Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57487 

examined, and it has been determined 

not to be a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866. VA’s 

impact analysis can be found as a 

supporting document at http://

www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 

hours after the rulemaking document is 

published. Additionally, a copy of the 

rulemaking and its impact analysis are 

available on VA’s Web site at http://

www1.va.gov/orpm/, by following the 

link for ‘‘VA Regulations Published.’’ 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This final rule will have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program numbers and titles 

for this rule are 64.013, Veterans 

Prosthetic Appliances; 64.100, 

Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment 

for Certain Disabled Veterans and 

Members of the Armed Forces; and 

64.109, Veterans Compensation for 

Service-Connected Disability. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose 

D. Riojas, Interim Chief of Staff, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

approved this document on July 23, 

2013, for publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive 

materials, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Dated: September 16, 2013. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director, Office of Regulation Policy and 

Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 3 as 

follows: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, 

and Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart A continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 3.808 as follows: 

■ a. Revise the section heading. 

■ b. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as 

(b)(5). 

■ c. Add a new paragraph (b)(4). 

■ d. Revise the authority citation at the 

end of paragraph (b). 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 3.808 Automobiles or other conveyances 

and adaptive equipment; certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Severe burn injury: Deep partial 

thickness or full thickness burns 

resulting in scar formation that cause 

contractures and limit motion of one or 

more extremities or the trunk and 

preclude effective operation of an 

automobile. 

* * * * * 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3901, 3902) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–22764 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0025; A–1–FRL– 

9732–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the Massachusetts State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze 

for the first planning period from 2008 

through 2018. The revision was 

submitted by the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(MassDEP) on December 30, 2011, with 

supplemental final submittals on 

August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012. 

These submittals address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s rules that require States to 

prevent any future, and remedy any 

existing, manmade impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I Areas 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

21, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2012–0025. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Division of 

Air Quality Control, Department of 

Environmental Protection, One Winter 

Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57488 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1MassDEP submitted ‘‘Proposed Revisions to 

Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (SIP)’’ dated February 17, 2012, for parallel 

processing on May 2, 2012. 

2 40 CFR 51.301 defines a BART-eligible source 

as an existing facility which was not in operation 

prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on 

August 7, 1977, has the potential to emit 250 tons 

per year or more of any air pollutant, and meets one 

of the 26 listed stationary source categories. 

I. Background and Purpose 

On May 24, 2012, EPA published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) 

for the State of Massachusetts. See 77 

FR 30932. The NPR proposed approval 

of the Massachusetts State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

planning period from 2008 through 

2018. In that rulemaking, EPA proposed 

to approve the MassDEP Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan dated 

December 30, 2011, and also proposed 

to approve under parallel processing, 

proposed revisions to the Massachusetts 

Haze SIP dated February 17, 2012.1

Specifically, EPA proposed to approve 

the following adopted elements of 

Massachusetts’ Haze Plan: (1) 310 Code 

of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 

7.29 ‘‘Emission Standards for Power 

Plants;’’ (2) 310 CMR 7.26(50)–(54) 

‘‘Outdoor Hydronic Heaters;’’ (3) 

Amended Emission Control Plan for Mt. 

Tom Station dated May 15, 2009; (4) 

Facility Shutdown of Somerset Power, 

LLC dated June 22, 2011; (5) Modified 

Emission Control Plan for General 

Electric Aviation—Lynn dated March 

24, 2011; and (6) Modified Emission 

Control Plan for Wheelabrator Saugus, 

Inc. dated March 14, 2012. Furthermore, 

pursuant to MassDEP’s May 2, 2012 

request for parallel processing, EPA 

proposed approval of the following SIP 

elements that were still in the proposed 

stage: (1) Massachusetts’ proposed 

revisions to 310 CMR 7.00 

‘‘Definitions;’’ (2) Massachusetts’ 

proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.05 

‘‘Fuels All Districts;’’ (3) proposed 

Amended Emission Control Plan 

Approval for Salem Harbor Station 

dated February 17, 2012; and (4) 

proposed Amended Emission Control 

Plan Approval for Brayton Point Station 

dated February 16, 2012. 

On August 9, 2012 and August 28, 

2012, MassDEP submitted additional 

elements and a revised SIP narrative as 

a supplement to the Massachusetts 

Regional Haze SIP. EPA has reviewed 

the August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012 

submittals and has determined that the 

State’s formal SIP submittal does not 

contain significant changes which 

occurred after EPA’s May 24, 2012 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

A detailed explanation of the 

requirements for regional haze SIPs, as 

well as EPA’s analysis of Massachusetts’ 

Regional Haze SIP submittal, was 

provided in the NPR and is not restated 

here. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received comments from 

Dominion Energy New England, Inc. 

(Dominion) and a joint letter from the 

Sierra Club and Conservation Law 

Foundation. The Dominion comments 

were generally supportive of the 

Massachusetts Alternative to Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

demonstration and long term strategy 

and therefore require no response. The 

following discussion summarizes and 

responds to the relevant adverse 

comments submitted by the Sierra Club 

and Conservation Law Foundation (for 

brevity, ‘‘Sierra Club’’) on EPA’s 

proposed approval of Massachusetts’ 

Regional Haze SIP. 

Comment A: The Sierra Club 

contends that Section 169A of the CAA 

does not allow EPA to exempt BARTeligible sources 2 from BART, and that 

EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), 

which allows states to develop 

alternative programs in lieu of BART, is 

contrary to the CAA. The Sierra Club 

acknowledges that its position has been 

rejected by two federal court decisions. 

Response A: As the Sierra Club notes, 

EPA’s interpretation of the CAA was 

upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

See 77 FR 33642, 33645–46 (June 7, 

2012) for a more detailed explanation. 

Comment B.1: The Sierra Club 

contends that Massachusetts’ proposed 

Alternative to BART analysis is flawed 

due to the lack of source-by-source 

BART determinations. The commenter 

cited recent source-by-source BART 

determinations which were more 

stringent than the benchmark BART 

limits used in the Massachusetts 

alternative to BART analysis. The 

commenter suggested that MassDEP 

must undertake the five step source-bysource BART determination for each of 

the subject BART sources to 

demonstrate that the alternative to 

BART provides greater reasonable 

progress than the source-by-source 

BART. The commenter contends that 

comparing emissions, based on the 

category-wide benchmark limits that 

Massachusetts used, to the emissions 

from the alternative to BART measures 

underestimates the reductions 

achievable through a five factor 

determination and therefore does not 

conclusively show that the 

Massachusetts alternative to BART 

measures provide greater reasonable 

progress than source-by-source BART 

determinations. 

Response B.1: The primary 

requirement, as specified in CAA 

section 169A, is for major stationary 

sources to procure, install, and operate 

BART. In some cases this requirement is 

met with an analysis of potential 

controls considering five factors given 

in EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR). See 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). EPA has 

interpreted this requirement to be met if 

an alternative set of emission limits are 

established which mandate greater 

reasonable progress toward visibility 

improvement than direct application of 

BART on a source-by-source basis. In 

promulgating the RHR, EPA stated that 

to demonstrate that emission reductions 

of an alternative program would result 

in greater emission reductions, ‘‘the 

State must estimate the emission 

reductions that would result from the 

use of BART-level controls. To do this, 

the State could undertake a sourcespecific review of the sources in the 

State subject to BART, or it could use a 

modified approach that simplifies the 

analysis.’’ 64 FR 35742 (July 1, 1999). 

In final rulemaking published October 

13, 2006, EPA offered further 

clarification for States for assessing 

alternative strategies, in particular 

regarding the benchmark definition of 

BART to use in judging whether the 

alternative is better. See 71 FR 60612, 

60615–20. In this rulemaking, EPA 

stated in the preamble that the 

presumptive BART levels given in the 

BART guidelines would be a suitable 

baseline against which to compare 

alternative strategies where the 

alternative has been designed to meet a 

requirement other than BART. See 71 

FR at 60618; see also 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). MassDEP’s analysis is 

fully consistent with EPA’s conclusions 

in this rulemaking. 

While EPA recognizes that a case-bycase BART analysis may result in 

emission limits more stringent than the 

presumptive limits, the presumptive 

limits are reasonable and appropriate for 

use in assessing an alternative emissions 

reductions scenario such as the 

Massachusetts plan when comparing it 

to the BART scenario. See 71 FR 60619 

(stating ‘‘the presumptions represent a 

reasonable estimate of a stringent case 

BART . . . because . . . they would be 

applied across the board to a wide 

variety of units with varying impacts on 

visibility, at power plants of varying 

size and distance from Class I areas’’). 

In other words, while in some instances 

case-by-case BART could result in limits 

more stringent than the presumptive 

limits, in other instances consideration 

of all five statutory BART factors could 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57489 

3For this reason, the fact that facilities in other 

states (with different facts for each of the BART 

factors) have received BART determinations more 

stringent than the presumptive BART is not directly 

relevant here. 

4The MANE–VU recommended level of BART 

control can be found in Appendix R of the 

Massachusetts December 30, 2011 submittal. 5See definition stated in footnote #2. 

result in limits less stringent than the 

presumptive limits, and EPA’s 

considered conclusion is that the 

presumptive BART is, overall, ‘‘a 

reasonable estimate of a stringent case 

BART.’’ 3 Furthermore, Massachusetts 

went beyond EPA’s presumptive level of 

control and used the more stringent 

Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU) recommended level of 

control to develop its benchmark.4

The components of Massachusetts’ 

plan were developed to reduce mercury 

emissions, bring Massachusetts into 

attainment with the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone by CAA deadlines, and to meet 

long term strategy requirements. The 

Massachusetts plan imposes limitations 

on sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX), and mercury emissions 

from coal-fired electrical generating 

units (EGUs), sulfur in fuel oil limits 

and NOX limits for oil fired EGUs, and 

enforceable EGU shutdowns. 

Massachusetts is also now using these 

controls as an alternative to BART for its 

EGU BART-eligible sources as permitted 

pursuant to EPA’s RHR (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)). Therefore, the use of the 

benchmark limits for the alternative to 

BART analysis is appropriate. EPA 

agrees with Massachusetts’ analysis that 

emission reductions from the units 

subject to MassDEP’s alternative plan 

will result in emission reductions that 

will provide greater reasonable progress 

than would BART alone as described 

more fully in the NPR. 

Comment B.2.a: The Sierra Club 

contends that, even based on the 

framework Massachusetts used, its 

BART alternative results in fewer 

emission reductions for SO2 and NOX

than would BART. The Sierra Club 

argues that Massachusetts’ analysis 

compares emission reductions at the full 

set of sources subject to its BART 

alternative to the much smaller set of 

subject-to-BART sources, and this is 

impermissible under the regulations. 

Response B.2.a: EPA does not agree 

with the commenter’s interpretation of 

the regional haze rule. If a State opts to 

implement or require participation in an 

emission trading program or other 

alternative measure rather than to 

require sources subject to BART to 

install, operate, and maintain BART, the 

State must ‘‘demonstrat[e] that the 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative measure will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would have 

resulted from the installation and 

operation of BART at all sources subject 

to BART in the State and covered by the 

alternative program.’’ 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i). This demonstration must 

include a list of all BART-eligible 

sources and all BART source categories 

covered by the alternative program and 

an analysis of the best system of 

continuous emission control technology 

available. ‘‘This analysis must be 

conducted by making a determination of 

BART for each source within the State 

subject to BART and covered by the 

alternative program as provided for in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, unless 

the emission trading program or other 

alternative measure has been designed 

to meet a requirement other than BART 

(such as the core requirement to have a 

long term strategy to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals established by 

the States). In this case, the State may 

determine the best system of continuous 

emission control technology and 

associated emission reductions for 

similar types of sources within a source 

category based on both source-specific 

and category wide information as 

appropriate.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). 

This language indicates that BART 

determinations are to be made for each 

source that is both subject to BART and 

included in the alternative measure as 

provided for in paragraph (e)(1). 

Paragraph (e)(1) calls for a BART 

determination for BART-eligible 

sources. EPA does not agree that the 

language implies that source-by-source 

BART determinations are required for 

units which do not meet the definition 

of BART-eligible.5 Non-BART sources 

which are included as members of the 

alternative measure need not be subject 

to a BART analysis. Put simply, EPA’s 

regulations allow a state to develop an 

alternative that encompasses (and 

obtains emissions reductions from) nonBART sources, and to compare that 

alternative to a BART benchmark 

consisting only of subject-to-BART 

sources. Therefore, Massachusetts was 

correct in only including benchmark 

emissions from the BART sources in the 

baseline for comparison to the 

alternative program. 

Comment B.2.b: The Sierra Club 

argues that Brayton Point Station’s 

baseline SO2 emissions are lower than 

Massachusetts assumed. 

Response B.2.b: Massachusetts 

conducted its analysis under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2) by developing two tables 

for SO2. The first table, Table 16 of 

MassDEP’s August 9, 2012 submittal, 

subtracted each BART-eligible facility’s 

projected SO2 emissions if the MANE– 

VU SO2 BART emissions rate were 

achieved from that facility’s baseline 

SO2 emissions in 2002. The sum of 

those differences constitutes the 

expected reductions from installation of 

benchmark BART. The second table, 

Table 17 of MassDEP’s August 9, 2012 

submittal, subtracted each facility’s 

alternative BART expected SO2

emissions from its emissions for the 

same baseline year (2002). The sum of 

those differences constitutes the 

expected reductions from installation of 

Massachusetts’ BART alternative. The 

comment essentially argues that Brayton 

Point’s baseline SO2 emissions are 

overstated because, as of 2010, Brayton 

Point achieved greater control than in 

2002. However, Massachusetts’ use of 

the 2002 emissions inventory as a 

baseline is consistent with MANE–VU’s 

regional approach and EPA’s national 

approach. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii); 

see also 64 FR 35742 (explaining that 

the ‘‘baseline date of the SIP’’ in this 

context means ‘‘the date of the 

emissions inventories on which the SIP 

relies’’), 70 FR 39104, 39143 (‘‘The 

baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 

2002. . . .’’) & id. n.84. Furthermore, 

EPA notes that Massachusetts used the 

same baseline SO2 emissions for Tables 

16 and 17, so even if the baseline 

emissions were overstated, they would 

be overstated by the same amount in 

both cases, and the overstatement would 

neither benefit nor prejudice the BART 

alternative for comparison. 

Comment B.2.c: The Sierra Club 

contends that Brayton Point Station’s 

SO2 and NOX emissions under BART 

would be lower than Massachusetts 

assumed. 

Response B.2.c: As noted above in 

Response B.1, while in some instances 

case-by-case BART could result in limits 

more stringent than the presumptive 

limits, in other instances consideration 

of all five statutory BART factors could 

result in limits less stringent than the 

presumptive limits, and EPA’s 

considered conclusion is that the 

presumptive BART is, overall, a 

reasonable estimate of a stringent case 

BART. EPA has concluded that ‘‘there is 

no need to develop a precise estimate of 

the emissions reductions that could be 

achieved by BART in order simply to 

compare two programs’’ and that ‘‘the 

State may establish a BART benchmark 

based on an analysis that includes 

simplifying assumptions about BART 

control levels for sources within a 

source category.’’ See 70 FR 60618. 

Massachusetts used the MANE–VU 

recommended level of control to 

develop its benchmark. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57490 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

6The consent decree is available at http://

www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SignedConsent-Decree-12_11.pdf. 

7The heat input is a proxy for the quantity of fuel 

used. 

8 If anything, the Regional Haze Rule focuses on 

facilities’ potential to emit. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.301 

(definition of ‘‘existing stationary facility’’); accord 

40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, § II.A Step 3 

(explaining that potential to emit is developed 

‘‘considering all federally enforceable and State 

enforceable permit limits’’). Using potential to emit, 

rather than 2002 heat input rate, would result in 

higher BART benchmark emissions in Tables 16 

and 18. 

9For 2011 EGU emission data, see EPA’s Air 

Markets Program Web page at http://ampd.epa.gov/ 

ampd/. 10See Tables 16 and 18 of the Massachusetts 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan dated 

August 9, 2012. 

Comment B.2.d: The Sierra Club 

commented that Massachusetts 

improperly takes credit in its BART 

alternative for the Salem Harbor Station 

shutdown by (1) assuming for purposes 

of the BART benchmark that Salem 

Harbor Unit 4 would continue to 

operate past 2014 when in fact it will 

not (due to a consent decree), and then 

(2) crediting the emission reductions 

from the pending shutdown of Units 1 

through 4 to Massachusetts’s BART 

alternative, when these reductions will 

happen regardless of what 

Massachusetts does, due to the same 

consent decree. 

Response B.2.d: The consent decree 

requires that Salem Harbor ‘‘remove 

from service’’ Units 1 and 2 by 

December 31, 2011, and Units 3 and 4 

by June 1, 2014.6 However, the consent 

decree defines ‘‘remove from service’’ as 

ceasing to generate electricity to supply 

the power grid. The consent decree does 

not prohibit these units from operating 

for purposes other than generating 

electricity to supply the power grid. 

Consequently, the consent decree is not 

a federally enforceable limit on 

emissions from these units. The facility 

requested, and MassDEP granted, a 

modified emission control plan under 

Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.29 

which caps NOX and SO2 emissions 

from the various units. This emission 

control plan, along with the 

Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.29, 

will become federally enforceable with 

this action. MassDEP’s permit 

restrictions apply regardless of the use 

to which the station owner might wish 

to put the units. 

Furthermore, the consent decree is, by 

its terms, enforceable by the parties 

thereto (Conservation Law Foundation, 

HealthLink, Dominion Energy New 

England, Inc., and Dominion Energy 

Salem Harbor, LLC), whereas a state 

permit restriction incorporated into a 

federally enforceable SIP is enforceable 

by Massachusetts, EPA, and citizens, 

under state law and under the federal 

Clean Air Act. 

The Sierra Club suggests that the 

absence of specific public plans for an 

alternative use of Salem Harbor’s units 

(i.e., a use that would be allowed under 

the consent decree but prohibited under 

Massachusetts’ SIP revision) means that 

it is unlikely that Salem Harbor will 

operate regardless of what 

Massachusetts does in its SIP and 

therefore the reductions that 

Massachusetts attributes by its permit 

restrictions are only hypothetical. 

EPA believes Massachusetts’ 

approach was reasonable, for several 

reasons. First, in Tables 16 and 18, 

Massachusetts used a reasonable (and 

consistent) method to derive the BART 

benchmark emissions, namely, 

multiplying each BART-eligible unit’s 

2002 heat input 7 by the MANE–VU 

recommended BART emission rates. See 

also Response B.2.b. This streamlined 

calculation was conducted at all BARTeligible facilities without examining 

whether the facilities’ more recent 

operating scenarios involve a higher or 

lower heat input. Thus, it was 

reasonable and consistent for 

Massachusetts to include Salem Harbor 

Unit 4 in Tables 16 and 18 as operating 

at 2002 heat input levels. The comment 

essentially argues that, even if 

Massachusetts had not imposed any 

permit restrictions, Salem Harbor’s 

likely future actual emissions would be 

much lower than its full potential to 

emit, and therefore the BART 

benchmark calculation should use 

Salem Harbor Unit 4’s likely future 

actual emissions under anticipated 

business scenarios (i.e., zero), rather 

than simply apply the benchmark BART 

emission rate to its 2002 heat input rate. 

However, the Sierra Club points to no 

provision of the Regional Haze Rule 

requiring states to project likely future 

actual emissions under anticipated 

business scenarios, rather than use the 

approach that Massachusetts used.8

Second, in Massachusetts’ analysis of 

its alternative program in Tables 17 and 

19, the Commonwealth conservatively 

assumed that all units covered by the 

alternative program would operate at 

their 2002 heat input rate, and took 

credit only for legally enforceable 

restrictions on potential to emit. The 

Sierra Club focuses on the reductions at 

Salem Harbor Units 1–4 in Tables 17 

and 19, arguing that Massachusetts is 

taking credit for reductions that would 

have happened anyway and therefore 

that Tables 17 and 19 overstate the 

additional reductions achieved through 

the alternative program. However, 

Massachusetts’ underlying assumption 

that any facility without an operational 

restriction would operate at 2002 levels 

is in fact conservative and likely 

substantially overstates emissions (i.e., 

understates reductions) for several 

facilities in Tables 17 and 19. Many of 

the still active units listed in Tables 17 

and 19 are in fact now operating well 

below 2002 heat input levels. For 

example, according to 2011 data,9 the 

annual heat input was 18,244,945 

MMBtu for Brayton Point Unit 3 and 

500,264 MMBtu for Canal Station Unit 

1. The 2002 benchmark annual heat 

inputs for these units were 36,339,809 

MMBtu and 27,295,648 MMBtu, 

respectively.10 In other words, the logic 

under which Massachusetts did count 

Salem Harbor’s reductions in Tables 17 

and 19 (because Massachusetts 

attributes the reductions to a legally 

enforceable emission control plan) is the 

same logic under which Massachusetts 

did not count likely actual reductions at 

other facilities in those tables. This 

methodology is reasonable and 

internally consistent. 

Finally, the Sierra Club argues that, if 

the facility owner planned to use the 

Salem Harbor units for a purpose not 

prohibited by the consent decree, it 

would be required to apply for new 

permits ‘‘because the permits issued to 

the units to operate as electric 

generating units would no longer be 

valid.’’ While there are certainly 

scenarios in which re-use of the units 

(as coal generating units but not for 

supplying electricity to the grid) could 

require new permit applications, the 

comment identifies no provisions of the 

pre-existing permits (or of 

Massachusetts or federal law) indicating 

that this would be necessary in all cases. 

Therefore, it was reasonable for 

Massachusetts to assume that its permit 

restriction would achieve reductions 

that would not be legally required to 

occur otherwise. 

Comment B.3: The Sierra Club 

commented that Massachusetts has not 

demonstrated that the SO2 and NOX

emissions reductions relied on it its 

BART alternative are properly surplus 

for purposes of BART. The Sierra Club 

stated that in order to claim credit under 

the BART requirements of the Regional 

Haze Rule for emission reductions 

attributable to a BART alternative, 

Massachusetts must demonstrate that 

‘‘the emission reductions resulting from 

the . . . alternative measures will be 

surplus to those reductions resulting 

from measures adopted to meet 

requirements of the [Clean Air Act] as 

of the baseline date of the SIP.’’ The 

Sierra Club claims that Massachusetts 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57491 

has not identified what portion, if any, 

of the emission reductions exceeded 

those necessary to comply with the 

purposes for which the regulations were 

designed. 

Response B.3: As part of the 

alternative to BART demonstration, 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv) requires a 

‘‘demonstration that the emission 

reductions resulting from the emission 

trading program or other alternative 

measures will be surplus to those 

reductions resulting from measures 

adopted to meet requirements of the 

CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.’’ 

In promulgating the RHR in 1999, EPA 

explained that the ‘‘baseline date of the 

SIP’’ in this context means ‘‘the date of 

the emissions inventories on which the 

SIP relies.’’ 64 FR 35742; see also 70 FR 

39104, 39143 (‘‘The baseline date for 

regional haze SIPs is 2002. . . .’’) & id. 

n.84. 

Any measure, including a measure to 

meet a requirement of the CAA, adopted 

after 2002 is accordingly ‘‘surplus’’ 

under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). 

Massachusetts is using regulation 310 

CMR 7.29 in conjunction with the sulfur 

in fuel oil standard and emission 

control plans as an alternative to BART 

for its EGU BART-eligible sources as 

permitted by the RHR and as discussed 

in the NPR. EPA agrees with 

Massachusetts’ analysis that emission 

reductions from the alternative program 

will result in emission reductions that 

are surplus to the baseline date of the 

SIP. As discussed in the NPR, 

Massachusetts’ use of the 310 CMR 7.29 

(with a compliance year of 2008) as an 

alternative to BART for EGUs, in 

addition to the newly adopted revised 

sulfur in fuel oil requirements and 

revised emission control plans, are in 

accordance with and satisfies the 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for 

BART alternatives, including the 

requirement that the emission 

reductions be surplus to the baseline 

date of the SIP. The NPR also discusses 

how Massachusetts estimated the 

emission reductions required by the 

alternative plan. EPA is not restating 

that analysis here. Finally, the Sierra 

Club has not identified any specific 

elements of Massachusetts’ alternative 

program that it believes are not surplus 

to reductions from measures adopted to 

meet CAA requirements. 

Comment B.4: The Sierra Club 

commented that Massachusetts has not 

demonstrated that the distribution of the 

emissions under its BART alternative is 

substantially similar to that under BART 

or conducted dispersion modeling to 

show the BART alternative results in 

greater reasonable progress toward 

achieving natural baseline visibility 

conditions in affected Class I areas. 

Under EPA’s RHR, it is insufficient to 

simply compare the total emissions 

reductions from source-specific BART 

and a State’s BART alternative; the State 

must take into consideration the 

location of these emission reductions. 

Where the distribution of emissions 

under BART and the alternative are 

substantially different, the State 

proposing to rely on a BART-alternative 

must conduct dispersion modeling to 

show the difference in visibility under 

each program for each impacted Class I 

area on the worst and best 20 percent 

days. The Sierra Club commented that 

the mere fact that all the subject-toBART units are a subset of the 

alternative BART units, does not 

demonstrate that similar geographic 

distribution. The Sierra Club contends 

that to assess the emission distribution, 

‘‘the State would have to compare the 

magnitude of emission reductions at 

units common to both schemes and 

evaluate whether the additional units 

covered by the BART alternative are 

proximate to subject to BART sources.’’ 

The Sierra Club further states that 

Massachusetts would also need to 

consider, for example, whether 

differences in stack heights among the 

sources would result in different 

geographic distribution. The Sierra Club 

states that neither Massachusetts nor 

EPA has presented any further analysis, 

and therefore neither has demonstrated 

that the BART alternative produces a 

similar distribution of emission 

reductions to BART. 

Response B.4: The RHR states that 

‘‘[i]f the distribution of emissions is not 

substantially different than under 

BART, and the alternative measure 

results in greater emission reductions, 

then the alternative measure may be 

deemed to achieve greater reasonable 

progress.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). EPA 

discussed in the NPR how 

Massachusetts’ alternative to BART was 

acceptable and met the requirements for 

a BART alternative program in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2). EPA finds that the 

distribution of emission reductions in 

Massachusetts sources included in the 

alternative program are comparable to, 

and not substantially different from, 

emission reductions under BART at 

subject units. See 77 FR 30943. The 

emission reductions from the alternative 

to BART are discussed in detail in the 

NPR. Massachusetts’ alternative 

program covers all of the BART-subject 

EGU sources and also includes 

additional EGUs which are too old to be 

BART-subject sources. 

All of the emission reductions, with 

the exception of Mount Tom, are from 

EGUs located in eastern Massachusetts 

and, in many cases, at the same physical 

location as the BART-eligible EGUs. For 

example, as compared to the BART 

benchmark, the BART alternative 

achieves fewer reductions from Brayton 

Point Station, but greater reductions 

from Somerset Power, which is located 

in the same municipality as Brayton 

Point. Similarly, as compared to the 

BART benchmark, the BART alternative 

achieves fewer reductions from Canal 

Station (on the south shore of 

Massachusetts, about 60 miles south of 

Boston) and Mystic Station (just a few 

miles north of Boston), but much greater 

reductions from Salem Harbor (on the 

north shore of Massachusetts, about 20 

miles north of Boston). As for Mount 

Tom Unit 1, it is located in Holyoke, 

Massachusetts, approximately 80 miles 

west of Boston. The contribution of the 

Mount Tom emission reductions to the 

Massachusetts alternative to BART is 

6% of the SO2 reduction and 9% of the 

NOX reduction. While this does create a 

minor variation in the geographic 

distribution of emission reductions, this 

does not lead to a substantial difference 

in geographic distribution of the 

emission reduction, particularly since 

the distances between the units 

involved are generally much less than 

the distances from any of the units to 

the relevant Class I areas. 

Moreover, to the extent that there are 

any differences in geographic 

distribution, they may be beneficial for 

regional haze purposes. As noted above, 

the principal difference in distribution 

is that the BART benchmark relies more 

heavily on reductions at Brayton Point 

and Canal Station (both in 

Massachusetts’s southeast corner), 

whereas the alternative to BART relies 

more heavily on reductions at Salem 

Harbor (slightly closer to Maine and 

New Hampshire, with their five Class I 

areas) and Mount Tom (slightly closer to 

the Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont 

and the Brigantine Wilderness Area in 

New Jersey). While neither 

Massachusetts nor EPA has modeled the 

impact of these slight geographic 

differences, the fact that the reductions 

occur slightly closer to the Class I areas 

makes it unlikely that the alternative 

would result in less visibility benefits to 

those areas. 

Therefore, EPA finds that 

Massachusetts was reasonable in the 

determination that the geographic 

distribution of the emission reductions 

from the alternative plan is not 

substantially different from the emission 

reduction distribution projected under 

BART. 

Comment C: The Sierra Club 

commented that Massachusetts has not 

demonstrated that the State will achieve 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57492 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the reasonable progress goals 

established by MANE–VU for 2018. 

Specifically, the Sierra Club noted that 

Massachusetts is not projected to 

achieve the 90% SO2 reduction target by 

2018 at major EGUs and instead projects 

emission reductions of between 67 and 

87% from the affected units. The Sierra 

Club contends that even though Brayton 

Point Units 1 and 2 are achieving 90% 

control, Massachusetts must require as 

an enforceable operating condition the 

continuous operation of the spray dry 

absorbers. In addition, Massachusetts 

should require at least 96% control for 

the dry scrubber to be installed on 

Brayton Point Unit 3. Finally, Sierra 

Club states that Massachusetts should 

require Mount Tom to continuously 

operate its installed dry scrubber. 

Response C: Through the consultation 

process, Massachusetts agreed to pursue 

the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ (Ask) as part of 

the long term strategy to ensure 

reasonable progress toward the goal of 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas impacted by emissions from 

Massachusetts. The Ask consists of the 

implementation of BART, the adoption 

of the low sulfur in fuel oil strategy, and 

a 90% percent reduction in SO2

emissions from the greatest impacting 

EGUs or comparable SO2 reductions. 

Emission reductions resulting from 

these strategies were incorporated into 

the projected 2018 emissions inventory. 

The 2018 emission inventory was used 

to model the expected visibility 

improvement at the end of the first 

planning period. Based on the 

inventories developed for the MANE– 

VU states and the resulting modeling, 

the MANE–VU Class I States 

determined that the control strategies 

for the first planning period were 

sufficient to meet the reasonable 

progress goals for the Class I areas. As 

stated in the NPR, the 2018 modeling 

inventory for Massachusetts EGUs, 

based on the implementation of the Ask, 

is 45,941 tons SO2. Massachusetts 

targeted EGUs’ 2011 SO2 emissions were 

only 22,165 tons SO2 in 2011, and under 

the most conservative (worst case) long 

term strategy projected emission 

inventory, Massachusetts EGUs are 

limited to 26,811 tons SO2 in 2018 (and 

more likely 10,505 tons, which is below 

the level that would be achieved by the 

90% target). The long term strategy limit 

is 19,130 tons SO2 less than the 

inventory used to model visibility 

improvement in 2018. Since the long 

term strategy program is outcome-based, 

rather than technology-based, 

Massachusetts may develop a program 

that will achieve emissions reductions 

that are adequate for Class I states’ 

reasonable progress goals even if it does 

not rely on the particular reductions 

that were used to develop the 

assumptions upon which those 

reasonable progress goals were based. It 

is worth noting that the MANE–VU Ask 

does not itself establish federal 

regulatory requirements. States’ 

obligations are defined by the Regional 

Haze Rule, not the Ask. 

Finally, since future emission 

projections are somewhat uncertain, the 

RHR requires States to submit a 5-year 

progress report. At the time of this 

progress report, MassDEP will 

determine if the controls approved into 

the Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to 

achieve reasonable progress at the 

impacted Class I areas for the first 

planning period. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the Massachusetts 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan, submitted on December 30, 2011 

with supplemental submittals on 

August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012, as 

meeting the applicable implementing 

regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. 

Included as part of the Regional Haze 

Plan are the following Appendices, 

which EPA is approving and 

incorporating by reference into the SIP: 

(1) Appendix BB. Modified Emission 

Control Plan for General Electric 

Aviation—Lynn dated March 24, 2011; 

(2) Appendix CC. Massachusetts 310 

CMR 7.26(50)-(54) ‘‘Outdoor Hydronic 

Heaters;’’ (3) Appendix DD. 

Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.29 ‘‘Emission 

Standards for Power Plants,’’ the 

sections relating to NOX and SO2; (4) 

Appendix EE. Amended Emission 

Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated 

May 15, 2009; (5) Appendix FF. 

Amended Emission Control Plan 

Approval for Salem Harbor Station 

dated March 27, 2012; (6) Appendix GG. 

Amended Emission Control Plan 

Approval for Brayton Point Station 

dated April 12, 2012; (7) Appendix HH. 

Facility Shutdown of Somerset Power, 

LLC dated June 22, 2011; (8) Appendix 

II. Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.00 

‘‘Definitions;’’ and 310 CMR 7.05 ‘‘Fuels 

All Districts;’’and (9) Appendix JJ. 

Modified Emission Control Plan for 

Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. dated March 

14, 2012. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

addition, this rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

State, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57493 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 18, 

2013. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See Section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 12, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received at the Office of the Federal Register 

September 13, 2013. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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)(139) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(139) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan regarding Regional 

Haze submitted by the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection 

on December 30, 2011, August 9, 2012, 

and August 28, 2012. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.00, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended 

definition of SULFUR IN FUEL, 

effective August 3, 2012. 

(B) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.05, ‘‘U Fuels All Districts,’’ 

effective August 3, 2012, with the 

following exceptions which are not 

applicable to the Massachusetts 

Alternative to BART: 

(1) 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)(3); 

(2) 310 CMR 7.05(2) through (4); and 

(3) 310 CMR 7.05(7) through (9). 

(C) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emissions Standards for 

Power Plants,’’ effective on January 25, 

2008 (which includes previous sections 

effective on June 29, 2007), with the 

following exceptions which are not 

applicable to the Massachusetts 

Alternative to BART: 

(1) In 310 CMR 7.29(1), the reference 

to mercury (Hg), carbon monoxide (CO), 

carbon dioxide (CO2), and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) in the first 

sentence and the phrase ‘‘. . . and CO2

and establishing a cap on CO2 and Hg 

emissions from affected facilities. CO2

emissions standards set forth in 310 

CMR 7.29(5)(a)5.a. and b. shall not 

apply to emissions that occur after 

December 31, 2008’’ in the second 

sentence; 

(2) In 310 CMR 7.29(2), the definitions 

of Alternate Hg Designated 

Representative, Automated Acquisition 

and Handling System or DAHS, 

Mercury (Hg) Designated 

Representative, Mercury Continuous 

Emission Monitoring System or Mercury 

CEMS, Mercury Monitoring System, 

Sorbent Trap Monitoring System, and 

Total Mercury; 

(3) 310 CMR 7.29(5)(a)(3) through 

(5)(a)(6); 

(4) In 310 CMR 7.29(5)(b)(1), reference 

to compliance with the mercury 

emissions standard in the second 

sentence; 

(5) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(a)(3) through 

(6)(a)(4); 

(6) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(b)(10); 

(7) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(h)(2); 

(8) The third and fourth sentences in 

310 CMR 7.29(7)(a); 

(9) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1), the 

reference to CO2 and mercury; 

(10) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(a), the 

reference to CO2 and mercury; 

(11) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(b) through 

7.29(7)(b)(1)(d); 

(12) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(3), the 

reference to CO2 and mercury; 

(13) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(4)(b), the 

reference to CO2 and mercury; and 

(14) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(e) through 

7.29(7)(i). 

(D) Massachusetts Regulation 310 

CMR 7.26, ‘‘Industry Performance 

Standards, Outdoor Hydronic Heaters’’ 

paragraphs (50) through (54) and related 

footnotes effective December 26, 2008. 

(1) 310 CMR 7.26(50) Outdoor 

Hydronic Heaters—Applicability; 

(2) 310 CMR 7.26(51) Definitions; 

(3) 310 CMR 7.26(52) Requirements 

for Operators; 

(4) 310 CMR 7.26(53) Requirements 

for Sellers; and 

(5) 310 CMR 7.26(54) Requirements 

for Manufacturers. 

(E) The sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX), and PM2.5 provisions of 

the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection Emission 

Control Plan ‘‘Saugus—Metropolitan, 

Boston/Northeast Region, 310 CMR 

7.08(2)—Municipal Waste Combustors, 

Application No. MBR–98–ECP–006, 

Transmittal No. W003302, Emission 

Control Plan Modified Final Approval’’ 

dated March 14, 2012 to Mr. Jairaj 

Gosine, Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. and 

signed by Cosmo Buttaro and James E. 

Belsky, with the following exceptions 

which are not applicable to the 

Massachusetts Alternative to BART. 

(1) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2 Unit 

Load Restriction/Operating Practices; 

(2) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2 

Emission Limit/Standard for Opacity, 

HCl, Dioxin/Furon, Cd, Pb, CO, Hg, 

NH3, and associated footnotes; 

(3) In Table 2, EU3 Fugitive Ash 

requirement and associated footnote. 

(4) In Table 2, Footnote 1 which is a 

State Only Requirement. 

(F) The Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection Emission 

Control Plan ‘‘Lynn—Metropolitan, 

Boston/Northeast Region, 310 CMR 

7.19, Application No. MBR–94–COM– 

008, Transmittal No. X235617, Modified 

Emission Control Plan Final Approval’’ 

dated March 24, 2011 to Ms. Jolanta 

Wojas, General Electric Aviation and 

signed by Marc Altobelli and James E. 

Belsky. Note, this document contains 

two section V; V. RECORD KEEPING 

AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

and V. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS/

PROVISIONS. 

(G) The Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection Emission 

Control Plan, ‘‘Holyoke Western Region 

310 CMR 7.29 Power Plant Emission 

Standards, Application No. 1–E–01– 

072, Transmittal No. W025214, 

Amended Emission Control Plan’’ dated 

May 15, 2009 to Mr. John S. Murry, Mt. 

Tom Generating Company, LLC and 

signed by Marc Simpson, with the 

following exceptions which are not 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57494 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable to the Massachusetts 

Alternative to BART: 

(1) In Table 2, the EU 1 Emission 

Limit/Standard for Hg, CO, CO2, and 

PM2.5 and related footnotes; 

(2) In Table 3, the EU1 Monitoring/

Testing Requirements for CO2, CO, 

PM2.5, and Hg; 

(3) In Table 4, the EU 1 Record 

Keeping Requirements for CO2, CO, 

PM2.5, and Hg; 

(4) In Table 5, the EU1 Reporting 

Requirements for Hg; 

(5) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting 

requirements 

(6) In Table 6, the Compliance Paths 

for Hg and CO2 and related footnote; 

(7) In Section 4, Special Conditions 

for ECP, Item 4, applicable to CO2; 

(8) Section 6, Modification to the ECP; 

(9) Section 7, Massachusetts 

Environmental Policy Act; and 

(10) Section 8, Appeal of Approval. 

(H) The Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection Emission 

Control Plan ‘‘Salem—Metropolitan 

Boston/Northeast Region, 310 CMR 7.29 

Power Plant Emission Standards, 

Application No. NE–12–003, 

Transmittal No. X241756, Final 

Amended Emission Control Plan 

Approval’’ dated March 27, 2012 to Mr. 

Lamont W. Beaudette, Dominion Energy 

Salem Harbor, LLC and signed by 

Edward J. Braczyk, Cosmo Buttaro, and 

James E. Belsky with the following 

exceptions which are not applicable to 

the Massachusetts Alternative to BART: 

(1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 

3 Emission Limit/Standard for Hg and 

related footnotes; 

(2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, 

and EU 4 Emission Limit/Standard for 

CO, CO2, PM2.5 and related footnotes; 

(3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, 

and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing 

Requirements for CO2, CO, and PM2.5; 

(4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 

3 Monitoring/Testing Requirements for 

Hg; 

(5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, 

and EU 4 Record Keeping Requirements 

for CO2, CO, and PM2.5; 

(6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 

3 Record Keeping Requirements for Hg; 

(7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, 

and EU 4 Reporting Requirements for 

CO2; 

(8) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 

3 Reporting Requirements for Hg; 

(9) In Section 3, Compliance 

Schedule, the 3rd paragraph text which 

reads ‘‘In order to meet the regulatory 

Hg limits which are effective on October 

1, 2012, the facility owner/operator has 

proposed using a combination strategy 

involving fuel mix optimization (for SO2

compliance but this action will benefit 

Hg compliance as well) and installation 

of a Calcium Bromide injection system. 

In order to meet the 310 CMR 7.29 CO2

emission targets, the Dominion Energy 

Salem Harbor, LLC facility owner/

operator procured offset credits from 

both its Dominion Energy Brayton Point 

facility and third party contacts and 

paid into the Greenhouse Gas 

Expendable Trust;’’ 

(10) Section 6, Modification to the 

ECP; 

(11) Section 7, Massachusetts 

Environmental Policy Act; and 

(12) Section 8, Appeal of Approval. 

(I) Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection Emission 

Control Plan ‘‘Amended Emission 

Control Plan Final Approval 

Application for: BWP AQ 25, 310 CMR 

7.29 Power Plant Emission Standards, 

Transmittal Number X241755, 

Application Number SE–12–003, Source 

Number: 1200061’’ dated April 12, 2012 

to Peter Balkus, Dominion Energy 

Brayton Point, LLC and signed by John 

K. Winkler, with the following 

exceptions which are not applicable to 

the Massachusetts Alternative to BART: 

(1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 

3 Emission Limit/Standard for Hg; 

(2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, 

EU 4 Emission Limit/Standard for CO, 

CO2, PM2.5 and related footnotes; 

(3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, 

and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing 

Requirements for CO2, Hg, CO, and 

PM2.5; 

(4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 

3 Monitoring/Testing Requirements for 

Hg; 

(5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, 

and EU 4 Record Keeping Requirements 

for CO2, Hg, CO, and PM2.5; 

(6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 

3 Record Keeping Requirements for Hg; 

(7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 

3 Reporting Requirements for Hg and 

CEMS monitoring and certification; 

(8) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting 

Requirements; 

(9) In Table 6, the Compliance Path 

for CO2, and Hg; 

(10) In Section 4, Special Conditions 

for ECP, the CO2 requirement in Item 2; 

(11) Section 6, Modification to the 

ECP; 

(12) Section 7, Massachusetts 

Environmental Policy Act; and 

(13) Section 8, Appeal of Approval. 

(J) Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection letter 

‘‘Facility Shutdown, FMF Facility No. 

316744’’ dated June 22, 2011 to Jeff 

Araujo, Somerset Power LLC and signed 

by John K. Winkler. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) ‘‘Massachusetts Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan’’ dated 

August 9, 2012. 

■ 3. In § 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is 

amended by adding new entries to 

existing state citations for 310 CMR 

7.00, 310 CMR 7.05, 310 CMR 7.08, and 

310 CMR 7.19 in order of ‘‘Date 

approved by EPA’’; and by adding new 

state citations for 310 CMR 7.26 and 310 

CMR 7.29 in order of ‘‘State citation’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts 

State regulations. 

* * * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57495 

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 ........... 8/9/12 9/19/13 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

137 Approving the definition of ‘‘Sulfur in 

Fuel.’’ 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.05 .. U Fuels All Districts.8/9/12 9/19/13 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

137 Approves the sulfur content of fuel 

oil. The following sections were 

not submitted as part of the SIP: 

(1)(a)(3), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), (9). 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 

7.08(2).

MWC NOX requirements.

8/9/12 9/19/13 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

137 Facility specific MWC Emission Control Plan for Wheelabrator Saugus 

revises the NOX limits to 185 ppm 

by volume at 7% O2 dry basis 

(30-day rolling average). 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.19 .. NOX RACT .......... 12/30/11 9/19/13 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

137 Facility specific NOX RACT for General Electric Aviation Boiler No. 3 

to cap annual SO2 and NOX emissions at 249.0 tons each. 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.26 .. Industry Performance Standards.12/30/11 9/19/13 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

137 Only approving the Outdoor 

Hydronic Heaters (50)–(54). 

* * * * * * * 

310 CMR 7.29 .. Emissions Standards for Power 

Plants.

8/9/2012 9/19/13 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

137 Only approving the SO2 and NOX

requirements. 

310 CMR 7.29 .. Emission Standards for Power 

Plants.

8/9/2012 9/19/13 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

137 Facility specific Emission Control 

Plan requirement for Brayton 

Point Station Unit 1, 2, 3, and 4 

which disallows the use of 310 

CMR 7.29 SO2 Early Reduction 

Credits or Federal Acid Rain allowances for compliance with 310 

CMR 7.29 after June 1, 2014. 

310 CMR 7.29 .. Emission Standards for Power 

Plants.

8/9/2012 9/19/13 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

137 Facility specific Emission Control 

Plan requirement for Mt. Tom Station which disallows the use of 

310 CMR 7.29 SO2 Early Reduction Credits or Federal Acid Rain 

allowances for compliance with 

310 CMR 7.29 after October 1, 

2009. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57496 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / 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 7.29 .. Emission Standards for Power 

Plants.

8/9/2012 9/19/13 [Insert Federal 

Register page 

number where 

the document 

begins].

137 Facility specific Emission Control 

Plan for Salem Harbor Station 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 which limits 

NOX emissions from Unit 1 to 276 

tons per rolling 12 month period 

starting 1/1/2012, limits NOX

emissions for Unit 2 to 50 tons 

per rolling 12 month period starting 1/1/2012, limits SO2 emissions 

form Unit 2 to 300 tons per rolling 

12 month period starting 1/1/2012, 

shuts down units 3 and 4 effective 

6/1/2014. 

* * * * * * * 

Notes: 

1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this date. 

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

[FR Doc. 2013–22692 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0475; FRL–9901–06– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado Second Ten-Year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Aspen 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action 

approving State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

Colorado. On May 25, 2011, the 

Governor of Colorado’s designee 

submitted to EPA a revised maintenance 

plan for the Aspen area for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 10 microns (PM10), which was 

adopted by the State on December 16, 

2010. As required by Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 175A(b), this revised 

maintenance plan addresses 

maintenance of the PM10 standard for a 

second 10-year period beyond the area’s 

original redesignation to attainment for 

the PM10 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is 

approving the revised maintenance 

plan’s 2023 transportation conformity 

motor vehicle emissions budget for 

PM10. This action is being taken under 

sections 110 and 175A of the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 18, 2013 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by October 21, 2013. If 

adverse comment is received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0475, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0475. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES