-OAR-2011-0323) 

### A . INTRODUCTION The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on certain submittals made by Massachusetts to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2) requirements relating to the 1997 and the revised 2006fine particulate matter (PM2,5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) . This technical support document (TSD) gives EPA's analysis of the Massachusetts submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2) . 

### B . BACKGROUND Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), states are required to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement (the infrastructure) of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation ofthe NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that must be incorporated into the SIPs, including, for example, requirements for emission inventories, prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD), air pollution control measures, and monitoring that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA refers to the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(ii), (E)-(H), and (J)-(M) as the "infrastructure" SIPs. Additionally, EPA refers to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as the "interstate transport" SIPs. EPA provided separate guidance to states on each type of SIP, infrastructure and interstate transport, and these actions may be on separate tracks and timelines.1997 and 2006 PM2 .5 NAAQS On July 18, 1997, EPApublished new NAAQS for PM

(62 FR 38652) . This included a new annual and a new

24-hour NAAQS for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2

.5 micrometers (denoted PM2,5) . The annual PM2 .5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (~tg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2 .5 concentrations, and the 24-hour PM2 .5 standard was set at 65 ~tg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations . Thus, states were required to submit "infrastructure" SIPs for the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS to EPAno later than June 2000

. However, intervening litigation over the 1997 PM2 .5 (and 8-hour ozone) NAAQS created uncertainty about how to proceed, and many states did not provide the required "infrastructure" SIPsubmissions for these newly promulgated NAAQS. On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue related to EPA's failure to issue findings offailure to submit related to the infrastructure requirements forthe 1997 PM2 .5 (and 8-hour ozone) NAAQS. With regard to the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS, EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice, which required EPAto complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) ofthe Act as to whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. On October 17, 2006, EPApublished revised standards for PM (71 FR 61144) . For PM2,5, the annual standard of 15 ~tg/m was retained, and the 24-hour standard was revised to 35 ~tg/m3. For PMIO, the annual standard was revoked, and the 24-hour standard (150 ~tg/m3) was retained. As required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, 110(a)(2) ("infrastructure") submittals were due within three years of promulgation of the revised 24-hour PM2 .5 standard (i .e., by September 21, 2009) . Massachusetts submitted a certification letter for the 1997 PM2 .5 standards on April 4, 2008. On October 22, 2008, EPApublished findings concerning whether states had made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the 1997 PM2 .5 standards (73 FR62902) . In the October 2008 action, Massachusetts received a "finding offailure to submit" a SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) pertaining to the Part C PSDpermit program . However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIPthat remains in place, and therefore, the finding of failure action did not trigger any additional FIP obligations. Massachusetts submitted a certification letter for the 2006 PM2 .5 NAAQS on September 21, 2009. On September 8, 2011, EPApublished findings concerning whether states had made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the 2006 PM2 .5 standards. (76 FR 55577) . MA did not receive a finding for the 2006 NAAQS because it had submitted the certification letter. Additional information3

EPAis currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure requirements of CAAsection 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and PMZ .5 NAAQSfor various states across the country. Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns about EPAstatements that it was not addressing certain substantive issues in the context ofacting on those infrastructure SIP submissions. Those commenters specifically raised concerns involving provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part ofactions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction ("SSM") at sources, that may be contrary to the CAAand EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; and (ii) existing provisions related to "director's variance" or "director's discretion" that purport to permit revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA . EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues for which EPAstated in other proposals that it would address the issues separately: (i) existing provisions for minor-source new source review("minor source NSR") programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAAand EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs ; and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's "Final NSR Improvement Rule," 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) ("NSR Reform") . As noted above, for the 1997 PM2 .5 (and also for the 1997 8-hour ozone) NAAQS, states must provide a SIP submission, or provide a certification that addresses sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M), with the exception ofthe portion of 110(a)(2)(C) pertaining to a permit program in Part D Title I of the CAA, 3 of 4 prongs of (D)(i), and 11 0(a)(2)(1) (nonattainment area plan under Part D) . The four prongs of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) referto EPA's subdivision of (D)(i) into four "interstate transport prongs," two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) . The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are: (prong 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are (prong 3) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part Cto prevent significant deterioration (PSD) ofair quality or (prong 4) to protect visibility. To help states meet this statutory requirement, EPAissued guidance on October 2, 2007 entitled "Guidance on SIPElements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2)for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone andPMZ,f National AmbientAir Quality Standards," which listed the basic elements that states must include in their 110(a) SIPs. On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an updated guidance document entitled Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2 .5) National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS), which clarifies expectations for certain elements to meet the requirements ofsections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAAfor both the 1997 and 2006 PM2,5 NAAQS. Specifically, guidance is provided for satisfying the section4

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for the 2006 PM2 .5 NAAQS, as well as guidance for satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements that addresses both the 1997 and 2006 PM2 .5 NAAQS. C . STATE SUBMITTALS Pursuant to the October 2, 2007 EPA guidance for addressing the SIP infrastructure elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2), there are 14 components that must be included in the SIPs that Massachusetts submitted for the 1997 and 2006 PM2,5 NAAQS. These are as follows: Section 110(a)(2)(A) Emission limits and other control measures. Section 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system . Section 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement ofcontrol measures. Section 110(a)(2)(D) Interstate transport. Section 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources. Section 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system . Section 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power. Section 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions. Section 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with government officials. Section 110(a)(2)(J) Public notification. Section 110(a)(2)(J) Prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection. Section 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality modeling/submission of such data. Section 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees. Section 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities. As noted above, Massachusetts provided a submittal dated April 4, 2008to satisfy the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2) of the CAAfor the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS, and a submittal dated September 21, 2009 forthe 2006 PM2 .5 NAAQS. Inthis action for Massachusetts, as further described under "Evaluation of State Submittals," we are only addressing prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (i .e., interference with PSD) forthe 1997 and 2006 PM2

.5 NAAQS. EPAhas previously decided that it can take action on different parts of an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS without taking concurrent action on all subsections. This is the case with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) . We are proposing to approve the submittals fromMassachusetts for the following 110(a)(2) elements: section 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification), (K), (L), and (M).5

We are proposing to conditionally approve the Massachusetts' submittals for 110(a)(2) elements 110(a)(2)(A) and E(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions), and to disapprove the state's submittals for elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the state's PSDprogram, as well as (D)(ii), which relates to interstate and international pollution abatement. However, Massachusetts is already subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and so EPA has no additional FIPobligations under section 110(c) . Furthermore, the state will not be subject to mandatory sanctions as a result ofthis disapproval . For elements that are conditionally approved, Massachusetts will have one year from final rulemaking to remedy the deficiencies described below under "Evaluation ofState Submittals." Ifthe state remedies the deficiencies prior to the one-year deadline, EPAwill publish a rulemaking to convert the conditional approval to an approval . If the state does not remedy the deficiencies within the allowed one-year period, the conditional approval will become a disapproval . The rules proposed for conditional approval are (A) and E(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions) . D . EVALUATIONOF STATE SUBMITTAL As noted above, Massachusetts provided submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2,5 NAAQS. However, the demonstrations submitted by the state for how it is meeting many of the section 110(a)(2) elements are substantively identical for both of the PMZ.5 NAAQS. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, the following evaluation ofeach element pertains to both standards. 1 . Section 110(_a_)(2)(A) : Emission limits and other control measures: This requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance and other related matters. MA DEP's response to this requirement : The state listed the following provisions to meet this element : M .G .L. c 21A, s. 8

. Organization ofdepartments; powers, duties and functions. M .G .L. c.111, s.142A-142N . These statutes, collectively referred to Massachusetts Pollution Control Laws, provide MA DEPwith broad authority to prevent pollution or contamination of the atmosphere and to prescribe and establish regulations to prevent pollution or undue 

### contamination ofthe atmosphere. M .G.L. c. 21A, s. 18

. MA DEP's fee statute. MA DEP Regulations: In accordance with the above-referenced authority, MA DEP adopted 310 CMR6

.00, Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This regulation sets a state 1-hour ozone standard and a PM standard, but it has not been updated to include an 8-hour ozone standard and a PM2 .5 standard.6

MA DEPalso adopted regulations to control air pollution at 310 CMR7.00. Air Pollution Control . With a few

exceptions (for regulations that EPAdid not require be part ofthe federallyenforceable SIPs), these regulations have been submitted to EPAand incorporated into the Massachusetts SIP, as detailed in the numerous MA DEP SIP revisions submitted since the original 1971 PM

SIP and 1972 Ozone SIP and approved by EPAas part of the SIPin 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart W

. Other MA DEP regulations that have been adopted and incorporated in the SIP include: 

### 310 CMR60

.00. Air Pollution Control for Mobile Sources. 310 CMR4

.00 . Timely Action &Fee Schedule Regulations. EPAanalysis : Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that all emission limits, control measures and other related matters in the SIP be enforceable. All of the MAregulations listed above that were required to be part ofthe federally enforceable SIPhave been approved by EPA(see Appendix) . However, the current SIP-approved 310CMR6 .00 (Ambient Air Quality Standards) does not reflect the most recent annual and 24-hour PM NAAQS. Massachusetts has submitted a letter to EPAon July --, 2012, committing to take action to meet requirements ofSection 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later than one year fromconditional approval of Massachusetts' PM2 .5 infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve Massachusetts' 110(a) submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A) . 2 . Section 110(a)(2)(B) : Ambient air quality monitoring/data system This requires SINto include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request. MA DEP's response to this requirement: The state listed the following provisions to meet this element: M .G.L. e. 111, s. 142B-D . These statutes give MA DEPthe authority to maintain and operate air sampling stations and devices, and to require, for the purpose ofconducting a continuing inventory ofair pollution sources ofemissions, any person to register with MA DEP and provide emissions information. MA DEP regulations relating to this authority include: 310 CMR7

.12. Source Registration. 

### 310 CMR7.13. Stack Testing. 310 CMR7.14. Monitoring Devices and Reports.7

310 CMR7

.00 : Appendix C

. Operating Permit Program . 310 CMR7

.00 : Appendix A

. Emissions Offsets and Nonattainment Review . MA DEPcollects and reports ambient air quality data for 03, S02, N02, Pb, CO, PM10 and PMZ,5. These data are reviewed and validated before being sent to the EPAair quality system (AQS), no later than 90 days afterthe end of a calendar quarter. On January 28, 1980, MassDEQE [nowMA DEP] submitted to EPApursuant to 40 CFR§ 52.370 (13), a comprehensive air quality monitoring plan to meet requirements of 40 CFRpart 58. [Note: the most recent plan for Massachusetts, the 2011 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan, was submitted on August 24, 2011 and was approved by EPAon September 7, 2011 .] EPAanalysis: Massachusetts meets the requirements to establish, operate, and maintain an ambient air monitoring network, collect and analyze the monitoring data, and make the data available to EPAupon request. We conclude that Massachusetts' infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2,5 NAAQS meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) . 3. Section 110(a)(2)(C) : Programs for Enforcement, PSD, and NSR This requires states to have aplan that includes a programproviding for enforcement ofall SIP measures and the regulation of modification and construction ofany stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that NAAQS are achieved, including a program to meet PSDand nonattainment New Source Review(NSR) requirements. MA DEP's response to this requirement: The state listed the following provisions to meet this element : M .G.L. c 111, s.2C

. Pollution violations; orders ofdepartment ofenvironmental protection. This statute authorizes MA DEP to issue orders enforcing air pollution control regulations. M .G.L. c . 111, s 142A-N

. Massachusetts Pollution Control Laws authorize MA DEPto adopt regulations to control pollution or contamination ofatmosphere, and enforce such regulations and issue penalties. M .G.L. c.21A, s.16

. Administrative Penalties Act. MA DEPregulations adopted pursuant to these authorities include: 310 CMR5.00

. Administrative Penalties. 310 CMR7

.02 . Plan Approval and Emission Limitations List . 310 CMR7

.52 . Enforcement Provisions.310 CMR7.00: Appendix C . Operating Permit and Compliance Program . Withrespect to the permit program requirement, MA DEPsubmitted a NSREquivalency Determination to EPA-Region 1 on December 30, 2005. EPAanalysis : Massachusetts has legal authority under M .G.L. c 111 and 310CMR7.52 to enforce the state's air-pollution regulations, which include SIP-approved regulations necessary to assure that NAAQS are achieved, including PSDand NSRprograms. NSR and PSDpermitting: As discussed previously, we are not evaluating nonattainment-related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSRprogram required by part Din 110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by section 110(a)(2)(1), as part of the infrastructure SIPs forthe 1997 and 2006 PM2,5 NAAQS because these submittals are required beyond the date (3 years fromNAAQS promulgation) that section 110infrastructure submittals are required. PSDprograms apply in areas that are meeting the NAAQS or are unclassifiable (referred to as areas in attainment) . PSDapplies to new major sources and major modifications at existing sources. Massachusetts does not have an approved PSDSIP, and has long been subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) . Between 1982 and 2003, Massachusetts implemented that FIP through a delegation agreement. Massachusetts rescinded the delegation agreement in 2003. However, effective April 11, 2011, EPARegion 1 granted the MA DEPfull delegation authority to implement and enforce the Federal PSDprogram(76 FR 31241) . Major Source PM2

.5 PSDrules On May 16, 2008, EPApromulgated the final "Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Programfor Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers PM2 .5)" (73 FR 28321) . That action established NSRapplicability for PM2 .5 precursor pollutants, established major source thresholds and significant emissions rates for PM2 .5 and its precursors, and laid out a road mapfor states to use in transitioning to addressing condensable particulate matter. In this rule, states were required to submit revised SIPs to EPAin May 2011 . On October 20, 2010, EPApromulgated the final "Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2 .5 Micrometers (PMz .5)-Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)" (75 FR64864) . That action amended the requirements PM2 .5 under the PSDprogram by adding maximum

allowable increases in ambient pollutant concentrations ("increments") and two screening tools, known as the Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and a Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) for PM2,5 . The SILs for PM2,5were also added to two other NSRrules that regulate the construction and modification of any major stationary source located in an attainment or unclassifiable area,9

where the source's emissions may cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. In this final rule, states were required to submit revised SIPs to EPAfor approval by July 20, 2012. The approvability of a state's PSDprogram in its entirety is essential to the full approvability of CAAsection 110(a)(2)(C) . Until a state provides such a program, its infrastructure SIP is not fully approvable with respect to CAAsection 110(a)(2)(C) . Therefore, Massachusetts's infrastructure SIP is not approvable with respect to this element. However, the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions solely as a result of this type of infrastructure SIPdisapproval, for the reason that the SIP deficiencies are neither with respect to a submittal that is required under part Dnor in response to a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) ofthe CAA . Moreover, the requirements for which the state is subject to the FIPis already satisfied by the FIP, and so EPA has no additional FIP obligations under section 110(c) . Minor Source Permitting: In this action, EPAis proposing to approve Massachusetts' Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM2

.5 standards with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a programin the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPAdid not reevaluate Massachusetts' minor source program

at this time, and therefore, is not proposing to approve or disapprove the Massachusetts existing minor NSRSIP programitself to the extent that it may be inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program . EPAmaintains that the CAAdoes not require that infrastructure SIPs address existing provisions concerning minor NSR programs. We articulated our position in a number of infrastructure SIPfinal actions taken in 2011, noting in the preambles for those actions that existing provisions for minor source new source review programs may be dealt with separately, outside the context ofacting on the infrastructure SIP submission of a state. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) PSDPermitting: On June 3, 2010, EPApromulgated the final "Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule" (75 FR 31514) . This rule, known as "the Tailoring Rule" established thresholds that phase in the applicability of PSDrequirements to GHGsources, starting with the largest GHGemitters, and was designed to relieve the overwhelming administrative burdens and costs associated with the dramatic increase in permitting burden that would have resulted fromapplying PSDrequirements to GHGemission increases at or above the mass-based statutory thresholds of 100or 250tons per year generally applicable to all PSDregulated pollutants starting on January 2, 2011 . However, EPA recognized that even after it finalized the Tailoring Rule, many SIPs with approved PSDprograms would, until they were revised, continue to apply PSDat the statutory thresholds, even though the states would nothave sufficient resources to implement the PSDprogramat those levels. Consequently, on December 30, 2010, EPApromulgated the final "Limitation ofApproval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans" (75 FR82536), which narrowed EPA's approval of previously approved SIPs that apply PSDto GHGemissions increases fromsources emitting10

GHGs below

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The rule allowed EPAto withdrawits previous approvals ofstate programs to the extent that the SIPs applied PSDto increases in GHG emissions fromGHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. Portions of the PSD programs regulating GHGs fromGHG-emitting sources with emission increases at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds remained approved. The effect of EPAnarrowing its approval in this manner is that the provisions of previously approved SIPs that apply PSDto GHGemissions increases from

sources emitting GHGs below the Tailoring Rule thresholds have the status of having been submitted by the state but not yet acted upon by EPA . As noted above, Massachusetts is subject to a PSDFIP, and its infrastructure SIP is not approvable with respect to this element. However, the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions solely as a result of this type of infrastructure SIP disapproval, forthe reason that the SIP deficiencies are neither with respectto a submittal that is required under part Dnor in response to a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA . Moreover, the requirements for which the state is subject to the FIPare already satisfied by the FIP, and so EPAhas no additional FIP obligations under section 110(c) . For these reasons, we conclude that Massachusetts' infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2 .5 NAAQS meet the enforcement and minor NSRrequirements, but not the PSD requirements, ofsection 110(a)(2)(C) . Notwithstanding our conclusion that the Massachusetts SIP does not meet the PSDrequirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions as a result of this disapproval . 4 . Section 110(a)(2)(D) : Interstate transport and Interstate and International pollution abatement Section 110(a)(2)(D) is divided into two components, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

. In addition, EPAhas subdivided Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) into four "prongs," two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(11) . The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are (prong 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS . The second two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(11) are (prong 3) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part Cto prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (prong 4) to protect visibility. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) addresses interstate and international pollution abatement, and requires SIPs to include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. Herein, we are only addressing prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as well as section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for Massachusetts' 110(a) submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM2,5NAAQS. EPA has previously decided that it can take action on different parts of an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS without taking concurrent action on all subsections. This is the case with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) .11

MA DEP's response to this requirement: The state listed the following provisions to meet components of 110(a)(2)(D) : Revision to the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan - The Massachusetts SIPrevision addressing the Interstate Air Pollution Transport Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) relating to the 1997 PM2,5 and ozone standards, was submitted to EPAon January 31, 2008. In that SIP revision, MassDEPrelied upon its adoption of 310 CMR7.32, the Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate Rule (MassCAIR), to address its contribution to downwind nonattainment areas, as required by EPA's remanded-but-stilleffective Clean Air Interstate Rule. MassDEP continues to implementthe MassCAIR program . EPA has not issued new regulations or guidance regarding how states should address transport in connection with the 2006 PM2,5 standard. MassDEPwill submit a separate transport SIP to EPA to address this issue once EPA has provided the necessary guidance. In the meantime, Massachusetts is not contributing significantly to non-attainment in any other state, as all areas that are downwind of Massachusetts are attaining the 2006 PMZ.5 NAAQS. MassDEPis addressing visibility pursuant to its Regional Haze SIP . In December 2011, Massachusetts submitted its final Regional Haze SIPto EPA . In February 2012, MA DEP proposed a supplement to this SIP, addressing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and low sulfur fuel oil requirements. On May 24, 2012 (77 FR 30932), EPAproposed approval of Massachusetts' December 2011 submittal andthrough parallel processing, also proposed approval of the proposed SIP supplement. As noted above, Massachusetts is subject to a PSDFIP, and effective April 11, 2011, EPA Region 1 granted the MA DEPfull delegation authority to implement and enforce the Federal PSDprogram(76 FR 31241) . For the 1997 ozone and PM2 .5 NAAQS, EPAfound that Massachusetts failed to submit a SIP addressing Section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSDpermit program), but this requirement has already been addressed in a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that remains in place and that the finding will, therefore, not trigger any additional FIPobligation. EPAanalysis: Regarding 110(a)(2)(D)(i), we are herein only addressing prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (i .e, PSD) . We also note that for prong 4(protect visibility) Massachusetts submitted its final Regional Haze SIPto EPA in December 2011 . In February 2012, MA DEPproposed a supplement to this SIP, addressing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and low sulfur fuel oil requirements. On May 24, 2012 (77 FR 30932), EPAproposed approval of Massachusetts' December 2011 submittal and through parallel processing, also proposed approval of the proposed SIP supplement.12

In today's action, for 110(a)(2)(D)(i), we are addressing only the requirement that pertains to preventing sources in Massachusetts fromemitting pollutants that will interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration ofair quality in other states for the 2006 PM2 .5 standard. On August 15, 2006, EPAissued guidance entitled "Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2 .5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards." The 2006guidance states that the PSDpermitting programis the primary measure that each state must include to prevent interference with other state's programs to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) . As discussed under (3) of this TSDon section 110(a)(2)(C), Massachusetts is currently subject to a PSD FIP. Astate's infrastructure SIP submittal cannot be considered for approvability with respect to prong 3 until EPAhas issued final approval of that state's PSDSIP or, alternatively, has issued final approval of a SIP that EPA has otherwise found adequate to prohibit interference with other states' measures to prevent significant deterioration ofair quality. Because Massachusetts's SIP is deficient in this regard, it cannot be approved with respect to prong 3. However, as noted above, and consistent with EPA's findings with respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2,5 NAAQS, this disapproval will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation. Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which relates to interstate and international pollution abatement, as noted above, Massachusetts is subject to a PSDFIP . States relying on the federal PSDprogramrequirements of 40 CFR 52.21(q), whichprovide for notification ofaffected state and local air agencies, to satisfy this requirement have programs that are considered technically deficient and not approvable. Although these programs are considered deficient and these states have not "submitted" anything to EPA, EPAis not required to take further action with respect to notification under this element, for the reason that the federal rules represent a FIPthat fully addresses the notification issue. In addition, mandatory sanctions do not apply because the deficiencies are neither with respect to a submittal that is required under CAAtitle V, part D, nor in response to a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) ofthe cAA . Thus, Massachusetts remains obligated to adopt and submit a PSDprogram for EPAapproval that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants. Until the state provides such a program, its infrastructure SIP is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) . Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts' submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) . 5 . Section 110(a)(2)(E) : Adequate resources Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision offederal or state law fromcarrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) requires that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIPprovision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP provision.13

MADEP's response to this requirement: The state listed the following provisions to meet this element: M .G .L. c 21A, s

. 8 . Organization ofdepartments; powers, duties and functions. This statute mandates that in no event shall the department authorize implementation of any plan, strategy or technology less protective of the environment than required by any applicable federal statute. M .G.L. c. 111, s. 142A-Nand the accompanying regulations. These statutes and regulations provide MA DEPwith sufficient authority to carry out implementation of the plan. M .G.L. c. 111, s. 142E. Cooperation by, and Authority ofDepartment over, other Agencies, Commissioners, Authorities, or Political Subdivisions with Respect to Air Pollution. M .G.L. c 21A, s. 8

. Organization ofdepartments; powers, duties and functions. In Section Xof the Massachusetts 1971 SIP for PM, the Bureau ofAir Use Management provided details that it had adequate personnel and funding to carry out implementation of the original SIP

. This resource finding has been updated in subsequent SIP submissions related to PM and ozone. MA DEP has continued to add staff and programs since that time and currently has adequate personnel and funding to implement the existing SIP. EPAanalysis: Massachusetts' M

.G.L. c. 111, s. 142A-N and accompanying regulations provide adequate authority for the state to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PMZ.5 NAAQS. The state receives sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance Partnership Grant along with required state matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out Massachusetts' SIP requirements . In this action, EPAproposes to find that Massachusetts' resources meet the requirements of CAAsection 110(a)(2)(E)(i) . With regard to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), Massachusetts does not have a board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA . Congress added section 128 in the 1977 amendments as the result of a conference agreement. Titled "State boards," section 128 provides in relevant part : (a) Not later than the date one year after August 7, 1977, each applicable implementation plan shall contain requirements that- (1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under [this Act] shall have at least a majority of members whorepresent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income frompersons subject to permits or enforcement orders under [this Act], and (2) Any potential conflicts of interest by members ofsuch board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. We note three relevant considerations for implementing section 128. First, section 128 must be implemented through SIP-approved, federally enforceable provisions. Second, subsection 128(a)(1) applies only to states that have a board or body that is composed of multiple individuals and that, among its duties, approves permits or enforcement orders under the14

CAA . It does not apply in states that have no such multi-member board or body, and where instead a single head of an agency approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA . Third, subsection 128(a)(2), which requires that SIPs contain adequate provisions for disclosure of potential conflicts ofinterest, applies to all states, regardless ofwhether the state has a multimember board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA . Massachusetts currently does not have a multi-member board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA . Instead, permits and enforcement orders are approved by the Commissioner of MA DEPor his/her designee. Thus, we propose that Massachusetts currently is not subject to the requirements ofsubsection 128(a)(1) . However, Massachusetts is subject to the requirements ofsection 128(a)(2), but did not demonstrate in their April 2008 or September 2009 110(a) submittals that they have met these requirements. Subsequently, on July --, 2012, Massachusetts submitted a letter to EPA committing to address this issue by a date no later than one year fromconditional approval of the state's PM2 .5 Infrastructure submittals. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve Massachusetts' submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) . Finally, with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), Massachusetts has not assigned responsibility for carrying out portions ofthe SIPto any local government, agency, or other instrumentality. Massachusetts' SIP therefore meets the requirements for this element. 6 . Section 110(a)(2)(F) : Stationary source monitoring system This requires states to establish a systemto monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit periodic emission reports. MA DEP's response to this requirement : The state listed the following provisions to meet this element: M .G.L. c. 111, s. 142A-D . These statutes give MA DEPthe authority to maintain and operate air sampling stations and devices and to require, for the purpose ofconducting a continuing inventory ofair pollution sources ofemissions, any person to register with MA DEP and provide emissions information. MA DEPregulations relating to this authority include: 310 CMR7.12. Source Registration. 310CMR7.13. Stack Testing. 310 CMR7.14. Monitoring Devices and Reports. Chapter 66: Section 1. Public inspection and copies of records; presumption; exceptions. 310CMR3.00

. Public Records Access Regulations.15

EPAanalysis: EPAhas reviewed the above Laws and Regulations and has determined that MA DEP's submittals meet the requirements of CAASection 110(a)(2)(F) . These regulations have been approved into the Massachusetts SIP (see Appendix) . 7. Section 110(a)(2)(G) : Emergency power This requires states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. MADEP's response to this requirement : The state listed the following provisions to meet this element. MA DEPalso noted that the state expects to be classified as a Priority III region and, therefore, an emergency episode plan for PM2 .5 is not required. M .G.L. C .111, s.213-C. Air Pollution Emergencies. These statutes authorize the Commissioner of MA DEPto determine that a condition or impending condition ofthe atmosphere in the commonwealth or in any part thereofconstitutes a present or reasonably imminent danger to health, and may, with the approval of the governor, declare an air pollution emergency and cause the fact to be made known to the public. MA DEP regulations relating to this authority are at 310 CMR8 .00, Prevention &Abatement of Air Pollution Episodes &Emergencies. These regulations prevent ambient air concentrations of pollutants subject to a NAAQS fromreaching levels that would constitute significant harm to public health, consistent with the significant harmlevels and procedures for state emergency episode plans established by EPAin 40 CFRPart 51 .150. The requirement for a state to submit an emergency episode plan is based on a priority region classification. For PMZ.5, the classification scheme that EPA is planning to propose would require states with a 24-hour PM2 .5 concentration above 140 .5 ug/m3 (using the most recent three years ofdata) to develop an emergency episode plan. States that do not meet this threshold would be classified as Priority III and would not be required to develop an emergency episode plan for PM2

.5. Massachusetts is likely to be classified as a Class III Priority Area based on its monitored data And, ifthat classification is assigned, Massachusetts would not be required to adopt an Emergency Episode Plan for PM2,5 . MA DEPforecasts predicts concentrations of PM2 .5 statewide throughout the year and issues alerts to the public when concentrations are expected to reach unhealthy levels using the Air Quality Index and will continue to do so. EPAanalysis: For PMZ.5, EPA's guidance dated September 25, 2009 provides clarification that states that have air quality control regions identified as either Priority I, Priority IA or Priority II by the "Prevention ofAir Pollution Emergency Episodes" rules at 40 CFR 5 1 .150 must develop emergency episode contingency plans. The guidance recommends that until EPA establishes significant harmlevels (SHL) for PM2,5, states should establish their own SHL levels based on16

EPA's February 12, 2007 issue paper on setting priority and emergency action levels and also consider the recommended levels set forth in Attachment Bof the September 25, 2009 guidance. States would be required to develop emergency episode plans for any area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2 .5 levels greater than 140 .4 pg/m3since 2006. Astate that has never exceeded this level since 2006 is considered to be Priority III in accordance with the guidance, may certify that it has appropriate general emergency powers to address PM2 .5 -related episodes, and is not required to adopt specific emergency episode plans at this time, given the existing monitored levels. Massachusetts' April 2008 and September 2009 submittals state that they expect to be classified as a Priority III region and, therefore, an emergency episode plan for PM2 .5 is not required. Airquality monitors in Massachusetts show that PM2 .5 levels for the past three years are below the 140 .5 Pg/m3threshold. Massachusetts has, therefore, met the requirements of CAASection 110(a)(2)(G) for both the 1997 and 2006 standards. 8 . Section 110(a)(2)(H) : Future SIP revisions This requires states to have the authority to revise their SIN in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining NAAQS, or in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate. MA DEP's response to this requirement : The state listed the following provisions to meet this element: M .G.L. c. 111, s. 142A-N . These statutes allowMA DEP to amend its air pollution control regulations fromtime to time. EPAanalysis: Massachusetts' submittals for boththe 1997 and 2006 PM2 .5 standards affirm that the SIP may be revised should EPAfind that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain a standard or to comply with any additional requirements under the CAA . Therefore, the state's submittals meet the requirements of CAASection 110(a)(2)(H) . 9 . Section 110(a)(2)(I) : Areas designated nonattainment and meet the applicable requirements of Part D . As noted above, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(1) . 10. Section 110(a)(2)(J) : Consultation with government officials; Public notification; and PSDand visibility protection Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to Section 121 relating to consultation. Section 127 requires that the state notify the public of any NAAQS exceedences, advise the public of health hazards associated with such pollution, and17

include measures to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to meet applicable requirements of Part Crelated to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection. EPA interprets this section 110 provision on visibility as not being "triggered" by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part Care not changed by a new NAAQS. MADEP's response to Section 110(a)(2)(J) : The state listed the following provisions to meet this element: M .G.L. c . 21A, s. 8

. Organization ofdepartments; powers, duties and functions. M .G.L. c . 111, s. 142E. Cooperation by, and Authority of Department over, other Agencies, Commissioners, Authorities, or Political Subdivisions with Respect to Air Pollution. M .G.L. c . 30A . Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act. This statute requires MassDEP to provide notice and public comment and hearing prior to adoption of any regulations. Executive Order No. 145 . This order requires MassDEPto provide notice to the Local Government Advisory Committee, through the Massachusetts Municipal Association, to solicit input on the impact on local government. Massachusetts SIP Steering Committee, established pursuant to the CleanAir Amendments of 1990, provides for consultation. M .G.L. c. 30Arequires MassDEP to provide notice and public comment and hearing prior to adoption of any regulations. Pursuant to its PSD ProgramDelegation Agreement, MassDEPreturned delegation of the PSD Programto EPAon February 23, 2003. Under the terms of the Performance Partnership Agreement between EPA Region 1 and MassDEP, EPA continues to administer the PSD program with the cooperation and assistance of MassDEP . MassDEP anticipates that this arrangement will continue for purposes of implementing PSDfor sources ofPM2,5 until MassDEPadopts a state PSDregulation. As noted above, Massachusetts is subject to a PSD FIP, and effective April 11, 2011, EPA Region 1 granted the MA DEPfull delegation authority to implement and enforce the Federal PSDprogram(76 FR 31241) . MassDEP is addressing visibility issues in its Regional Haze SIP. In December 2011, Massachusetts submitted its final Regional Haze SIPto EPA . In February 2012, MA DEP proposed a supplement to this SIP, addressing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and low sulfur fuel oil requirements. On May 24, 2012 (77 FR30932), EPAproposed approval of Massachusetts' December 2011 submittal and through parallel processing, also proposed approval of the proposed SIP supplement . EPAanalysis:18

EPAfinds that Massachusetts' 110(a) submittals meets the requirements of CAASection 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials. MA DEP is one of the state partners participating in EPA's AIRNOW and Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs. (See www .airnow .gov) MA DEP's submittals meet the requirements of CAASection 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification. Regarding the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the applicable requirements of part Coftitle I of the CAA, EPAhas evaluated this requirement in the context ofsection 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting (see discussion under (3) ofthis TSD) . As discussed under (3) and (4) above, Massachusetts is currently subject to a PSD FIP . The approvability of a state's PSDprogram in its entirety is essential to the approvability of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(J) . Until the state provides such a program, its infrastructure SIP is not approvable with respect to CAAsection 110(a)(2)(J) . Therefore, we propose to disapprove Massachusetts's infrastructure SIPwith respect to the PSDsub-element of 110(a)(2)(J)

. However, as noted above, this disapproval does not impose any sanctions or new FIP obligations. With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, EPArecognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part Cof the CAA . In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part Cdo not change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation triggered under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. In December 2011, Massachusetts submitted its final Regional Haze SIP to EPA . In February 2012, MA DEP proposed a supplement to this SIP, addressing BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) and low sulfur fuel oil requirements . On May 2, 2012, MA DEP requested parallel processing of its proposed haze supplement. On May 24, 2012 (77 FR30932), EPA proposed approval of Massachusetts' December 2011 submittal and through parallel processing, also proposed approval ofthe proposed SIP supplement. As a result of the above analysis, EPAis proposing to approve Massachusetts' 110(a) submittals as meeting the requirements of CAASection 110(a)(2)(J) for the portions related to consultation with government officials, public notification, and to disapprove with respect to PSD . 11 . Section 110(a)(2)(K) : Air quality and modeling/data This requires that SIPs provide for performing air-quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality ofemissions fromany NAAQS pollutant and submission ofsuch data to EPAupon request. MA DEP's response to this requirement: The state listed the following provisions to meet this element:19

M .G .L. c. 111, s. 142B-D

. These statutes give MA DEP the authority to maintain and operate air sampling stations and devices and to require, forthe purpose of conducting a continuing inventory ofair pollution sources ofemissions, any person to register with MA DEP and provide emissions information. 310 CMR7.02. Plan Approval and Emission Limitations. EPAanalysis: Areview of MA DEP laws and regulations shows that MA DEPhas broad powers to conduct air quality modeling. Therefore, Massachusetts's infrastructure submittals meet the requirements of CAASection 110(a)(2)(K) . 12. Section 110(a)(2)(L) : Permitting fees This requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to coverthe cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such time as the SIP fee requirement is superseded by EPA's approval of the state's Title Voperating permit program . MA DEP's response to this requirement: The state listed the following provisions to meet this element : M .G .L. c.21A, s.18

. This statute authorizes MA DEPto promulgate regulations establishing fees. 310 CMR4

.00 . Timely Action &Fee Schedule Regulations. These regulations set permit and compliance fees, including fees for Operating Permits (Title V) . EPAanalysis: EPA's full approval of Massachusetts title Vprogrambecame effective on [date] . Before EPAcan grant full approval, a state must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. Massachusetts' title Vprogramincluded a demonstration the state will collect a fee fromtitle Vsources above the presumptive minimumin accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i) . Massachusetts collects sufficient fees to administer the title Vpermit program . Massachusetts' submittals meet the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(L) . 13. Section 110(a)(2)(M) : Consultation/participation by affected local entities This requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIPdevelopment by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. MA DEP's response to this requirement : The state listed the following provisions to meet this element: M .G.L. c. 30A

. Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act. This statute requires MA DEP to provide notice and public comment and hearing prior to adoption of any regulations. Executive Order No. 145requires MA DEPto provide notice to the Local Government20

Advisory Committee, through the Massachusetts Municipal Association, to solicit input on the impact on local government . EPAanalysis: Based upon EPA's review of the April 2008 and September 2009 submittals, Massachusetts' public participation requirements and procedures fulfill the requirements for consultation with local political subdivisions affected by the plans and, therefore, meet the requirements of CAASection 110(a)(2)(M) . Conclusions and Recommended Aaency Action EPA's analysis of Massachusetts' infrastructure submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2 .5 NAAQS concludes that Massachusetts' submittals meet the following 110(a)(2) elements: section 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification), (K), (L), and (M). We recommend that a rulemaking be prepared proposing full approval of these elements. Our review

also indicates that the submittals do not meet all requirements of 110(a)(2)(A) and E(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions) . However, Massachusetts has committed to addressing the noted deficiencies. Therefore, we recommend that a rulemaking be prepared proposing conditional approval of these elements. In addition, we are proposing to disapprove the state's submittals for sub-elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the state's PSDprogram, as well as (D)(ii), which relates to interstate and international pollution abatement. However, Massachusetts is already subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and so EPA has no additional FIPobligations under section 110(c) . Furthermore, the state will not be subjectto mandatory sanctions as a result of this disapproval .Appendix EPA-Approved Massachusetts Air Quality Regulations for PMZS and Other Air Pollutants State Citation Title / Subject State Effective EPAApproval Explanations Date Date _310 Standards 07/25/1990 10/04/2002 Adopted PM 10 as the criteria CMR6.04(PDF) 67 FR 62184 pollutant for particulates. (1 pg, 105K) 310 CMR7.00 Definitions. 11/15/1993 02/01 /1995 PDF (38 pp, 05/11/1994 60 FR 6027 199K) 07/30/1993 10/15/1996 61 FR 53628 02/17/1993 09/03/1999

64 FR 48297 07/30/1996 04/11/2000

65 FR 19323 01/11/1995 04/11/2000 03/29/1995 65 FR 19323 07/25/1995 12/18/2000 08/09/2000 65 FR 78974 09/11/2000 07/25/1990 10/04/2002

67 FR 62184 12/01/2006 07/31/2008 Addition of the term, "Boston

73 FR 44654 Metropolitan Planning

Organization." [See: Electronic Docket Number EPA-1101 -OAR2006-1018at www

.reaulations .gov 310 CMR 7.00 Emission Offsets 07/1 5/94 and 10/27/2000 Appendix A

. and Nonattainment 04/14/95 65 FR 64360 PDF (23 pp, Review . ~ 223K) Approving 1990 CAAA revisions and ~ general NSR permit requirements .

~ 310 CMR 7.00 Emission Banking, 02/09/1994 08/08/1996 Except 310 CMR 7.00Appendix

~ Appendix B Trading and 03/29/1995 61 FR41335 B(3)(e)5 .h . 5, PDF (19 pp, Averaging. ~ 93K)

~ Regulations Regulation 1 01/27/1972 05/31/1972 ~for the Control General Regulations 37 FR 10841 of Air to Prevent Air ~ Pollution (PDF) Pollution.(2 pp, 109K)

Regulations Regulation 1 08/28/1972 10/28/1972 for Prevention Introduction . 37 FR 23085 And /or Abatement of Air Pollution ! Episode and Air Pollution Incident Emergencies ° (PDF) (2 pp, 109K) Regulations Regulation 2 Plans 02/01/1978 03/15/1979 Regulation 2 is now known as 310 for the Control Approval and 44 FR 15703 CMR 7.02. of Air Emission < Pollution (PDF) Limitations. (15 pp, 126K) Regulations Regulation 2 08/28/1972 10/28/1972 for Prevention Definitions . 37 FR 23085 And/ or Abatement of ' Air Pollution Episode and Air Pollution Incident Emergencies (PPF) (2 pp, 109K) 310CMR 7.02 Plans Approval and 06/06/1994 04/05/1995 PDF (4 Emission 60 FR 17226 ` pp,l 13K) Limitations. Regulations Regulation 3 06/01/1972 10/28/1972 for the Control Nuclear Energy 37 FR 23085 of Air Utilization Facilities . Pollution (PDF) (19 pp, 93K) 310CMR 7.03 Plan Application 02/17/1993 09/03/1999 (PDF) (1 pg, Exemption 64 FR 48297 105K) Construction

Requirements . Paint Spray Booths 310 CMR 7.03(13) Regulations Regulation 4 Fossi l 01/27/1972 10/28 /1972 Regulation 4 is now known as 310

### 3

for the Control Fuel Utilization 37 FR 23085 CMR 7.04 ofAir Facilities. Pollution (PDF) ' (19 pp, 93K) Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution (PDF) (2 pp, 106K) 310 CMR 7.05 PDF (12 pp, ' 130K) Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution (PDF) (2 pp, 107K) 310 CMR 7.07 PDF (3 pp, 111K) ' Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution (PDF) (2 pp, 157K) 310CMR 7.08 ~ PDF (19 pp, 233K) ; Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution (PDF) (1 pg, 105K) Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution (PDF) (1 pg, 105K) Regulation 5 Fuels

Fuels All Districts Regulation 6 Visible Emissions. Open Burning. Regulation 8 Incinerators .

Incinerators . Municipal Waste Combustors 310 CMR 7.08(2) . Regulation 9 Dust and Odor. Regulation 08/31/1978 03/07/1979 Regulation 5 is now known as 310 44 FR 12421 CMR 7.05.

Portions of Regulation 5 have been replaced with the approval of 310 CMR 7.05 02/11/1986 11/25/1986

51 FR 42563 08/28/1972 10/28/1972 Regulation 6 is now known as 310 37 FR 23085 CMR 7.06

09/28/1979 06/17/1980

45 FR 40987 08/28/1972 10/28/1972 Regulation 8 is now known as 310 37 FR 23085 CMR 7.08

01/11/1999 09/02/1999

64 FR 48095 12/09/1977 09/29/1978 Regulation 9 is now known as 310 43 FR 44841 CMR 7.09

10 Noise. 06/01 /1972 10/28/1972 Regulation 10 is now known as 310 37 FR 23085 CMR 7.10 . Regulations Regulation 1 1 06/01/1972 10/28/1972 Regulation 11 is now known as 310 for the Control Transportation 37 FR 23085 CMR 7.11 . This regulation restricts of Air Media. idling.Pollution (PDF)

(2 pp, 107K) 310CMR 7.12 Inspection

, PDF (2 pp, Certificate, Record 106) Keeping and

Reporting. 06/28/1990 03/21/1996 The 06/28/1990 and 09/30/1992 09/30/1992 61 FR 11556 submittals deal with the permitting 07/15/1994 process. The 07/15/1994 submittal develops 7.12 to comply with emission statement requirements. Regulations Regulation 13 Stack 06/01/1972 for the Control Testing. of Air ' Pollution (PDF) (19 pp, 93K) 10/28/1972 Regulation 13 is now known as 310 37 FR 23085 CMR 7.13.

310CMR 7.14 Monitoring Devices 11/21/1986 03/10/89 (PDF) (1 pg, and Reports 01/15/1987 54 FR 10147 105K) Regulations Regulation 15. for Prevention Asbestos And/ or Abatement of ' Air Pollution Episode and Air Pollution Incident Emergencies 08/28/1972 10/28/1972 Regulation 15 is now known as 310 37 FR 23085 CMR7.15

° 310CMR 7.16 Reduction of Single- 12/31/1978 09/16/1980 PDF (7 pp, Occupant Commuter 05/16/1979 45 FR 61293

. 120K) Vehicle Use. 310CMR 7.17 Conversions to Coal 01/22/1982 06/09/82 PDF (2 pp, 47 FR 25007 107K) 310CMR 7.18 Volatile and 10/07/1999 10/04/2002 (PDF) (63 pp, Halogenated 67 FR 62179 267K) Organic Compounds 310CMR 7.19 Reasonably 11/19/1999 12/27/2000 PDF (28 pp, Available Control 65 FR 81743 222K) Technology (RACT)

for Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 310CMR 7.24 Organic Material 08/09/2000 12/18/2000 PDF (36 pp, Storage and 09/11/2000 65 FR 78974 192K) Distribution.

### 5

1" 310CMR 7.25 t ~ PDF (19 pp, ~ 228K) Best Available

Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products . 310CMR 7.27 NOx Allowance P( DF) (37 pp, 224K) Program 1 310 CMR 7.28 NOx Allowance s PDF (28 pp, Trading Program ~ 102K) 1 310 CMR 7.30 Massport/Logan ~ PDF (7 pp, Airport Parking 170K) Freeze. 310 CMR 7.31 City of Boston/East PDF (5 pp, Boston Parking 164K) Freeze. 310 CMR 7.32 Massachusetts Clean PDF (67 pp, Air Interstate Rule ~ 247K) (Mass CAIR) . 310 CM R 7.33 City of Boston/ PDF (8 pp, South Boston 124K) Parking Freeze. 310 CMR 7.36 Transit System PDF (12 pp, Improvements. 133K)

310 CMR 7.37 High Occupancy PDF (8 pp, Vehicle Lanes. 123K) 310 CMR 7.38 Certification of PDF (8 pp, Tunnel Ventilation 57K) Systems in the Massachusetts Requlation Metropolitan Boston

Air Pollution Control 07/30/1996 04/11/2000 65 FR 19323

11/19/1999 12/27/2000

65 FR 81743 03/30/2007 12/03/2007

72 FR 67854 12/26/2000 03/12/2001

66 FR 14318 12/26/2000 03/12/2001

66 FR 14318 03/30/2007 12/03/2007

72 FR 67854

07/30/1993 10/15/1996

61 FR 53628 12/09/1991 10/04/1994

59 FR 50495 12/01/2006 07/31/2008

73 FR 44654

12/09/1991 10/04/1994

59 FR 50495 07/12/2006 02/15/2008 [See : Electronic Docket Number EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0401 at www .regulations.cgov ] Applies to the parking of motor vehicles on Massport property. Applies to the parking of motor vehicles within the area of East Boston. [See: Electronic Docket Number EPA-ROI-OAR-2007-0401 at www .reaulations .gov ] Applies to the parking of motor vehicles within the area of South Boston, including Massport property in South Boston. Transit SystemImprovement Regulation for Boston Metropolitan Area. Amendments to Transit System Improvements Regulation. [See: Electronic Docket Number EPA-1101 - OAR-2006-1018 at www .regulations .gov ] High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Regulation for Boston Metropolitan Area. Tunnel Ventilation Certification 73 FR 8818 Regulation for Boston.

And Massachusetts Regulation Filing, dated december 13, 2005,Filing (PDF) (2 District . substantiating December 30, 2005,

pp, 119K) State effective date for amended 310 CMR 7.38

. [See: Electronic Docket Number EPA-ROI-OAR-2006-06411 at www .reaulations .gov ] 310 CMR 7.40 LowEmission 12/24/1999 12/23/2002 "LowEmission Vehicle Program" PDF (20 pp, Vehicle Program 67 FR 78179 (LEV II) except for 310 CMR 199K) 7.40(2)(a)5, 310 CMR7.40(2)(a)6, 310 CMR 7.40(2)(c)3, 310CMR 7.40(10), and 310 CMR 7.40(12) . : Regulations Regulation 50 09/14/1974 02/04/1977 Regulation 50 is now known as 310 for the Control Variances. 42 FR 6812 CMR 7.50 of Air Pollution (PDF) (2 pp, 106K) Regulations Regulation 51 08/28/1972 10/28/1972 Regulation 51 is now known as 310 for the Control Hearings Relative To 37 FR 23085 CMR 7.51 of Air Orders and Pollution (PDF) Approvals. (1 pg, 105K) Regulations Regulation 52 08/28/1972 10/28/1972 Regulation 51 is now known as 310 for the Control Enforcement 37 FR 23085 CMR 7.52 of Air Provisions. Pollution (PDF) (1 pg~ 104K) Regulations Regulation 8 02/22/1972 10/28/1972 Regulation 8 is now Known as 310 for Prevention Emission Reduction 37 FR 23085 CMR 8.00 And or Plans (ERP) Abatement of Air Pollution ' Episode and Air Pollution ` Incident Emergencies : PDF (2 pp, 106K) 310 CMR 8.02 The Prevention 07/25/1990 10/04/2002 8 .02 Definitions; 8.03 Air Pollution and 8.03 (PDF) and/or Abatement 67 FR 62184 Episode Criteria (5 pp, 11 8K) of Air Pollution

Episode and Air Pollution Incident ` Emergencies.310 CMR Regulations for the 05/14/1999

60.02 (PDF) Enhanced Motor 1(18 pp, 1 85K) Vehicle Inspection = and Maintenance

Program

. ' 540CMR 4.00 Periodic Annual ~ PDF (24 pp, Staggered Safety 200K) and Combined

Safety and Emissions inspection of all Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semitrailers and converter Dollies. 11/15/2000 Replaces requirements for I/Mtests 65 FR 68898 with enhanced I/Mtest

requirements . 05/13/1999 11/15/2000 Revises Requirement for Inspection

65 FR 68898 and Enforcement of I/MProgram .