30932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves implementation of 

regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that 

apply to organized marine events on the 

navigable waters of the United States 

that may have potential for negative 

impact on the safety or other interest of 

waterway users and shore side activities 

in the event area. This special local 

regulation is necessary to provide for 

the safety of the general public and 

event participants from potential 

hazards associated with movement of 

vessels near the event area. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

This rule is categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

34(h) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination and a 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

F. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C 1233. 

2. At § 100.501, in the Table to 

§ 100.501, make the following 

amendments: 

a. Under ‘‘(d) Coast Guard Sector 

North Carolina-COTP Zone,’’ suspend 

line 4. 

b. Under ‘‘(d) Coast Guard Sector 

North Carolina-COTP Zone,’’ add 

temporary line 5 to read as follows: 

§ 100.501–T05–0629 Special Local 

Regulations; Recurring Marine Event in the 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

* * * * * 

(d.) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—COTP Zone 

Number Date Event Sponsor Location 

*******

5 ........... October 20, 2012 ........... Wilmington YMCA 

Triathlon.

Wilmington YMCA .......... The waters of, and adjacent to, Wrightsville Channel from Wrightsville Channel Day beacon 14 

(LLNR 28040), located at 34°12′18′′ N, longitude 077°48′10′′ W, to Wrightsville Channel 

Day beacon 25 (LLNR 28080), located at 

34°12′51′′ N, longitude 77°48′53′′ W. 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 10, 2012. 

A. Popiel, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12596 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0025; A–1–FRL– 

9676–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Massachusetts State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

planning period from 2008 through 

2018. It was submitted by the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on 

December 30, 2011. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, through parallel 

processing, a supplemental Regional 

Haze submittal, Proposed Revisions to 

Massachusetts Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), which was 

proposed by the MassDEP for public 

comment on February 17, 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 (also referred to 

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

are required to assure reasonable 

progress toward the national goal of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30933 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in Class I areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2012–0025 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0025 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2012– 

0025. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

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 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at 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. 

In addition, copies of the State 

submittal 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: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Background Information 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule and the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule to Regional Haze 

Requirements 

II. What are the requirements for the Regional 

Haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Massachusetts’ 

Regional Haze SIP submittal? 

A. Massachusetts’ Impact on MANE–VU 

Class I Areas 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

1. Identification of all BART-Eligible 

Sources 

2. Cap-Outs 

3. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

4. Modeling To Demonstrate Source 

Visibility Impact 

5. Source-Specific BART Determinations 

6. Identification of All BART Source 

Categories Covered by the Alternative 

Program 

7. Determination of the BART Benchmark 

8. Massachusetts’ SO2 Alternative BART 

Program 

9. Massachusetts’ NOX Alternative BART 

Program 

10. EPA’s Assessment of Massachusetts’ 

Alternative to BART Demonstration 

11. Massachusetts’ PM BART 

Determinations 

12. BART Enforceability 

C. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairments 

4. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

5. Additional Considerations for the LTS 

D. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

E. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

the EPA. 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). Although States and Tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager’’ (FLM). (42 U.S.C. 7602(i)). When we use 

the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

also impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without manmade air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Background Information 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 1 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084 

(Dec. 2, 1980). These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. EPA deferred 

action on regional haze that emanates 

from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling and scientific 

knowledge about the relationships 

between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. 

The Regional Haze Rule revised the 

existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–309. Some of the main elements 

of the regional haze requirements are 

summarized in Section II. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 States, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. In 

40 CFR 51.308(b), States are required to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA found 

that 37 States, the District of Columbia 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands failed to 

submit this required implementation 

plan. See 74 FR 2392 (Jan. 15, 2009). In 

particular, EPA found that 

Massachusetts failed to submit a plan 

that met the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308. See 74 FR 2393. On December 

30, 2011, the Division of Air Quality 

Control of the MassDEP submitted 

revisions to the Massachusetts SIP to 

address regional haze as required by 40 

CFR 51.308. In addition, on May 2, 

2012, MassDEP requested parallel 

processing of its February 17, 2012 

Proposed Revision to Massachusetts 

Regional Haze SIP. EPA has reviewed 

Massachusetts’ submittals and is 

proposing to find that they are 

consistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308 as outlined in Section II. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

States, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the States and 

Tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their States and Tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of PM2.5 and other pollutants leading to 

regional haze. 

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) RPO is a 

collaborative effort of State 

governments, tribal governments, and 

various federal agencies established to 

initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the Northeastern 

United States. Member State and Tribal 

governments include: Connecticut, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, 

Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule and the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule to Regional Haze 

Requirements 

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

required some states to reduce 

emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

contribute to violations of the 1997 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 and ozone. See 70 

FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR 

established emissions budgets for SO2

and NOX. On October 13, 2006, EPA’s 

‘‘Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions 

to Provisions Governing Alternative to 

Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Determinations; 

Final Rule’’ (hereinafter known as the 

‘‘Alternative to BART Rule’’) was 

published in the Federal Register. See 

71 FR 60612. This rule establishes that 

states participating in the CAIR program 

need not require BART for SO2 and NOX

at BART-eligible electric generating 

units (EGUs). Many States relied on 

CAIR as an Alternative to BART for SO2

and NOX for their subject EGUs. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30935 

2The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

CAIR was later found to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and the rule was remanded to 

EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The court left 

CAIR in place until replaced by EPA 

with a rule consistent with its opinion. 

See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), to replace 

CAIR in 2011 (76 FR 48208, August 8, 

2011). Massachusetts was subject to 

ozone season NOX controls under the 

CAIR program. In its January 11, 2011, 

proposed Regional Haze SIP, MassDEP 

proposed to rely on emission reductions 

included in EPA’s proposed Transport 

Rule as an Alternative to BART. 

However, Massachusetts is not subject 

to any of the requirements of CSAPR 

and therefore cannot rely on CSAPR as 

an Alternative to BART. 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit Court issued an order addressing 

the status of CSAPR and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the D.C. 

Circuit stayed CSAPR pending the 

court’s resolutions of the petitions for 

review of that rule in EME Homer 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11–1302 

and consolidated cases). The court also 

indicated that EPA is expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the 

interim until the court rules on the 

petitions for review of CSAPR. 

On February 17, 2012, MassDEP 

proposed an amended Alternative to 

BART. This strategy is discussed in 

further detail in Section III.B. MassDEP 

has also requested parallel processing of 

sections 8.10, 8.11, and 10.5, its revised 

BART and Long Term Strategy Chapters. 

Under this procedure, EPA prepared 

this action before the State’s final 

adoption of this revision. Massachusetts 

has indicated that they plan to have a 

final adopted submittal by July 2012, 

prior to our final action on its Regional 

Haze SIP. After Massachusetts submits 

its final adopted revision, EPA will 

review the submittal to determine 

whether it differs from the proposed 

revision. If the final revision does differ 

from the proposed revision, EPA will 

determine whether these differences are 

significant. Based on EPA’s 

determination regarding the significance 

of any changes in the final revision, EPA 

would then decide whether it is 

appropriate to prepare a final rule and 

describe the changes in the final 

rulemaking action, re-propose action 

based on the Massachusetts’ final 

adopted revision, or take such other 

action as may be appropriate. 

II. What are the requirements for 

Regional Haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require States 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.2

The deciview is used in expressing 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program and as 

part of the process for determining 

reasonable progress, States must 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area within 

the State at the time of each regional 

haze SIP submittal and periodically 

review progress every five years midway 

through each 10-year planning period. 

To do this, the RHR requires States to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 

percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, States must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purposes of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to States regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents entitled, Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005) 

available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 

(EPA–454/B–03–004), available at 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf (hereinafter referred to 

as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

impairment for the 20 percent least 

impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days at the time the regional 

haze program was established. Using 

monitoring data from 2000 through 

2004, States are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area within the State, 

based on the average of annual values 

over the five year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

States that establish RPGs for Class I 

areas for each (approximately) 10-year 

planning period. The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for States to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions for their Class I areas. In 

setting RPGs, States must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the (approximately) 

10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in the CAA and in EPA’s 

RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the time necessary for compliance; (3) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and (4) the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors are considered when selecting 

the RPGs for the best and worst days for 

each applicable Class I area. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s July 1, 2007 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10, 

entitled Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 

Regional Haze Program (p. 4–2, 5–1) 

(EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance). 

In setting the RPGs, States must also 

consider the rate of progress needed to 

reach natural visibility conditions by 

2064 (referred to as the ‘‘uniform rate of 

progress’’ or the ‘‘glide path’’) and the 

emission reduction measures needed to 

achieve that rate of progress over the 10- 

year period of the SIP. The year 2064 

represents a rate of progress which 

States are to use for analytical 

comparison to the amount of progress 

they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, 

each State with one or more Class I 

areas (‘‘Class I State’’) must also consult 

with potentially ‘‘contributing States,’’ 

i.e., other nearby States with emission 

sources that may be contributing to 

visibility impairment at the Class I 

State’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, the CAA 

requires States to revise their SIPs to 

contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing stationary sources 

built between 1962 and 1977 procure, 

install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available 

Retrofit Technology’’ as determined by 

the State. CAA § 169A(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 

7491(b)(2).3 States are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

sources that may be anticipated to cause 

or contribute to any visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Rather 

than requiring source-specific BART 

controls, States also have the flexibility 

to adopt an emissions trading program 

or other alternative program as long as 

the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist States in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts (MW), a State must use 

the approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate 

matter (PM). EPA has stated that States 

should use their best judgment in 

determining whether volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) 

and ammonia compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

The RPOs provided air quality 

modeling to the States to help them in 

determining whether potential BART 

sources can be reasonably expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Under the 

BART Guidelines, States may select an 

exemption threshold value for their 

BART modeling, below which a BART 

eligible source would not be expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. The 

State must document this exemption 

threshold value in the SIP and must 

state the basis for its selection of that 

value. Any source with emissions that 

model above the threshold value would 

be subject to a BART determination 

review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances 

affecting different Class I areas. States 

should consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Any 

exemption threshold set by the State 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. 

See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005). 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

that together comprises the BARTeligible source. See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 

2005). In making BART determinations, 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 

that States consider the following 

factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

(3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; (4) the 

remaining useful life of the source; and 

(5) the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. States are free to 

determine the weight and significance 

to be assigned to each factor. See 70 FR 

39170 (July 6, 2005). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a State 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP, as required by CAA 

(section 169(g)(4)) and the RHR (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30937 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. States have the flexibility to 

choose the type of control measures 

they will use to meet the requirements 

of BART. 

States may also provide an 

Alternative to BART demonstration. On 

October, 13, 2006, EPA finalized 

‘‘Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions 

to Provisions Governing Alternative to 

Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Determinations’’ 

(71 FR 60612), an alternative emissions 

program that gives flexibility for states 

or tribal governments in ways to apply 

BART. The BART requirements would 

be satisfied if the alternative program 

meets or exceeds the visibility benefits 

resulting from BART. This approach has 

been approved by the D.C. Circuit. See 

Center for Energy & Economic 

Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. 

Cir. 2005); Utility Air Regulatory Group 

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

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR, 

States are required to include a LTS in 

their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 

of all control measures a State will use 

to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS 

must include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the State. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a State’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another State, the 

RHR requires the impacted State to 

coordinate with the contributing States 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing State must demonstrate 

that it has included in its SIP all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between States may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two States belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, States 

must describe how each of the seven 

factors listed below is taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the State for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the State’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the State 

must revise its plan to provide for 

review and revision of a coordinated 

LTS for addressing reasonably 

attributable and regional haze visibility 

impairment, and the State must submit 

the first such coordinated LTS with its 

first regional haze SIP. Future 

coordinated LTS’s, and periodic 

progress reports evaluating progress 

towards RPGs, must be submitted 

consistent with the schedule for SIP 

submission and periodic progress 

reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 

51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 

reviews of a State’s LTS must report on 

both regional haze and RAVI 

impairment and must be submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4), the RHR 

requires a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

of regional haze visibility impairment 

that is representative of all mandatory 

Class I Federal areas within the State. 

The strategy must be coordinated with 

the monitoring strategy required in 40 

CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with 

this requirement may be met through 

participation in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the State; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other States; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the State, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A State 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f) of the 

RHR, state control strategies must cover 

an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The BART 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted 

above, apply only to the first 

implementation period. Periodic SIP 

revisions will assure that the statutory 

requirement of reasonable progress will 

continue to be met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that States consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4The August 2006 NESCAUM document 

Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic United States has been provided 

as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

State must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

State and FLMs regarding the State’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Massachusetts’ Regional Haze SIP 

submittal? 

On December 30, 2011, the Division 

of Air Quality Control of the MassDEP 

submitted revisions to the 

Massachusetts SIP to address regional 

haze as required by 40 CFR 51.308. In 

addition, on May 2, 2012, MassDEP 

requested parallel processing of its 

February 17, 2012 Proposed Revision to 

Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP. EPA 

has reviewed Massachusetts’ submittals 

and is proposing to find that they are 

consistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308 as outlined in Section II. A 

detailed analysis follows. 

Massachusetts is responsible for 

developing a regional haze SIP which 

addresses Massachusetts’ impact on any 

nearby Class I areas. As Massachusetts 

has no Class I areas within its borders, 

Massachusetts is not required to address 

the following Regional Haze SIP 

elements: (a) Calculation of baseline and 

natural visibility conditions; (b) 

establishment of reasonable progress 

goals; (c) monitoring requirements; and 

(d) RAVI requirements. 

A. Massachusetts’ Impact on MANE–VU 

Class I Areas 

Massachusetts is a member of the 

MANE–VU RPO. The MANE–VU RPO 

contains seven Class I areas in four 

States: Moosehorn Wilderness Area, 

Acadia National Park, and Roosevelt/ 

Campobello International Park in 

Maine; Presidential Range/Dry River 

Wilderness Area and Great Gulf 

Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; 

Brigantine Wilderness Area in New 

Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area 

in Vermont. 

Through source apportionment 

modeling, MANE–VU assisted States in 

determining their contribution to the 

visibility impairment of each Class I 

area in the MANE–VU region. 

Massachusetts and the other MANE–VU 

States adopted a weight-of-evidence 

approach which relied on several 

independent methods for assessing the 

contribution of different sources and 

geographic source regions to regional 

haze in the northeastern and midAtlantic portions of the United States. 

Details about each technique can be 

found in the Northeast States for 

Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NESCAUM) document Contributions to 

Regional Haze in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 

(hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Contribution Report’’).4

The MANE–VU Class I States 

determined that any State contributing 

at least 2.0% of the total sulfate (the 

main contributor to visibility 

impairment in the Northeast, see 

Section III.C.3) observed on the 20 

percent worst visibility days in 2002 

was a contributor to visibility 

impairment at the Class I areas. 

Massachusetts emissions were found to 

contribute to the total annual average 

sulfate at the nearby Class I areas: 

Acadia National Park, Maine (10.11% of 

total sulfate); Moosehorn Wilderness 

Area, Maine and Roosevelt Campobello 

International Park (6.78% of total 

sulfate); Great Gulf Wilderness Area and 

Presidential Range Dry River, New 

Hampshire (3.11% of total sulfate); Lye 

Brook Wilderness Area (2.45% of total 

sulfate); and Brigantine Wilderness 

Area, New Jersey (2.73% of total 

sulfate). The impact of sulfate on 

visibility is discussed in greater detail 

below. 

EPA is proposing to find that 

Massachusetts has adequately 

demonstrated that emissions from 

sources within the State cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

nearby Class I Areas. 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

According to 51.308(e), ‘‘The State 

must submit an implementation plan 

containing emission limitations 

representing BART and schedules for 

compliance with BART for each BARTeligible source that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any Class I 

Federal area, unless the State 

demonstrates that an emissions trading 

program or other alternative will 

achieve greater reasonable progress 

toward natural visibility conditions.’’ 

On October 13, 2006, EPA’s ‘‘Regional 

Haze Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing Alternative to 

Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Determinations; 

Final Rule’’ (hereinafter known as the 

‘‘Alternative to BART Rule’’) was 

published in the Federal Register. See 

71 FR 60612. Massachusetts chose to 

demonstrate that programs already 

developed by the State provide greater 

progress in visibility improvement than 

source-by-source BART determinations. 

A demonstration that the alternative 

program 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 must be based on the following: 

(1) A list of all BART-eligible sources 

within the State. 

(2) A list of all BART-eligible sources 

and all BART source categories covered 

by the alternative program. 

(3) Determination of the BART 

benchmark. If the alternative program 

has been designed to meet a 

requirement other than BART, as in the 

case of Massachusetts, 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. 

(4) An analysis of the projected 

emission reductions achieved through 

the alternative program. 

(5) A determination based on a clear 

weight of evidence that the alternative 

program achieves greater reasonable 

progress than would be achieved 

through the installation and operation of 

BART at the covered sources. 

As allowed by the Regional Haze 

Rule, Massachusetts opted to pursue 

source by source BART determinations 

for select sources and demonstrate an 

Alternative to BART for other sources. 

1. Identification of All BART Eligible 

Sources 

Determining BART-eligible sources is 

the first step in the BART process. 

BART-eligible sources in Massachusetts 

were identified in accordance with the 

methodology in Appendix Y of the 

Regional Haze Rule, Guidelines for 

BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, Part II, How to 

Identify BART-Eligible Sources. See 70 

FR 39158. This guidance consists of the 

following criteria: 

• The unit falls into one of the listed 

source categories; 

• The unit was constructed or 

reconstructed between 1962 and 1977; 

and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30939 

5 Visibility Impact is measured in units of 

deciviews (dv). A deciview measures the 

incremental visibility change discernable by the human eye. The modeling to determine the 

visibility impact is discussed below. 

• The unit has the potential to emit 

over 250 tons per year of sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, 

volatile organic compounds, or 

ammonia. 

The BART Guidelines require States 

to address SO2, NOX, and particulate 

matter. States are allowed to use their 

best judgment in deciding whether VOC 

or ammonia emissions from a source are 

likely to have an impact on visibility in 

the area. The State of Massachusetts 

addressed SO2, NOX, and used 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

in diameter (PM10) as an indicator for 

particulate matter to identify BART 

eligible units, as the BART Guidelines 

require. 

The identification of BART sources in 

Massachusetts was undertaken as part of 

a multi-State analysis conducted by the 

NESCAUM. NESCAUM worked with 

MassDEP licensing engineers to review 

all sources and determine their BART 

eligibility. MassDEP identified twentynine sources as BART-eligible. The 

Massachusetts BART eligible sources 

are listed in Table 1. Three of the 

sources are petroleum storage facilities 

(Exxon Mobile-Everett, Global 

Petroleum—Revere, and Gulf Oil— 

Chelsea) with VOC emissions. 

Consistent with the BART Guidelines, 

the State of Massachusetts did not 

evaluate emissions of VOCs in BART 

determinations due to the lack of impact 

on visibility in the area due to 

anthropogenic sources. The majority of 

VOC emissions in Massachusetts are 

biogenic in nature. Therefore, the ability 

to further reduce total ambient VOC 

concentrations at Class I areas is 

limited. Point, area, and mobile sources 

of VOCs in Massachusetts are already 

comprehensively controlled as part of 

an ozone attainment and maintenance 

strategy. 

Nor did Massachusetts evaluate 

ammonia. The overall ammonia 

inventory is very uncertain, but the 

amount of anthropogenic emissions at 

sources that were BART-eligible is 

relatively small, and no additional 

sources were identified that had greater 

than 250 tons per year ammonia and 

required a BART analysis.5

TABLE 1—BART ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN MASSACHUSETTS

Source, unit and location Fuel BART source category 

2002 

emissions 

(ton/yr) 

Highest 2002 

visibility impact 

(dv)5

Boston Generating—New Boston Unit 1 ............. Distillate Oil .................. 18.6 MW, EGU ............. SO2: 1, NOX: 170 ......... 0.04 

Boston Generating—Mystic Unit 7 * .................... Residual Oil .................. 574 MW, EGU .............. SO2: 3,727, NOX: 805 .. 1.02 

Braintree Electric Unit 3 ....................................... Distillate Oil Natural 

Gas.

76 MW, EGU ................ SO2: 6 NOX: 97 ............ 0.03 

Dominion—Brayton Point Unit 1 * ........................ Coal .............................. 243 MW, EGU .............. SO2: 9,254 NOX: 2,513 3.82 

Dominion—Brayton Point Unit 2 * ........................ Coal .............................. 240 MW, EGU .............. SO2: 8,853 NOX: 2,270 3.67 

Dominion—Brayton Point Unit 3 * ........................ Coal .............................. 612 MW, EGU .............. SO2: 19,450 NOX: 

7,335.

7.25 

Dominion—Brayton Point Unit 4 * ........................ Residual Oil Natural 

Gas.

435 MW, EGU .............. SO2: 2,037 NOX: 552 ... 0.73 

Dominion—Salem Harbor Unit 4 * ....................... Residual Oil .................. 433 MW, EGU .............. SO2: 2,886 NOX: 787 ... 0.98 

Harvard University—Blackstone Unit 11 ............. Residual Oil Natural 

Gas.

83 MW, EGU ................ SO2: 63 NOX: 41 .......... 0.06 

Harvard University—Blackstone Unit 12 ............. Residual Oil Natural 

Gas.

83 MW, EGU ................ SO2: 74 NOX: 46 .......... 0.06 

Mirant—Canal Station Unit 1 ............................... Residual Oil .................. 560 MW, EGU .............. SO2: 13,066 NOX: 

3,339.

4.43 

Mirant—Canal Station Unit 2 ............................... Residual Oil .................. 560 MW, EGU .............. SO2: 8,948 NOX: 2,260 3.26 

Mirant Kendall LLC Unit 1 ................................... Residual Oil Natural 

Gas.

80 MW, EGU ................ SO2: 18 NOX: 172 ........ 0.06 

Mirant Kendall LLC Unit 2 ................................... Residual Oil Natural 

Gas.

80 MW, EGU ................ SO2: 36 NOX: 96 .......... 0.04 

Taunton Municipal Light Plant (TMLP)—Cleary 

Flood Unit 8.

Residual Oil .................. 28 MW, EGU ................ SO2: 37 NOX: 15 .......... 0.01 

Taunton Municipal Light Plant (TMLP)—Cleary 

Flood Unit 9.

Residual Oil .................. 90 MW, EGU ................ SO2: 55 NOX: 163 ........ 0.07 

Eastman Gelatin Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 .................. Residual Oil Natural 

Gas.

ICI Boilers .................... SO2: 5.2 NOX: 51 ......... 0.03 

General Electric Aircraft—Lynn Unit 3 ................ Natural Gas Residual 

Oil.

ICI Boilers .................... SO2: 425 NOX: 213 ...... 0.24 

Solutia .................................................................. Natural Gas Residual 

Oil Coal.

ICI Boiler ...................... NOX: 16 ........................ 0.003 

Trigen—Kneeland St. Unit 3 ................................ Residual Oil Distillate 

Oil.

ICI Boiler ...................... SO2: 85 NOX: 396 ........ 0.15 

Wheelabrator Saugus Units 1 ............................. Mixed Waste ................ Municipal Incinerator .... SO2: 42 NOX: 357 ........ 0.25 

Wheelabrator Saugus Unit 2 ............................... Mixed Waste ................ Municipal Incinerator .... SO2: 42 NOX: 364 ........ 0.25 

Exxon Mobil—Everett All Processing Units ......... Petroleum Storage ....... N/A. 

Global Petroleum—Revere All Processing Units Petroleum Storage ....... N/A. 

Gulf Oil—Chelsea All Processing Units .............. Petroleum Storage ....... N/A. 

* Located at a facility greater than 750 MW. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6Massachusetts’ decision that all BART eligible 

sources are subject to BART should not be 

misconstrued to mean that all BART-eligible 

sources must install controls. For sources subject to 

a source-specific BART determination, 

Massachusetts’ approach simply requires the 

consideration of each of the five statutory factors 

before determining whether or not controls are 

warranted. For sources that were not subject to 

source-specific BART determinations, 

Massachusetts’ alternative to BART requires greater 

overall reductions than would have been achieved 

by application of source-specific BART, but may 

not require all sources to install additional controls. 

7The MANE–VU modeling protocol can be found 

in the NESCAUM ‘‘BART Resource Guide,’’ dated 

August 23, 2006, (www.nescaum.org/documents/

bart-resource-guide/bart-resource-guide-08-23-06-

final.pdf/) 

8The NWS and MM5 platform modeling results 

can be found in Appendices R–1 and R–2 of the SIP 

submittal. 

9As an additional demonstration that sources 

whose impacts were below the 0.1 dv level were too 

small to warrant BART controls, the entire MANE– 

VU population of these units was modeled together 

to examine their cumulative impacts at each Class 

I area. The results of this modeling demonstrated 

that the maximum 24-hour impact at any Class I 

area of all modeled sources with individual impacts 

below 0.1 dv was only a 0.35 dv change relative to 

the estimated best days natural conditions at Acadia 

National Park. This value is well below the 0.5 dv 

impact used by most RPOs and States for 

determining whether a BART-eligible source 

contributes to visibility impairment. 

10Trigen-Kneeland has been added to this list, 

despite its modeled impact of 0.146 dv (0.127 dv 

from NO3) using the MM5 modeling platform, due 

to two significant errors in the 2002 input data used 

by MANE–VU to screen facilities for their impact 

on visibility. First, Units 1–4 were included in the 

modeling when only Unit 3 is BART-eligible. 

Second, the 2002 modeled NOX emissions from 

Unit 3 were 396 tons, rather than the actual 96 tons 

of NOX emissions. Massachusetts believes that the 

modeling using the corrected 2002 NOX emissions 

from Trigen-Kneeland would indicate a total 

visibility impact of <0.1 dv, therefore a source with 

a de minimis impact on visibility. 

2. Cap-Outs 

BART applies to sources with the 

potential to emit 250 tons or more per 

year of any visibility impairing 

pollutant. (70 FR 39160). BART-eligible 

sources that adopt a federally 

enforceable permit limit to permanently 

limit emissions of visibility impairing 

pollutants to less than 250 tons per year 

(tpy) may thereby ‘‘cap-out’’ of BART. 

See 70 FR 39112. One Massachusetts 

source capped out of BART by taking 

such limits, General Electric-Lynn Unit 

3. Actual emissions of visibility 

impairing pollutants from General 

Electric-Lynn Unit 3 are less than the 

250 tons per year threshold. Pursuant to 

the request of the source, MassDEP has 

established a federally enforceable 

permit condition that limits the 

potential to emit (PTE) NOX and SO2

emissions from Unit 3 to less than 250 

tons per year. This permit has been 

submitted as part of the Massachusetts 

SIP submittal (Appendix BB). The 

existing PM10 potential to emit is 

already below the 250 tpy threshold. As 

a result, Massachusetts concluded that 

this source is not BART eligible. If in 

the future, this source requests an 

increase in its PTE above the 250 tons 

per year threshold for a visibility 

impairing pollutant, it shall be subject 

to BART. 

3. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

Massachusetts, working with MANE– 

VU, found that almost every MANE–VU 

state with BART-eligible sources 

contributes to visibility impairment at 

one or more Class I areas to a significant 

degree (See the MANE–VU Contribution 

Report). As a result, Massachusetts 

found that all BART eligible sources 

within Massachusetts are subject to 

BART. 

According to Section III of the 

Guidelines, once the state has compiled 

its list of BART-eligible sources, it needs 

to determine whether to make BART 

determinations for all of the sources or 

to consider exempting some of them 

from BART because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. 

Based on the collective importance of 

BART sources, Massachusetts decided 

that no exemptions would be given for 

sources.6

4. Modeling To Demonstrate Source 

Visibility Impact 

MANE–VU conducted modeling 

analyses of BART-eligible sources using 

the EPA approved air quality model, 

California Pollution Model (CALPUFF), 

in order to provide a regionallyconsistent foundation for assessing the 

degree of visibility improvement which 

could result from the installation of 

BART controls.7 While this modeling 

analysis differed slightly from the 

guidance, it was intended to provide a 

first-order estimate of the maximum 

visibility benefit that could be achieved 

by eliminating all emissions from a 

BART source, and provides a useful 

metric for determining which sources 

are unlikely to warrant additional 

controls to satisfy BART. 

The MANE–VU modeling effort 

analyzed 136 BART-eligible sources in 

the MANE–VU region using the 

CALPUFF modeling platform and two 

meteorological data sets: (1) A wind 

field based on National Weather Service 

(NWS) observations; and (2) a wind 

field based on the Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research Mesoscale 

Meteorological Model (MM5) version 

3.6. Modeling results from both the 

NWS and MM5 platforms include each 

BART eligible unit’s maximum 24-hr, 

8th highest 24-hr, and annual average 

impact at the Class I area.8 These 

visibility impacts were modeled relative 

to the 20 percent best, 20 percent worst, 

and average annual natural background 

conditions. In accordance with EPA 

guidance, which allows the use of either 

estimates of the 20 percent best or the 

annual average of natural background 

visibility conditions as the basis for 

calculating the deciview difference that 

individual sources would contribute for 

BART modeling purposes, MANE–VU 

opted to utilize the more conservative 

best conditions estimates approach 

because it is more protective of 

visibility. 

The 2002 baseline modeling provides 

an estimate of the maximum 

improvement in visibility at Class I 

Areas in the region that could result 

from the installation of BART controls 

(the maximum improvement is 

equivalent to a ‘‘zero-out’’ of emissions). 

In virtually all cases, the installation of 

BART controls would result in less 

visibility improvement than what is 

represented by a source’s 2002 impact, 

but this approach does provide a 

consistent means of identifying those 

sources with the greatest contribution to 

visibility impairment. 

In addition to modeling the maximum 

potential improvement from BART, 

MANE–VU also determined that 98 

percent of the cumulative visibility 

impact from all MANE–VU BART 

eligible sources corresponds to a 

maximum 24-hr impact of 0.22 dv from 

the NWS-driven data and 0.29 dv from 

the MM5 data. As a result, MANE–VU 

concluded that, on the average, a range 

of 0.2 to 0.3 dv would represent a 

significant impact at MANE–VU Class I 

areas, and sources having less than 0.1 

dv impact are unlikely to warrant 

additional controls under BART.9

For Massachusetts, sources with 

visibility impact of 0.1 dv or less are: 

Braintree Electric Unit 3; Harvard 

University—Blackstone Units 11 and 12; 

Mirant- Kendall Units 1 and 2; New 

Boston Unit 1; Eastman Gelatin Units 1, 

2, 3, and 4; Solutia; and Trigen— 

Kneeland Unit 3.10 Massachusetts 

determined that the cost of installing 

additional controls on these de minimis 

units was not cost effective given the 

minimal expected visibility impact. 

Massachusetts therefore determined that 

current controls represent BART for 

these units. 

5. Source Specific BART Determination 

The Regional Haze Rule allows 

Massachusetts to either make individual 

BART determinations or to implement 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30941 

11The BART benchmark is intended to provide a 

target emission reduction—what would the 

expected reductions in emissions have been if the 

State had chosen to apply source-specific BART to 

all of its BART sources—for comparison to the 

Alternative to BART. 

an alternative that will achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions. Massachusetts 

developed an individual BART 

determination for Wheelabrator— 

Saugus Units 1 and 2. 

a. Background 

Wheelabrator-Saugus is a municipal 

waste combustor which contains two 

mass burn incinerators with water wall 

boilers, each rated at 325 MMBtu/hr 

heat input. Both incinerator units are 

BART-eligible, with reported combined 

2002 emissions of 84 tons of SO2 and 

721 tons of NOX. 

b. NOX BART Review 

Wheelabrator has NOX control for 

both units that includes low-NOX

burners and Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction (SNCR). The current NOX

emission limit is 205 ppm (by volume 

at 7 percent oxygen dry basis, 24-hour 

arithmetic average). MassDEP believes 

that the low-NOX burners and SNCR are 

the most stringent control available for 

municipal waste combustors. At 

MassDEP’s request, the facility 

performed furnace gas temperature 

profiling and conducted SNCR 

optimization testing to determine the 

capability to further reduce NOX

emission while minimizing ammonia 

slip. The optimization test results 

indicated that a reduced NOX emission 

target of 185 ppm (dry, 7% O2) could be 

achieved with the existing SNCR 

system. Therefore Massachusetts 

determined that the NOX emission rate 

of 185 ppm (30-day average) for each of 

Wheelabrator’s units represents BART. 

c. SO2 BART Review 

Wheelabrator’s existing control 

technology for SO2 emissions includes a 

spray dry absorber (SDA) with lime 

slurry injection. Wheelabrator’s 

permitted SO2 emission limit is 29 ppm 

(by volume at 7 percent oxygen dry 

basis, 24-hour geometric mean). 

CALPUFF modeling suggests that 

visibility impacts from 2002 SO2

emissions from Wheelabrator—Saugus 

are below 0.1 dv on the worst day at any 

Class I area. Massachusetts determined 

that further controls for SO2 are not 

warranted given the minimal potential 

visibility improvement and that current 

controls are equivalent to federal 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards (40 CFR 

Part 60 Subpart Cb). 

d. PM BART Review 

Each of Wheelabrator’s units is 

equipped with 10-module fabric filters 

(baghouses) and is subject to a PM 

emission limit 27 mg/dscm or less at 7 

percent oxygen (dry basis). On March 

14, 2012, MassDEP issued an ECP 

Modified Final Approval for 

Wheelabrator that reduced its PM 

emission limit to 25 mg/dscm or less at 

7 percent oxygen (dry basis). 

Massachusetts determined that 

additional PM controls were not 

warranted given the additional cost of 

installation and the already strict 

controls in place at Wheelabrator. 

e. EPA Assessment 

EPA has reviewed the Massachusetts 

analysis and concluded it was 

conducted in a manner consistent with 

EPA’s BART Guidelines. The proposed 

NOX, PM, and SO2 limits meet the 

current federal Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) limits. See 

40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Cb (71 FR 

27324, May 10, 2006). The BART Rule 

states, ‘‘Unless there are new 

technologies subsequent to the MACT 

standards which would lead to costeffective increases in the level of 

control, you may rely on the MACT 

standards for purposes of BART.’’ (50 

FR 39164, (July 6, 2005)). The MACT 

standard for Large Municipal Waste 

Combustors was modified in 2006, with 

the standards taking effect in 2009. We 

are currently unaware of any new 

technology available that would require 

reevaluation of the cost-effectiveness of 

additional controls. EPA is proposing to 

find that the Massachusetts analysis and 

conclusions for the BART emission 

units located at Wheelabrator—Saugus 

are reasonable. 

6. Identification of All BART Source 

Categories Covered by the Alternative 

Program 

To address the BART requirement for 

the remaining sources subject to BART, 

Massachusetts opted to implement an 

‘‘Alternative to BART’’ measure. 

In crafting Massachusetts’ Alternative 

to BART demonstration, the State relied 

on: SO2 and NOX emission reductions 

required by 310 CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emissions 

Standards for Power Plants;’’ the 

retirement of Somerset Power; permit 

restrictions for Brayton Point, Salem 

Harbor, and Mount Tom Station that 

limits SO2 and/or NOX emissions; 310 

CMR 7.19, ‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for sources of 

Oxides of Nitrogen NOX;’’ and 

MassDEP’s proposed amendments to its 

low sulfur fuel oil regulation, which 

requires EGU’s that burn residual oil to 

limit the sulfur content of 0.5% by 

weight beginning July 1, 2014. 

The Massachusetts Alternative to 

BART includes emission reductions 

from all of the remaining BART-eligible 

EGUs, as well as, select EGUs 

determined to be too old to meet the 

definition of BART-eligible. 

7. Determination of the BART 

Benchmark 

In developing the BART benchmark,11

with one exception, States must follow 

the approach for making source-specific 

BART determinations under section 

51.308(e)(1). The one exception to this 

general approach is where the 

alternative program has been designed 

to meet requirements other than BART, 

such as being part of the State’s long 

term strategy to meet reasonable 

progress goals. In this case, States are 

not required to conduct a full BART 

analysis under 51.308(e)(1) for each 

source and may instead use simplifying 

assumptions in establishing a BART 

benchmark based on an analysis of what 

BART is likely to be for similar types of 

sources within a source category using 

category-wide or source-specific 

information as appropriate. Under either 

approach to establishing a BART 

benchmark, we believe that the 

presumptions for EGUs in the BART 

Guidelines should be used for 

comparison to a trading or other 

alternative program, unless the State 

determines that such presumptions are 

not appropriate for a particular EGU. 

See 71 FR 60619. Massachusetts’ 

program is part of the State’s long term 

strategy and even though Massachusetts 

had the option of using the less 

stringent EPA presumptive limits, the 

State opted to use the MANE–VU 

recommended BART emission limits for 

non-CAIR EGUs in setting the BART 

benchmark. These limits are listed in 

Table 2. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

12The Mount Tom amended Emission Control 

Plan can be found in Appendix EE of the February 

17, 2012 Proposed Revision to Massachusetts 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

13The Brayton Point amended Emission Control 

Plan can be found in Appendix GG of the February 

17, 2012 Proposed Revision to Massachusetts 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

14The Salem Harbor amended Emission Control 

Plan can be found in Appendix FF of the February 

17, 2012 Proposed Revision to Massachusetts 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

15Conservation Law Foundation v. Dominion 

Energy New England, Inc., Case No. 1:10–cv–11069 

(D. Mass. 2012), http://www.clf.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2012/02/Signed-Consent-Decree12_11.pdf. 

16Appendix HH of the Massachusetts February 

17, 2012 SIP submittal. 

TABLE 2—MANE–VU RECOMMENDED BART LIMITS

Category SO2 Limits NOX Limits 

Non-CAIR EGUs ................................................ Coal—95% control or 0.15 lb/MMBtu .............. In NOX SIP call area, extend use of controls 

to year round. 

Oil—95% control or 0.33 lb/MMBtu (0.3% fuel 

sulfur limit).

0.1–0.25 lb/MMBtu depending on coal and 

boiler type. 

8. Massachusetts’ SO2 Alternative BART 

Program 

The Massachusetts Alternative to 

BART is comprised of: 

• 310 CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emission Standards 

for Power Plants,’’ which establishes 

SO2 emission standards for certain 

EGUs. 

• Permit restrictions for Mount Tom 

Station, Brayton Point Station, and 

Salem Harbor that disallow the use of 

310 CMR 7.29 SO2 Early Reduction 

Credits and federal Acid Rain 

Allowances for compliance with 310 

CMR 7.29. 

• An annual cap of 300 tons of SO2

for Salem Harbor Unit 2, and a 

shutdown of Units 3 and 4 beginning 

June 1, 2014. 

• The retirement of Somerset Power 

in 2010. 

• MassDEP’s proposed low sulfur fuel 

oil regulation, which would require 

EGUs that burn residual oil to limit the 

sulfur content to 0.5% by weight 

beginning July 1, 2014. 

Massachusetts included previously 

adopted 310 CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emission 

Standards for Power Plants,’’ as part of 

its February 17, 2012 proposed Regional 

Haze SIP supplement. 310 CMR 7.29 

was adopted in 2001 as a means to 

reduce NOX, SO2, mercury (Hg), and 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the 

State’s largest fossil fueled EGUs. The 

rule established a two-phased schedule. 

The second phase became effective 

October 1, 2006. The Massachusetts 

Emission Standards for power plants 

establishes a facility-wide rolling 12- 

month SO2 emission rate of 3.0 pounds 

per megawatt-hour and a monthly 

average emission rate of 6.0 pounds per 

megawatt-hour. This regulation allows 

the use of SO2 Early Reduction Credits 

(on a 1 ton credit to 1 ton excess 

emission basis) and the use of federal 

Acid Rain SO2 Allowances (on a 3 ton 

allowance to 1 ton excess emission 

basis) for compliance with the 3.0 

pound per mega-watt hour emission 

rate. 310 CMR 7.29 applies to Brayton 

Point (Units 1, 2, 3, 4), Canal Station 

(Units 1 and 2), Mount Tom Station 

(Unit 1), Mystic Station (Units 4, 5, 6, 

7, 81, 82, 93, and 94), Salem Harbor 

Station (Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), and NRG 

Somerset (Unit 8). 

On May 15, 2009, MassDEP issued an 

amended Emission Control Plan Final 

Approval 12 for Mount Tom that 

prohibits the use of Early Reduction 

Credits (ERCs) and federal Acid Rain 

Allowances for compliance with 310 

CMR 7.29 after June 1, 2014. In a similar 

fashion, on February 16, 2012, at 

Brayton Point’s request, MassDEP 

issued an Amended Emission Control 

Plan Draft Approval 13 which prohibits 

the use of ERCs and federal Acid Rain 

Allowances for compliance with 310 

CMR 7.29 after June 1, 2014. 

On February 17, 2012, at Salem 

Harbor’s request, MassDEP proposed an 

Amended Emission Control Plan 14 that 

prohibits the use of ERCs and federal 

Acid Rain Allowances for compliance 

with 310 CMR 7.29, after June 1, 2014. 

The emission control plan also 

establishes an annual cap of 300 tons of 

SO2 for Salem Harbor 2 and the 

shutdown of Units 3 and 4 effective 

June 1, 2014. Per a consent decree,15

Salem Harbor Units 1 and 2 were 

removed from service as of December 

31, 2011, which means that these units 

can no longer generate electricity for the 

power grid. However, under the consent 

decree these units were not restricted 

from operating for other purposes. The 

consent decree therefore does not act as 

a federally enforceable limit on 

emissions from these units. MassDEP’s 

proposed permit restrictions will make 

the emission reductions from Salem 

Harbor federally enforceable. As such 

these reductions are not required under 

the consent decree and are included in 

Massachusetts’ Alternative to BART. 

Instead of complying with 310 CMR 

7.29, Somerset Power ceased operating 

in 2010, and on June 22, 2011, at 

Somerset Power’s request, MassDEP 

issued a letter that revoked all air 

approvals and permits for the facility 

and deemed all pending permit 

applications withdrawn.16

The final component of the 

Massachusetts Alternative to BART is 

the MassDEP proposed amendment to 

310 CMR 7.05, ‘‘Fuels All Districts,’’ to 

lower the allowable sulfur content of 

distillate oil and residual oil combusted 

by stationary sources. For residual oil, 

310 CMR 7.05 currently includes a 

range of sulfate content limits, from 

0.5% to 2.2%, depending on the area of 

the state. The proposed amendment 

would establish a 0.5% sulfur content 

limit for power plants as of July 1, 2014. 

Analysis of Alternative to BART for SO2

Table 3 shows the BART benchmark 

projected SO2 emissions for the BARTeligible units included in the alternative 

program. The emissions were calculated 

by multiplying the MANE–VU BART 

workgroup recommended BART SO2

emission rate in lb/MMBtu (see Table 2 

above) by each unit’s 2002 baseline heat 

input in MMBtu. Massachusetts 

determined that the BART benchmark 

emission reduction is 50,752 tons of SO2

(68,328 tons minus 17,576 tons). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30943 

TABLE 3—BART BENCHMARK FOR SO2

BART eligible facility Unit 

2002 SO2

emissions 

(tons) 

2002 Heat 

input 

(MMBtu) 

MANE–VU 

recommended 

SO2 BART 

emission rate 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

Estimated 

SO2 emissions 

(tons) 

Brayton Point ................................................................................... 1 9,254 17,000,579 0.15 1,275 

Brayton Point ................................................................................... 2 8,853 15,896,795 0.15 1,192 

Brayton Point ................................................................................... 3 19,450 36,339,809 0.15 2,725 

Brayton Point ................................................................................... 4 2,037 4,787,978 0.33 790 

Canal Station ................................................................................... 1 13,066 27,295,648 0.33 4,504 

Canal Station ................................................................................... 2 8,948 19,440,919 0.33 3,208 

Cleary Flood ..................................................................................... 8 39 92,567 0.33 15 

Cleary Flood ..................................................................................... 9 68 2,123,819 0.33 350 

Mystic ............................................................................................... 7 3,727 15,172,657 0.33 2,503 

Salem Harbor ................................................................................... 4 2,886 6,137,412 0.33 1,013 

Total .......................................................................................... ............ 68,328 ........................ ........................ 17,576 

Table 4 shows the Alternative to 

BART estimated SO2 emissions, which 

MassDEP calculated by multiplying the 

proposed low-sulfur fuel oil regulation 

SO2 emission rates in lbs/MMBtu by the 

2002 heat input in MMBtu, or by 

multiplying the 310 CMR 7.29 SO2

rolling 12-month emission rate in lbs/ 

MWh by the 2002 megawatt-hours 

electrical generation, and accounting for 

permit restrictions in effect at Mount 

Tom Station and proposed for Brayton 

Point and Salem Harbor, as well as the 

retirement of Somerset Power. MassDEP 

calculated that the Alternative to BART 

results in an estimated emission 

reduction of 54,986 tons from 2002 

emissions (89,254 tons minus 34,268). 

This reduction is 4,234 tons (54,986 

tons minus 50,752 tons) more than the 

calculated emission reduction from the 

BART benchmark. Massachusetts 

determined that its proposed 

Alternative to BART for SO2 would 

therefore result in more emissions 

reductions than would have been 

achieved through the application of 

source-specific BART. 

TABLE 4—ALTERNATIVE TO BART FOR SO2

Facility Unit 

2002 SO2

emissions 

(tons) 

2002 Heat input (MMBtu) or 

generation (MWh) 

Alternative BART emission rate 

(lbs/MMBtu or lbs/MWh) 

Estimated 

SO2 emissions 

(tons) 

Brayton Point ............................. 1 9,254 1,951,839 MWh ........................ 3.0 lbs/MWh .............................. 2,928 

Brayton Point ............................. 2 8,853 1,855,515 MWh ........................ 3.0 lbs/MWh .............................. 2,783 

Brayton Point ............................. 3 19,450 4,294,957 MWh ........................ 3.0 lbs/MWh .............................. 6,442 

Brayton Point ............................. 4 2,037 4,787,978 MMBtu ..................... 0.56 lbs/MMBtu ......................... 1,341 

Canal Station ............................. 1 13,066 27,295,648 MMBtu ................... 0.56 lbs/MMBtu ......................... 7,643 

Canal Station ............................. 2 8,948 19,440,919 MMBtu ................... 0.56 lbs/MMBtu ......................... 5,443 

Cleary Flood .............................. 8 39 92,567 MMBtu .......................... 0.56 lbs/MMBtu ......................... 25 

Cleary Flood .............................. 9 68 2,123,819 MMBtu ..................... 0.56 lbs/MMBtu ......................... 595 

Mount Tom ................................ 1 5,282 1,047,524 MWh ........................ 3.0 lbs/MWh .............................. 1,571 

Mystic ........................................ 7 3,727 15,172,657 MMBtu ................... 0.56 lbs/MMBtu ......................... 4,248 

Salem Harbor ............................ 1 3,425 631,606 MWh ........................... 3.0 lbs/MWh .............................. 947 

Salem Harbor ............................ 2 2,821 527,939 MWh ........................... Cap ........................................... 300 

Salem Harbor ............................ 3 4,999 974,990 MWh ........................... Retired ...................................... 0 

Salem Harbor ............................ 4 2,886 6,137,412 MMBtu ..................... Retired ...................................... 0 

Somerset ................................... 8 4,399 8,910,087 MMBtu ..................... Retired ...................................... 0 

Total ................................... ............ 89,254 ................................................... ................................................... 34,268 

Section 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides 

a process for determining whether an 

alternative measure makes greater 

reasonable progress than would be 

achieved through the installation and 

operation of BART. If the geographic 

distribution of emission reductions is 

similar between an alternative measure 

and BART, the comparison of the two 

measures may be made on the basis of 

emissions alone. The alternative 

measure may be deemed to make greater 

progress than BART if it results in 

greater emission reductions than 

requiring sources subject to BART to 

install, operate, and maintain BART. In 

this case, the Alternative to BART 

achieves greater emission reductions 

than BART. Aside from Mount Tom, all 

of the Alternative to BART sources are 

coastally located EGUs in Eastern 

Massachusetts—two of which, Brayton 

Point and Somerset, are located in the 

same municipality. Massachusetts 

concluded that the geographic 

distribution of emission reductions is 

not significantly different than the 

application of source specific BART. 

Therefore, Massachusetts determined 

that its Alternative to BART for SO2

would result in greater reasonable 

progress than application of sourcespecific BART. 

9. Massachusetts’ NOX Alternative 

BART Program 

The Massachusetts Alternative to 

BART for NOX relies on: 

• 310 CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emissions 

Standards for Power Plants,’’ which 

establishes NOX emissions limits for 

certain EGUs. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

17The Salem Harbor amended Emission Control 

Plan can be found in Appendix FF of the February 

17, 2012 Proposed Revision to Massachusetts 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

18Appendix HH of the Massachusetts February 

17, 2012 SIP submittal. 

• An annual cap of 276 tons of NOX

for Salem Harbor Unit 1 and an annual 

cap of 50 tons of NOX for Unit 2, and 

a shutdown of Units 3 and 4 beginning 

June 1, 2014. 

• The retirement of Somerset Power 

in 2010. 

• 310 CMR 7.19, ‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

for Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen NOX,’’ 

which establishes NOX emission 

standards for various sources, including 

EGUs. 

MassDEP’s existing regulation 310 

CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emission Standards for 

Power Plants’’ establishes a rolling 12- 

month average NOX emission rate of 1.5 

lbs/MWh and a monthly average 

emission rate of 3 lbs/MWh. 310 CMR 

7.29 applies to Brayton Point (Units 1, 

2, 3, 4), Canal Station (Units 1 and 2), 

Mount Tom Station (Unit 1), Mystic 

Station (Units 4, 5, 6, 7, 81, 82, 93, and 

94), Salem Harbor Station (Units 1, 2, 3, 

and 4), and NRG Somerset (Unit 8). 

On February 17, 2012, at Salem 

Harbor’s request, MassDEP proposed an 

Amended ECP Approval 17 that requires 

an annual cap of 276 tons of NOX for 

Salem Harbor Unit 1 and an annual cap 

of 50 tons of NOX for Unit 2, and a 

shutdown of Units 3 and 4 beginning 

June 1, 2014. While these units are 

subject to a consent decree that requires 

them to be removed from electric 

generation service, the consent decree 

does not prevent these units from 

operation other than electric generation 

service. Therefore, Massachusetts’ 

proposed Amended ECP Approval will 

result in an enforceable limitation on 

emissions from Salem Harbor in excess 

of currently required reductions. 

Somerset Power ceased operating in 

2010, and on June 22, 2011, at 

Somerset’s Power’s request, MassDEP 

issued a letter 18 that revoked all air 

approvals and permits for the facility 

and deemed all pending permit 

applications withdrawn. 

MassDEP’s existing regulation 310 

CMR 7.19 establishes NOX emission 

rates for various stationary sources, 

including EGUs. Under 310 CMR 7.19, 

Cleary Flood Units 8 and 9 are subject 

to a NOX emission rate of 0.28 lbs/ 

MMBtu. Mystic Unit 7 is subject to a 

NOX emission rate of 0.25 lb/MMBtu. 

Mystic is also subject to 310 CMR 7.29 

on a facility-wide basis. However, 

Mystic Unit 7 could exceed the 310 

CMR 7.29 NOX rate of 1.5 lbs/MWh 

while the facility as a whole complies 

with the rate because the other units at 

Mystic are natural gas-fired with low 

NOX emissions, and therefore the 310 

CMR 7.19 unit-specific NOX rate of 0.25 

lbs/MMBtu is the controlling factor for 

Unit 7. 

Analysis of the Alternative BART 

Program for NOX

Table 5 shows the BART benchmark 

NOX emissions for the BART-eligible 

units, which were calculated by 

multiplying the lowest, more stringent 

MANE–VU BART workgroup 

recommended emission rate of 0.1 lb/ 

MMBtu by the 2002 heat input in 

MMBtu. The BART benchmark results 

in a calculated emission reduction of 

12,820 tons of NOX (20,034 tons minus 

7,214 tons) from 2002 emissions. 

TABLE 5—BART BENCHMARK FOR NOX

BART-eligible facility Unit 

2002 NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

2002 Heat 

input 

(MMBtu) 

MANE–VU 

recommended 

BART NOX

emission rate 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

Estimated 

NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

Brayton Point ................................................................................... 1 2,513 17,000,579 0.10 850 

Brayton Point ................................................................................... 2 2,270 15,896,795 0.10 795 

Brayton Point ................................................................................... 3 7,335 36,339,809 0.10 1,817 

Brayton Point ................................................................................... 4 552 4,787,978 0.10 239 

Canal Station ................................................................................... 1 3,339 27,295,648 0.10 1,365 

Canal Station ................................................................................... 2 2,260 19,440,919 0.10 972 

Cleary Flood ..................................................................................... 8 12 92,567 0.10 5 

Cleary Flood ..................................................................................... 9 161 2,123,819 0.10 106 

Mystic ............................................................................................... 7 805 15,172,657 0.10 759 

Salem Harbor ................................................................................... 4 787 6,137,412 0.10 307 

Total .......................................................................................... ............ 20,034 ........................ ........................ 7,214 

Table 6 shows the Alternative to 

BART NOX emissions, which were 

calculated by multiplying MassDEP’s 

310 CMR 7.29 NOX emission rate in lb/ 

MWh and 310 CMR 7.19 NOX emission 

rate in lb/MMBtu by the 2002 electricity 

generation in MWh and 2002 heat input 

in MMBtu respectively, and accounting 

for permit restrictions proposed for 

Salem Harbor and the retirement of 

Somerset Power. The Alternative to 

BART results in an emission reduction 

of 13,116 tons (26,455 tons minus 

13,339 tons) from 2002 emissions. The 

estimated NOX reductions from the 

Alternative to BART are 296 tons 

(13,116 tons minus 12,820 tons) more 

than estimated reductions from BART 

alone. Massachusetts determined that its 

proposed Alternative to BART for NOX

would therefore result in more 

emissions reductions than would have 

been achieved through the application 

of source-specific BART. 

TABLE 6—ALTERNATIVE TO BART FOR NOX

Facility Unit 

2002 NOX

emission 

(tons) 

2002 heat input (MMBtu) or 

generation (MWh) 

Alternative BART emission rate 

(lbs/MMBtu or lbs/MWh) 

Estimated 

NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

Brayton Point ............................. 1 2,513 1,951,839 MWh ........................ 1.5 lbs/MWh .............................. 1,464 

Brayton Point ............................. 2 2,270 1,855,515 MWh ........................ 1.5 lbs/MWh .............................. 1,392 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30945 

19 In addition, because the SO2 and NOX

Alternatives to BART do not involve emissions 

trading between sources, review under EPA’s 

Guidance on Economic Incentive Programs (EIPs) is 

not required. Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs (2001), http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf. 

TABLE 6—ALTERNATIVE TO BART FOR NOX—Continued 

Facility Unit 

2002 NOX

emission 

(tons) 

2002 heat input (MMBtu) or 

generation (MWh) 

Alternative BART emission rate 

(lbs/MMBtu or lbs/MWh) 

Estimated 

NOX

emissions 

(tons) 

Brayton Point ............................. 3 7,335 4,294,957 MWh ........................ 1.5 lbs/MWh .............................. 3,221 

Brayton Point ............................. 4 552 401,305 MWh ........................... 1.5 lbs/MWh .............................. 301 

Canal Station ............................. 1 3,339 2,945,578 MWh ........................ 1.5 lbs/MWh .............................. 2,209 

Canal Station ............................. 2 2,260 1,910,079 MWh ........................ 1.5 lbs/MWh .............................. 1,433 

Cleary Flood .............................. 8 12 92,567 MMBtu .......................... 0.28 lbs/MMBtu ......................... 13 

Cleary Flood .............................. 9 161 2,123,819 MMBtu ..................... 0.28 lbs/MMBtu ......................... 297 

Mount Tom ................................ 1 1,969 1,047,524 MWh ........................ 1.5 lbs/MWh .............................. 786 

Mystic ........................................ 7 805 15,172,657 MMBtu ................... 0.25 lbs/MMBtu ......................... 1,897 

Salem Harbor ............................ 1 920 631,606 MWh ........................... Cap ........................................... 276 

Salem Harbor ............................ 2 755 527,939 MWh ........................... Cap ........................................... 50 

Salem Harbor ............................ 3 1,331 974,990 MWh ........................... Retired ...................................... 0 

Salem Harbor ............................ 4 787 508,342 MWh ........................... Retired ...................................... 0 

Somerset ................................... 8 1,445 8,910,087 MMBtu ..................... Retired ...................................... 0 

Total ................................... ............ 26,455 ................................................... ................................................... 13,339 

As with SO2, the Alternative to BART 

achieves greater NOX emission 

reductions than source by source BART. 

Massachusetts determined that the 

geographic distribution of the emission 

reductions is not significantly different 

than the application of source specific 

BART. Therefore, Massachusetts 

determined that its Alternative to BART 

would result in greater reasonable 

progress than application of sourcespecific BART. 

10. EPA’s Assessment of Massachusetts’ 

Alternative to BART Demonstration 

EPA is proposing to find that 

Massachusetts has demonstrated that 

the Alternative to BART achieves 

greater SO2 and NOX emission 

reductions than expected from source 

by source BART. EPA is also proposing 

to find that the geographic distribution 

of the emission reductions from the 

Alternative to BART is not significantly 

different to the geographic distribution 

expected from source by source BART 

emission reductions, therefore visibility 

modeling is not required, as noted in the 

Alternative to BART Rule. See 71 FR 

60612.19 Thus, EPA is proposing to find 

that the SO2 and NOX Alternative to 

BART measures meet the requirements 

of the Alternative to BART Rule. 

11. Massachusetts’ PM BART 

Determinations 

Massachusetts’ proposed Alternative 

to BART does not cover PM10 emissions. 

An overview of 2002 and 2009 PM10

emissions and PM controls at the EGU 

BART sources is contained in Table 7. 

Collectively, these facilities emitted 

1,531 tons of PM10 in 2002 that 

diminished visibility in the New 

England Class I areas by 0.032–0.037 

deciviews. Through installation of 

controls for other purposes, these 

facilities have significantly reduced PM 

emissions, so that in 2009 these 

facilities emitted a total of 109 tons of 

PM10. 

TABLE 7—MASSACHUSETTS PM10 BART SOURCES, EMISSIONS, AND CONTROLS

Source Unit PM10

dv 

2002 PM10

emissions 

(tpy) 

2009 PM10

emissions 

(tpy) 

PM controls 

PM emission 

limits 

lbs/MMBtu as 

of 2009 

Brayton Point ............................ 1 0.031, 0.026 386 39 Fabric Filter Baghouse ............. 0.08 

Brayton Point ............................ 2 ........................ ........................ ........................ Fabric Filter Baghouse ............. 0.08 

Brayton Point ............................ 3 ........................ ........................ ........................ Fabric Filter Baghouse 

(Planned).

0.08 

Brayton Point ............................ 4 0.000, 0.000 6 0 ESP ........................................... 0.03 

Canal Station ............................ 1 0.000, 0.000 672 60 ESP ........................................... 0.02 

Canal Station ............................ 2 ........................ ........................ ........................ ESP ........................................... 0.02 

Mystic Station ........................... 7 0.002, 0.003 131 4 ESP ........................................... 0.05 

Salem Harbor ............................ 4 0.001, 0.001 316 0 ESP ........................................... 0.04 

Cleary Flood ............................. 8 0.003, 0.002 20 6 None ......................................... 0.12 

Cleary Flood ............................. 9 ........................ ........................ ........................ None ......................................... 0.12 

CALPUFF modeling of the 2002 PM 

emissions at these facilities shows an 

impact that was well below the 0.1 dv 

on the worst day at affected Class I 

areas, for each unit and cumulatively, 

which is the level MANE–VU has 

identified that the degree of visibility 

improvement is so small (<0.1 dv) that 

no reasonable weighting of factors could 

justify additional controls under BART. 

The visibility would be even lower 

today based on the emission reductions 

achieved since 2002. Massachusetts 

therefore determined that no additional 

controls are warranted for primary 

PM10. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s Assessment 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Massachusetts’ determination that 

further primary PM control beyond the 

controls already implemented by 

Massachusetts’ BART-eligible units is 

not warranted at this time as such 

measures are not cost-effective and the 

visibility contribution from 

Massachusetts’ BART-eligible units with 

respect to PM is insignificant. 

12. BART Enforceability 

The BART emission limits referenced 

above are enforceable through a variety 

of mechanisms. Specifically, MassDEP’s 

310 CMR 7.19, ‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) of Sources 

of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX),’’ which 

establishes NOX emission rates for 

various stationary sources, including 

EGUs, was previously approved into the 

Massachusetts SIP on December 27, 

2000. See 65 FR 81743. The PM limits 

for Brayton Point (Units 1, 2 3, and 4), 

Canal Station (Units 1 and 2), Mystic 

Station (Unit 7), and Salem Harbor (Unit 

4) are enforceable by permit conditions 

issued under Massachusetts’ federally 

approved permit process. In addition, 

the PM limits for Cleary Flood (Units 8 

and 9) are enforceable via 310 CMR 

7.02, ‘‘Plans and Approvals and 

Emission Limitations,’’ which was 

previously approved into the 

Massachusetts SIP on October 28, 1972. 

See 37 FR 23085. Finally, a number of 

requirements were included in the 

MassDEP February 17, 2012 proposal. 

Pursuant to MassDEP’s request for 

parallel processing of the proposed SIP 

revision, EPA is proposing approval of 

Massachusetts’ Final ECP Approval— 

Wheelabrator Saugus, Amended ECP for 

Brayton Point, Amended ECP for Salem 

Harbor Station, Amended ECP for 

Mount Tom Station, Amended ECP for 

Somerset Station, and previously 

adopted 310 CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emission 

Standards for Power Plants,’’ and 

proposed Amendments to 310 CMR 

7.05, ‘‘Fuels all Districts’’ and 310 CMR 

7.00, ‘‘Definitions.’’ After the State 

submits the final version of the February 

17, 2012 proposed SIP revision 

(including a response to all public 

comments raised during the State’s 

public participation process), EPA will 

prepare a final rulemaking notice. If the 

State’s formal SIP submittal contains 

changes which occur after EPA’s notice 

of proposed rulemaking, such changes 

must be described in EPA’s final 

rulemaking action. If the State’s changes 

are significant, then EPA must decide 

whether to finalize approval with a 

description of the changes, re-propose 

our action with regard to the State’s SIP 

submittal, or take other action as may be 

appropriate. 

C. Long-Term Strategy 

As described in Section II.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of 

State-specific control measures relied on 

by the State to obtain its share of 

emission reductions to support the 

RPGs established by Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey, 

the nearby Class I area States. 

Massachusetts’ LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from federal, 

State, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the baseline period 

starting in 2002 until 2018. 

Massachusetts participated in the 

MANE–VU regional strategy 

development process and supported a 

regional approach towards deciding 

which control measures to pursue for 

regional haze, which was based on 

technical analyses documented in the 

following reports: 

(a) The Contribution Report; (b) 

Assessment of Reasonable Progress for 

Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I 

Areas (available at www.marama.org/ 

visibility/RPG/FinalReport/ 

RPGFinalReport_070907.pdf); (c) FiveFactor Analysis of BART-Eligible 

Sources: Survey of Options for 

Conducting BART Determinations 

(available at www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-final-memo-06-28- 

07.pdf); and (d) Assessment of Control 

Technology Options for BART-Eligible 

Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, 

Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and 

Paper, and Pulp Facilities (available at 

www.nescaum.org/documents/bartcontrol-assessment.pdf). 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The State-wide emissions inventories 

used by MANE–VU in its regional haze 

technical analyses were developed by 

MARAMA for MANE–VU with 

assistance from Massachusetts. The 

2018 emissions inventory was 

developed by projecting 2002 emissions 

forward based on assumptions regarding 

emissions growth due to projected 

increases in economic activity and 

emissions reductions expected from 

federal and State regulations. MANE– 

VU’s emissions inventories included 

estimates of NOX, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, 

VOC, and NH3. The BART guidelines 

direct States to exercise judgment in 

deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair 

visibility in their Class I area(s). As 

discussed further in Section III.C.3 

below, MANE–VU demonstrated that 

anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are 

the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. 

It was also determined that the total 

ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU 

region are extremely small. 

MANE–VU developed emissions 

inventories for four inventory source 

classifications: (1) Stationary point 

sources, (2) stationary area sources, (3) 

non-road mobile sources, and (4) onroad mobile sources. The New York 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation also developed an 

inventory of biogenic emissions for the 

entire MANE–VU region. Stationary 

point sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. Non-road mobile 

sources are equipment that can move 

but do not use the roadways. On-road 

mobile source emissions are 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources are natural sources like 

trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay 

of plants. Stationary point sources 

emission data is tracked at the facility 

level. For all other source types, 

emissions are summed on the county 

level. 

There are many federal and State 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and Massachusetts 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the baseline period and 2018. 

Emission reductions from these control 

programs in the MANE–VU region were 

projected to achieve substantial 

visibility improvement by 2018 at all of 

the MANE–VU Class I areas. To assess 

emissions reductions from ongoing air 

pollution control programs, BART, and 

reasonable progress goals, MANE–VU 

developed 2018 emissions projections 

called ‘‘Best and Final.’’ The emissions 

inventory provided by the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the 

Best and Final 2018 projections is based 

on expected control requirements. 

Massachusetts relied on emission 

reductions from the following ongoing 

and expected air pollution control 

programs as part of the State’s long term 

strategy. For electrical generating units 

(EGUs), Massachusetts relied on 310 

CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emissions Standards for 

Power Plants’’ which limits SO2 and 

NOX emissions from the six largest 

fossil fuel-fired power plants in 

Massachusetts. Massachusetts also 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30947 

relied on the following controls on nonEGU point sources in estimating 2018 

emissions inventories: NOX SIP Call 

Phases I and II; NOX Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

in 1-hour Ozone SIP; VOC 2-year, 4- 

year, 7-year and 10-year Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Standards; Combustion Turbine and 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engine (RICE) MACT; and Industrial 

Boiler/Process Heater MACT (also 

known as the Industrial Boiler MACT). 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

vacated and remanded the Industrial 

Boiler MACT Rule. NRDC v. EPA, 

489F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007). This 

MACT was vacated since it was directly 

affected by the vacatur and remand of 

the Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incinerator (CISWI) definition 

rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur 

on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and 

issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 

(76 FR 15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA 

stayed the effective date of the 

Industrial Boiler MACT pending review 

by the D.C. Circuit or the completion of 

EPA’s reconsideration of the rule. See 

76 FR 28662. 

On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a 

proposed reconsideration of the MACT 

standards for existing and new boilers at 

major (76 FR 80598) and area (76 FR 

80532) source facilities, and for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 

9, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia vacated EPA’s stay 

of the effectiveness date of the Industrial 

Boiler MACT, reinstating the original 

effective date and therefore requiring 

compliance with the current rule in 

2014. Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civ. No. 

11–1278, slip op. (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012). 

Even though Massachusetts’ modeling 

is based on the old Industrial Boiler 

MACT limits, Massachusetts’ modeling 

conclusions are unlikely to be affected 

because the expected reductions in SO2

and PM resulting from the vacated 

MACT rule are a relatively small 

component of the Massachusetts 

inventory and the expected emission 

reductions from the final MACT rule are 

comparable to those modeled. In 

addition, the new MACT rule requires 

compliance by 2014 and therefore the 

expected emission reductions will be 

achieved prior to the end of the first 

implementation period in 2018. Thus, 

EPA does not expect that differences 

between the old and revised Industrial 

Boiler MACT emission limits would 

affect the adequacy of the existing 

Massachusetts regional haze SIP. If there 

is a need to address discrepancies 

between projected emissions reductions 

from the old Industrial Boiler MACT 

and the Industrial Boiler MACT 

finalized in March 2011, we expect 

Massachusetts to do so in its 5-year 

progress report. 

Controls on area sources expected by 

2018 include: VOC rules for consumer 

products (310 CMR 7.25(12)); VOC 

control measures for architectural and 

industrial maintenance coatings (310 

CMR 7.25(11)) and solvent cleaning (310 

CMR 7.18(8)); VOC control measures for 

cutback asphalt paving (310 CMR 

7.18(9)); and VOC control measures for 

portable fuel containers (contained in 

EPA’s Mobile Source Air Toxics rule). 

Controls on mobile sources expected 

by 2018 include: enhanced inspection 

and maintenance (I/M) inspection for 

1984 and new vehicles (310 CMR 

60.02); Federal On-Board Refueling 

Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Rule; Federal 

Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Standards and Gasoline Sulfur 

Requirements; Federal Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engine Emission Standards for 

Trucks and Buses; and Federal Emission 

Standards for Large Industrial SparkIgnition Engines and Recreation 

Vehicles. 

Controls on non-road sources 

expected by 2018 include the following 

federal regulations: Control of Air 

Pollution: Determination of Significance 

for Nonroad Sources and Emission 

Standards for New Nonroad 

Compression Ignition Engines at or 

above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306, June 

17, 1994); Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

(63 FR 56967, Oct. 23, 1998); Control of 

Emissions from Nonroad Large SparkIgnition Engines and Recreational 

Engines (67 FR 68241, Nov. 8, 2002); 

and Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

and Fuels (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004). 

Tables 8 and 9 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for 

Massachusetts. The 2018 estimated 

emissions include emissions growth as 

well as emission reductions due to 

ongoing emission control strategies and 

reasonable progress goals. 

TABLE 8—2002 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MASSACHUSETTS

[Tons per year] 

Category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................... 5,647 45,590 4,161 5,852 1,526 101,049 

Area .......................................................... 159,753 34,371 43,203 191,369 16,786 25,585 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 57,186 143,368 2,410 3,408 5,499 4,399 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 56,749 42,769 3,226 3,531 28 3,791 

Biogenics .................................................. 113,957 1,257 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Total .................................................. 393,292 267,355 53,000 204,160 23,839 134,824 

TABLE 9—2018 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MASSACHUSETTS

[Tons per year] 

Category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................... 10,902 40,458 6,827 9,137 1,622 55,878 

Area .......................................................... 134,963 36,199 31,237 82,027 19,552 1,804 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 17,056 22,813 840 893 5,817 1,937 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 36,306 27,040 2,052 2,246 36 442 

Biogenics .................................................. 113,958 1,257 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Total .................................................. 313,185 127,767 40,956 94,303 27,027 60,061 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast States and the 

District of Columbia. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. MANE–VU used 

the following modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 

prognostic meteorological model 

routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and 

regional haze regulatory modeling 

studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system 

is an emissions modeling system that 

generates hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs of mobile, non-road 

mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic 

emission sources for photochemical grid 

models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. 

• Air Quality Model: The Regional 

Model for Aerosols and Deposition 

(REMSAD), is a Eulerian grid model that 

was primarily used to determine the 

attribution of sulfate species in the 

Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging 

scheme. 

• Air Quality Model: The California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a 

non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model 

used to access the contribution of 

individual States’ emissions to sulfate 

levels at selected Class I receptor sites. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 

MANE–VU States (Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) and the District of 

Columbia and States adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

km grid cells that covers the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. Selection of a representative 

period of meteorology is crucial for 

evaluating baseline air quality 

conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU States’ modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 

2007 (EPA–454/B–07–002, available at 

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/

guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf), and 

EPA document, Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, August 2005 and updated 

November 2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001, 

available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/

eidocs/eiguid/index.html) (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s Modeling 

Guidance’’). 

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts provided the appropriate 

supporting documentation for all 

required analyses used to determine the 

State’s LTS. The technical analyses and 

modeling used to support the LTS are 

consistent with EPA’s RHR, and interim 

and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA 

is proposing to find the MANE–VU 

technical modeling to support the LTS 

is acceptable because the modeling 

system was chosen and used according 

to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees 

with the MANE–VU model performance 

procedures and results, and that CMAQ, 

REMSAD, and CALPUFF are 

appropriate tools for the regional haze 

assessments for the Massachusetts LTS 

and regional haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility 

and air quality impacts from various 

groups of emissions and pollutant 

scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 

percent worst visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s 

contribution assessment demonstrated 

that sulfate is the major contributor to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in the Northeast and MidAtlantic Region. Sulfate particles 

commonly account for more than 50 

percent of particle-related light 

extinction at northeastern Class I areas 

on the clearest days and for as much as, 

or more than, 80 percent on the haziest 

days. For example, at the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge Class I area 

(the MANE–VU Class I area with the 

greatest visibility impairment), on the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, sulfate accounted for 66 

percent of the particle extinction. After 

sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently 

accounts for the next largest fraction of 

light extinction. Organic carbon 

accounted for 13 percent of light 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 

light extinction. On the best visibility 

days, sulfate accounts for 50 percent of 

the particle related visibility extinction. 

Organic carbon accounts for the next 

largest contribution of 40 percent of the 

visibility impairment on the clearest 

days. Nitrate, elemental carbon, and fine 

soil typically contribute less than 10 

percent of the visibility impairment 

mass on the clearest days. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30949 

20See Appendix E—‘‘Top Electrical Generating 

Unit List’’ of the Massachusetts SIP submittal for a 

complete listing of the 167 stacks. 

21http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/ 

20111216MATSfinal.pdf. 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach would 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. 

4. Meeting the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

Since the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts does not have a Class I 

area, it is not required to establish RPGs. 

However, as a MANE–VU member State, 

Massachusetts adopted the ‘‘Statement 

of MANE–VU Concerning a Request for 

a Course of Action by States Within 

MANE–VU Toward Assuring 

Reasonable Progress’’ on June 7, 2007. 

This document included four emission 

management strategies that will provide 

for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility at the 

MANE–VU Class I areas. These 

emission management strategies are 

collectively known as the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask,’’ and include: (a) Timely 

implementation of BART requirements; 

(b) a 90 percent reduction in SO2

emissions from each of the EGU stacks 

identified by MANE–VU comprising a 

total of 167 stacks; 20 (c) adoption of a 

low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (d) 

continued evaluation of other control 

measures to reduce SO2 and NOX

emissions. 

a. Timely Implementation of BART 

Massachusetts will be controlling its 

BART sources through the application 

of source-specific BART or its 

Alternative to BART. The sourcespecific BART determinations and the 

Alternative to BART are discussed in 

detail in Section III.B. Massachusetts 

has requested parallel processing of its 

February 17, 2012 proposal to make 

several of the emission reductions 

expected from the Alternative to BART 

federally enforceable. 

b. Ninety Percent Reduction in SO2

Emissions From Each of the EGU Stacks 

Identified by MANE–VU Comprising a 

Total of 167 Stacks 

Massachusetts is home to five sources 

with a total of 10 of the 167 EGU stacks 

which have been identified by MANE– 

VU as top contributors to visibility 

impairment in any of the MANE–VU 

Class I areas. These sources are Brayton 

Point (Units 1–3), Canal Station (Units 

1–2), Mount Tom Station (Unit 1), 

Salem Harbor (Units 1, 3, and 4), and 

Somerset Power (Unit 8). Each of these 

facilities is subject to MassDEP’s 310 

CMR 7.29, which limits SO2 emissions 

facility-wide. 

Several of the Massachusetts EGUs 

already have installed SO2 controls or 

are planning additional SO2 controls to 

help them meet 310 CMR 7.29 limits. 

Brayton Point has installed spray dryer 

absorbers on Units 1 and 2 and plans to 

operate a dry scrubber on Unit 3 starting 

in 2012. Mount Tom Station has 

installed a dry scrubber. Salem Harbor 

plans to shut down all units by 2014. 

Somerset Power shut down in 2010. 

Canal Station is using lower sulfur oil 

to comply with 310 CMR 7.29, and will 

be subject to MassDEP’s proposed low 

sulfur oil regulation. 

Table 10 shows that SO2 emissions 

were reduced by 72% from 2002 to 2011 

at the targeted units. Additional 

reductions will occur in the 2012–2014 

timeframe as the Salem Harbor units 

retire and the Brayton Unit 3 scrubber 

becomes operational. 

TABLE 10—MASSACHUSETTS TARGETED EGUS

Facility Unit 2002 SO2

emissions 

2011 SO2

emissions 

2018 Projected SO2

emissions 

(conservative) 

2018 Projected SO2

emissions 

(likely) 

2018 Projected SO2

emissions 

(90% target) 

Brayton Point ....................................................... 1 9,254 4,298 2,928 1,700 925 

Brayton Point ....................................................... 2 8,853 3,535 2,783 1,590 885 

Brayton Point ....................................................... 3 19,450 10,769 6,442 3,634 1,945 

Canal Station ....................................................... 1 13,066 99 7,643 1,069 1,307 

Canal Station ....................................................... 2 8,948 29 5,443 1,479 895 

Mt Tom ................................................................. 1 5,282 129 1,571 1,033 528 

Salem Harbor ....................................................... 1 3,425 893 0 0 343 

Salem Harbor ....................................................... 3 4,999 2,344 0 0 500 

Salem Harbor ....................................................... 4 2,886 69 0 0 289 

Somerset .............................................................. 8 4,399 0 0 0 440 

Total .............................................................. ............ 80,562 22,165 26,811 10,505 8,057 

Reduction ............................................................. ............ ........................ 59,396 53,751 70,057 72,505 

Percent Reduction ............................................... ............ ........................ 72% 67% 87% 90% 

MassDEP believes that there will be 

further emissions reductions at the 

targeted units as a result of EPA’s 

recently issued Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS) rule.21 MATS gives 

coal units with scrubbers a compliance 

option to meet an SO2 emissions rate of 

0.2 lbs/MMBtu as an alternative to a 

hydrogen chloride emissions rate, 

which is more stringent than MassDEP’s 

310 CMR 7.29 annual SO2 emissions 

rate (3.0 lbs/MWh, which is roughly 

equivalent to 0.3 lbs/MMBtu). Brayton 

Point and Mt. Tom Station may choose 

this option for their coal units, thereby 

further reducing their permitted SO2

emissions. 

To be subject to MATS in a given 

year, an EGU must fire coal or oil for 

more than 10 percent of the average 

annual heat input during the 3 previous 

consecutive calendar years, or for more 

than 15 percent of the annual heat input 

during any one of the 3 previous 

calendar years. This provision provides 

an incentive to Canal Unit 2, which can 

burn oil or natural gas, to limit the 

amount of oil it burns so that it is not 

subject to MATS, which would result in 

future SO2 emissions continuing to be 

lower than permitted emissions. MATS 

also establishes work practices (versus 

emissions rates) for oil-fired units with 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

22The 67% projection is less than the 72% 

reduction already achieved in 2011 because it 

assumes the same unit utilization as in the 2002 

baseline year, whereas the reduction achieved in 

2011 is due in part to low utilization of several 

units, including Canal Units 1 and 2 and Mt. Tom 

Station. 23Appendix G on Massachusetts December 30, 

2011 SIP submittal. 24Appendix W, Table 1 of the Massachusetts 

December 30, 2011 SIP submittal. 

25Two additional EGUs beyond the ‘‘167 Stack’’ 

Targeted EGUs were projected to have 2018 SO2

emissions totaling 3,588 tons, which would bring 

the total 2018 emissions to 30,399 tons, which is 

still well below the 45,941 tons used in the 2018 

modeling. 

26Massachusetts Chapter 353 of the Acts of 1974. 

an annual capacity factor of less than 

8% of its maximum heat input. Canal 

Station Unit 1’s utilization was 1% in 

2011, and thus has an incentive to 

remain below 8%, which would result 

in future SO2 emissions continuing to be 

lower than its permitted emissions. 

Even without MATS, oil-fired 

combustion at Canal Units 1 and 2 is 

expected to be low well into the future 

because of the high cost of oil relative 

to natural gas. This cost differential is 

why Canal’s utilization currently is very 

low. 

Taking into account 310 CMR 7.29 

SO2 emission rates, permit restrictions 

and retirements, and MassDEP’s 

proposed low-sulfur oil regulation, 

MassDEP conservatively projects SO2

emissions in 2018 would represent at 

least a 67% reduction in SO2 emissions 

compared to 2002 emissions.22

However, taking into account EPA’s 

MATS, including the SO2 compliance 

option and incentives for low utilization 

of oil-fired units, MassDEP believes 

there is a likelihood that SO2 emissions 

in 2018 will be up to 87% lower than 

2002 emissions. Therefore, 

Massachusetts believes that existing 

regulatory programs will lead to SO2

emission reductions that fulfill the 

MANE–VU Targeted EGU Strategy. 

Massachusetts also notes that even the 

conservative projection of a 67% 

reduction in SO2 emissions from the 

targeted EGUs is more than enough to 

meet the level of SO2 emissions 

projected for Massachusetts EGUs 

which was used in the MANE–VU 2018 

regional modeling, as documented in 

NESCAUM’s 2018 Visibility 

Projections.23 Emission results from the 

2018 Inter-Regional Planning 

Organization CAIR Case Integrated 

Planning Model v.2.1.9 estimated 

17,486 tons of SO2 emissions for 

Massachusetts.24 However, MANE–VU 

planners recognized that CAIR allows 

for emission trading. MANE–VU 

decided that projected emissions should 

be increased to represent the 

implementation of the strategy for the 

167 stacks within the limits of CAIR 

program, and therefore increased the 

projected emissions from states subject 

to CAIR cap and trade. For 

Massachusetts, this modification 

resulted in projected SO2 emission of 

45,941 tons SO2 for Massachusetts. As 

shown in Table 10, MassDEP’s 

conservative 67% reduction projection 

for targeted EGU results in 2018 

emissions of 26,811 tons SO2,25 well 

below the 45,941 tons of SO2 that is 

needed to meet the modeled 2018 

reasonable progress goals for the Class I 

areas Massachusetts affects. 

c. Massachusetts Low Sulfur Fuel Oil 

Strategy 

The MANE–VU low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy includes: Phase I reduction of 

distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight 

(500 parts per million (ppm)) by no later 

than 2014; Phase II reductions of #4 

residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight 

by no later than 2018; #6 residual oil to 

0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than 

2018; and further reduction of the sulfur 

content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 

2018. 

The expected reduction in SO2

emissions by 2018 from the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’ will yield corresponding 

reductions in sulfate aerosol, the main 

culprit in fine-particle pollution and 

regional haze. For Massachusetts, the 

MANE–VU analysis demonstrates that 

the reduction of the sulfur content in 

fuel oil will lead to an average reduction 

of 0.15 m g/m3 in the 24 hour PM2.5

concentration within the State, 

improving health and local visibility. In 

addition, the use of low sulfur fuels will 

result in cost savings to owners/ 

operators of residential furnaces and 

boilers due to reduced maintenance 

costs and extended life of the units. 

Massachusetts has proposed 

amendments to 310 CMR 7.05, ‘‘Fuels 

All Districts.’’ The proposed 

amendments limit the Statewide sulfur 

content of distillate oil to 500 parts per 

million (ppm) July 1, 2014 through June 

30, 2018. Starting July 1, 2018, the 

sulfur content of distillate is limited to 

15 ppm. The sulfur in fuel limit for No. 

6 residual oil, starting July 1, 2018 is 

0.5% by weight Statewide, except for 

the Berkshire Air Pollution Control 

District (APCD). The Berkshire APCD 

has a 1974 legislative exemption 

allowing sources in this district to burn 

up to 2.2% sulfur residual oil. 

Therefore, the proposed revisions do not 

require lower sulfur residual oil in the 

Berkshire APCD due to the existing 

law.26 Legislative action would be 

needed in order for MassDEP to apply 

the lower sulfur residual oil limits for 

this district. Despite this legislative 

exemption, MassDEP expects that the 

majority of residual oil burned in the 

Berkshire APCD will have a reduced 

sulfur content because the suppliers in 

Massachusetts, and in the surrounding 

states, will need to supply lower sulfur 

residual oil for sale in other APCDs and 

states. 

d. Continued Evaluation of Other 

Control Measures To Reduce SO2 and 

NOX Emissions 

While MassDEP continues to evaluate 

other control measures to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions, Massachusetts has 

adopted a program to reduce wood 

smoke emissions from outdoor hydronic 

heaters (OHHs, also known as outdoor 

wood-fired boilers or OWBs). This 

regulation, 310 CMR 7.26(50)–(54), 

‘‘Outdoor Hydronic Heaters,’’ was 

submitted as part of the December 30, 

2011 SIP submittal. The regulation is 

based in part on a NESCAUM model 

rule developed in January 2007 and has 

requirements for manufacturers, sellers, 

and owners of OHHs. Manufacturers 

must meet performance standards in 

order to sell OHHs in Massachusetts. 

The Phase I emission standard is 0.44 

lb/MMBtu for units sold after October 1, 

2008, and the Phase II emission 

standard is 0.32 lb/MMBtu for units 

sold after March 31, 2010. Owners of 

current and new OHHs are subject to 

regulations regarding the operation of 

their OHHs. Massachusetts concludes 

that adoption of these regulations will 

reduce future smoke and particulate 

emissions from OHHs. 

Massachusetts did not include 

emission reductions which result from 

the promulgation of the outdoor wood 

boilers rule in the visibility modeling to 

ensure reasonable progress. However, 

Massachusetts is including this program 

in its Regional Haze SIP as a SIP 

strengthening measure. In today’s 

action, EPA is proposing to approve 

Massachusetts’ 310 CMR 7.26(50)–(54), 

‘‘Outdoor Hydronic Heaters,’’ and 

incorporating this regulation into the 

SIP. 

EPA is also proposing to approve 

Massachusetts’ Regional Haze SIP for 

the first implementation period. This 

includes proposed approval of 

Massachusetts’ LTS which will allow 

other States to meet their respective 

RPGs. Massachusetts’ LTS includes its 

Alternative to BART, expected 

enforceable SO2 emission reduction in 

excess of modeled 2018 SO2 emission 

inventories for the 167 stacks and other 

EGUs, Massachusetts proposed 

amendments to 310 CMR 7.05, ‘‘Sulfur 

in Fuels’’ to reduce the sulfur content of 

distillate and residual oils, and the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30951 

27This document has been provided as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

28This document has been included as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

outdoor wood boiler control regulation, 

310 CMR 7.26(50)-(54), ‘‘Outdoor 

Hydronic Heaters.’’ EPA believes that 

between Massachusetts’ Alternative to 

BART and expected reductions from 

other programs, Massachusetts will 

reduce SO2 emissions from its EGUs 

identified by MANE–VU as top 

contributors to visibility impairment 

below the level that MANE–VU 

modeled as being necessary for other 

States to meet their RPGs. In addition, 

EPA believes that SO2 reductions from 

the proposed low sulfur fuel oil strategy 

will be comparable to modeled 

reductions despite the exclusion of the 

Berkshire APCD. Therefore, EPA does 

not anticipate that Massachusetts’ 

emissions under its LTS will interfere 

with the ability of other States to meet 

their respective RPGs. 

5. Additional Considerations for the 

LTS 

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), States are 

required to consider the following 

factors in developing the long term 

strategy: a. Emission reductions due to ongoing 

air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; 

c. Emission limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal; d. Source retirement and replacement 

schedules; 

e. Smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently 

exist within the State for these 

purposes; f. Enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

g. The anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point area, and mobile source emissions 

over the period addressed by the long 

term strategy. 

a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI 

Since Massachusetts does not contain 

any Class I areas, the State is not 

required to address RAVI, nor has any 

Massachusetts source been identified as 

subject to RAVI. A list of Massachusetts’ 

ongoing air pollution control programs 

is included in Section III.C.1. 

b. Construction Activities 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

Massachusetts to consider measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities on regional haze. MANE–VU’s 

consideration of control measures for 

construction activities is documented in 

Technical Support Document on 

Measures to Mitigate the Visibility 

Impacts of Construction Activities in the 

MANE–VU Region, Draft, October 20, 

2006.27

The construction industry is already 

subject to requirements for controlling 

pollutants that contribute to visibility 

impairment. For example, federal 

regulations require the reduction of SO2

emissions from construction vehicles. 

At the State level, Massachusetts 

regulation 310 CMR 7.09 regulates dust 

from construction and demolition 

activities. 7.09(3) states, ‘‘No person 

shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit a 

building, road, driveway, or open area 

to be constructed, used, repaired, or 

demolished without applying such 

reasonable measures as may be 

necessary to prevent particulate matter 

from becoming air-borne that may cause 

or contribute to a condition of air 

pollution.’’ See 37 FR 23085, (October 

28, 1972.) 

MANE–VU’s Contribution Report 

found that, from a regional haze 

perspective, crustal material generally 

does not play a major role. On the 20 

percent best-visibility days during the 

2000–2004 baseline period, crustal 

material accounted for 6 to 11 percent 

of the particle-related light extinction at 

the MANE–VU Class I Areas. On the 20 

percent worst-visibility days, however, 

the contribution was reduced to 2 to 3 

percent. Furthermore, the crustal 

fraction is largely made up of pollutants 

of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) 

that are not targeted under the Regional 

Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal 

fraction at any given location can be 

heavily influenced by the proximity of 

construction activities; and construction 

activities occurring in the immediate 

vicinity of MANE–VU Class I area could 

have a noticeable effect on visibility. For this regional haze SIP, 

Massachusetts concluded that its 

current regulations are currently 

sufficient to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities. Any future 

deliberations on potential control 

measures for construction activities and 

the possible implementation will be 

documented in the first regional haze 

SIP progress report in 2014. EPA 

proposes to find that Massachusetts has 

adequately addressed measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities. 

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance To Achieve the RPG 

In addition to the existing CAA 

control requirements discussed in 

section III.C.1, Massachusetts has 

adopted a low sulfur fuel oil strategy 

consistent with the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ as 

discussed in Section III.C.4. EPA 

proposes to find that Massachusetts has 

adequately addressed emissions 

limitations and schedules for 

compliance. 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedule 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) 

of the Regional Haze Rule, 

Massachusetts is required to consider 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules in developing the long term 

strategy. Source retirement and 

replacement were considered in 

developing the 2018 emissions. 

However, no additional sources beyond 

those already discussed have been 

identified by Massachusetts. EPA 

proposes to find that Massachusetts has 

adequately addressed source retirement 

and replacement schedules. 

e. Smoke Management Techniques 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

States to consider smoke management 

techniques related to agricultural and 

forestry management in developing the 

long-term strategy. MANE–VU’s 

analysis of smoke management in the 

context of regional haze is documented 

in Technical Support Document on 

Agricultural and Smoke Management in 

the MANE–VU Region, September 1, 

2006, (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Smoke TSD’’).28

Massachusetts does not have a formal 

smoke management program (SMP). 

SMPs are required only when smoke 

impacts from fires managed for 

resources benefits contribute 

significantly to regional haze. The 

emissions inventory presented in the 

Smoke TSD indicates that agricultural, 

managed, prescribed, and open burning 

emissions are very minor; the inventory 

estimates that, in Massachusetts, those 

emissions from those source categories 

totaled 414.2 tons of PM10 and 270.4 

tons of PM2.5 in 2002, which constitute 

0.2% and 0.5% of the total inventory for 

these pollutants, respectively. 

Source apportionment results show 

that wood smoke is a moderate 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

some Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

region; however, smoke is not a large 

contributor to haze in MANE–VU Class 

I areas on either the 20% best or 20% 

worst visibility days. Moreover, most of 

wood smoke is attributable to 

residential wood combustion. Therefore, 

it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or 

forestry management cause large 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

29Projected visibility improvements for each 

MANE–VU Class I area can be found in the 

NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ‘‘2018 

Visibility Projections’’ (www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13- 

08.pdf/) 

30The comments and MassDEP’s responses have 

been included in the docket. 

impacts on visibility in any of the Class 

I areas in the MANE–VU region. On rare 

occasions, smoke from major fires 

degrades air quality and visibility in the 

MANE–VU area. However, these fires 

are generally unwanted wildfires that 

are not subject to SMPs. EPA proposes 

to approve Massachusetts’ decision that 

an Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Plan to address visibility 

impairment is not required at this time. 

f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations 

and Control Measures 

Massachusetts has asked, and we are 

proposing to process approval of 310 

CMR 7.29, 310 CMR 7.05, and 310 CMR 

7.26(50) in parallel with the approval of 

Massachusetts’ Regional Haze SIP. 

Massachusetts indicated that they plan 

to have the final supplemental SIP 

revision by July 2012, prior to the 

finalization of this action. EPA will 

review the final SIP supplement and 

determine whether it differs 

significantly from the February 17, 2012 

proposal. At the same time we take final 

action on Massachusetts’ Regional Haze 

SIP, we will then take final action on 

310 CMR 7.29, 310 CMR 7.05, and 310 

CMR 7.26(50)–(54) as well as on several 

ECPs discussed in the BART section. 

Upon EPA final action, these 

requirements and associated emission 

limitations included as part of the 

Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP, will 

become federally enforceable. EPA is 

proposing to find that Massachusetts 

has adequately addressed the 

enforceability of emission limitations 

and control measures. 

g. The Anticipated Net Effect on 

Visibility 

MANE–VU used the best and final 

emission inventory to model progress 

expected toward the goal of natural 

visibility conditions for the first regional 

haze planning period. All of the MANE– 

VU Class I areas are expected to achieve 

greater progress toward the natural 

visibility goal than the uniform rate of 

progress, or the progress expected by 

extrapolating a trend line from current 

visibility conditions to natural visibility 

conditions.29

In summary, EPA is proposing to find 

that Massachusetts has adequately 

addressed the LTS regional haze 

requirements. 

D. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional phase planning, and was 

intended to create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

States held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007 through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant 

Federal Land Managers were also in 

attendance. In addition to the 

conference calls and meeting, the FLMs 

were given the opportunity to review 

and comment on each of the technical 

documents developed by MANE–VU. 

On November 21, 2008 and July 31, 

2009, Massachusetts submitted a draft 

Regional Haze SIP to the relevant FLMs 

for review and comment pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided 

comments on the draft Regional Haze 

SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3). The comments received 

from the FLMs were addressed and 

incorporated in Massachusetts’ SIP 

revision. Most of the comments were 

requests for additional detail as to 

various aspects of the SIP. These 

comments and Massachusetts’ response 

to comments can be found in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking. 

On January 11, 2011, Massachusetts 

proposed its Regional Haze SIP for 

public hearing. Comments were 

received from U.S. EPA, the National 

Park Service, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Conservation Law 

Foundation, Wheelabrator, 

Massachusetts Petroleum Council, and 

Massachusetts Oil Heat Council.30 On 

February 17, 2012, MassDEP proposed 

revisions to the Massachusetts Regional 

Haze SIP for public hearing. Comments 

were received from U.S. EPA, the 

National Park Service, and the Sierra 

Club. To address the requirement for 

continuing consultation procedures 

with the FLMs under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4), Massachusetts commits in 

its SIP to ongoing consultation with the 

FLMs on emission strategies, major new 

source permits, assessments or 

rulemaking concerning sources 

identified as probable contributors to 

visibility impairment, any changes to 

the monitoring strategy, work on the 

periodic revisions to the SIP, and 

ongoing communications regarding 

visibility impairment. 

EPA is proposing to find that 

Massachusetts has addressed the 

requirements for consultation with the 

Federal Land Managers. 

E. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), Massachusetts has 

committed to submitting a report on 

reasonable progress (in the form of a SIP 

revision) to the EPA every five years 

following the initial submittal of its 

regional haze SIP. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

MANE–VU Class I areas, located in 

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

New Jersey. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), 

Massachusetts is required to submit 

periodic revisions to its Regional Haze 

SIP by July 31, 2018, and every ten years 

thereafter. Massachusetts acknowledges 

and agrees to comply with this 

schedule. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), 

Massachusetts will also make periodic 

updates to the State’s emissions 

inventory. Massachusetts proposes to 

complete these updates to coincide with 

the progress reports. Actual emissions 

will be compared to projected modeled 

emissions in the progress reports. 

Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), 

Massachusetts will submit a 

determination of adequacy of its 

regional haze SIP revision whenever a 

progress report is submitted. 

Massachusetts’ regional haze SIP states 

that, depending on the findings of its 

five-year review, Massachusetts will 

take one or more of the following 

actions at that time, whichever actions 

are appropriate or necessary: 

• If Massachusetts determines that 

the existing State Implementation Plan 

requires no further substantive revision 

in order to achieve established goals for 

visibility improvement and emissions 

reductions, Massachusetts will provide 

to the EPA Administrator a negative 

declaration that further revision of the 

existing plan is not needed. 

• If Massachusetts determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in one or more other State(s) 

which participated in the regional 

planning process, Massachusetts will 

provide notification to the EPA 

Administrator and to those other 

State(s). Massachusetts will also 

collaborate with the other State(s) 

through the regional planning process 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30953 

for the purpose of developing additional 

strategies to address any such 

deficiencies in Massachusetts’ plan. 

• If Massachusetts determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in another country, 

Massachusetts will provide notification, 

along with available information, to the 

EPA Administrator. 

• If Massachusetts determines that 

the implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources within the State, Massachusetts 

will revise its implementation plan to 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 

one year from this determination. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Massachusetts’ December 30, 2011 SIP 

revision and February 17, 2012 

proposed regional haze SIP revision 

supplement, as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is 

proposing to approve 310 CMR 7.29 

‘‘Emission Standards for Power Plants,’’ 

310 CMR 7.26(50)–(54) ‘‘Outdoor 

Hydronic Heaters,’’ Amended Emission 

Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated 

May 15, 2009, Facility Shutdown of 

Somerset Power, LLC dated June 22, 

2011, Modified Emission Control Plan 

for General Electric Aviation—Lynn 

dated March 24, 2011, and Modified 

Emission Control Plan for Wheelabrator 

Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012. 

Pursuant to MassDEP’s May 2, 2012 

request for parallel processing, EPA is 

proposing approval of Massachusetts’ 

proposed 310 CMR 7.00 ‘‘Definitions,’’ 

310 CMR 7.05 ‘‘Fuels All Districts,’’ 

proposed Amended Emission Control 

Plan Approval for Salem Harbor Station 

dated February 17, 2012, and proposed 

Amended Emission Control Plan 

Approval for Brayton Point Station 

dated February 16, 2012. Under this 

procedure, EPA prepared this action 

before the State’s final adoption of these 

regulations and ECPs. Massachusetts 

has already held a public hearing on the 

proposed regulations and received 

public comment. Massachusetts may 

revise the regulations and ECPs in 

response to comments. After 

Massachusetts submits its final adopted 

supplemental SIP revision, EPA will 

review this submittal to determine 

whether it is significantly different from 

the proposal. EPA will determine 

whether it is appropriate to approve the 

final rules and ECPs with a description 

of any changes since the proposal, repropose action based on the final 

adopted regulations, or take other action 

as appropriate. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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. 

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. 

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

Dated: May 14, 2012. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12640 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0400; FRL–9676–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Wyoming; Regional Haze Rule 

Requirements for Mandatory Class I 

Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

Wyoming State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted on January 12, 

2011 and April 19, 2012 that address 

regional haze. These SIP revisions were 

submitted to address the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

our rules that require states to prevent 

any future and remedy any existing 

man-made 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. EPA is taking this action pursuant 

to section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0400, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS