Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Regional Haze, 30932-30953 [2012-12640]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30932-30953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12640]


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

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 30934]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
long-term 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.

[[Page 30935]]

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 30936]]

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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 BART-eligible 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 30938]]

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 
mid-Atlantic 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 BART-eligible 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

[[Page 30939]]

     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 twenty-nine 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

                                 Table 1--BART Eligible Sources in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Highest 2002
    Source, unit and location              Fuel             BART source        2002  emissions      visibility
                                                              category             (ton/yr)       impact (dv)\5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Generating--New Boston      Distillate Oil.....  18.6 MW, EGU.......  SO2: 1, NOX: 170...            0.04
 Unit 1.
Boston Generating--Mystic Unit 7   Residual Oil.......  574 MW, EGU........  SO2: 3,727, NOX:               1.02
 *.                                                                           805.
Braintree Electric Unit 3........  Distillate Oil       76 MW, EGU.........  SO2: 6 NOX: 97.....            0.03
                                    Natural Gas.
Dominion--Brayton Point Unit 1 *.  Coal...............  243 MW, EGU........  SO2: 9,254 NOX:                3.82
                                                                              2,513.
Dominion--Brayton Point Unit 2 *.  Coal...............  240 MW, EGU........  SO2: 8,853 NOX:                3.67
                                                                              2,270.
Dominion--Brayton Point Unit 3 *.  Coal...............  612 MW, EGU........  SO2: 19,450 NOX:               7.25
                                                                              7,335.
Dominion--Brayton Point Unit 4 *.  Residual Oil         435 MW, EGU........  SO2: 2,037 NOX: 552            0.73
                                    Natural Gas.
Dominion--Salem Harbor Unit 4 *..  Residual Oil.......  433 MW, EGU........  SO2: 2,886 NOX: 787            0.98
Harvard University--Blackstone     Residual Oil         83 MW, EGU.........  SO2: 63 NOX: 41....            0.06
 Unit 11.                           Natural Gas.
Harvard University--Blackstone     Residual Oil         83 MW, EGU.........  SO2: 74 NOX: 46....            0.06
 Unit 12.                           Natural Gas.
Mirant--Canal Station Unit 1.....  Residual Oil.......  560 MW, EGU........  SO2: 13,066 NOX:               4.43
                                                                              3,339.
Mirant--Canal Station Unit 2.....  Residual Oil.......  560 MW, EGU........  SO2: 8,948 NOX:                3.26
                                                                              2,260.
Mirant Kendall LLC Unit 1........  Residual Oil         80 MW, EGU.........  SO2: 18 NOX: 172...            0.06
                                    Natural Gas.
Mirant Kendall LLC Unit 2........  Residual Oil         80 MW, EGU.........  SO2: 36 NOX: 96....            0.04
                                    Natural Gas.
Taunton Municipal Light Plant      Residual Oil.......  28 MW, EGU.........  SO2: 37 NOX: 15....            0.01
 (TMLP)--Cleary Flood Unit 8.
Taunton Municipal Light Plant      Residual Oil.......  90 MW, EGU.........  SO2: 55 NOX: 163...            0.07
 (TMLP)--Cleary Flood Unit 9.
Eastman Gelatin Units 1, 2, 3,     Residual Oil         ICI Boilers........  SO2: 5.2 NOX: 51...            0.03
 and 4.                             Natural Gas.
General Electric Aircraft--Lynn    Natural Gas          ICI Boilers........  SO2: 425 NOX: 213..            0.24
 Unit 3.                            Residual Oil.
Solutia..........................  Natural Gas          ICI Boiler.........  NOX: 16............           0.003
                                    Residual Oil Coal.
Trigen--Kneeland St. Unit 3......  Residual Oil         ICI Boiler.........  SO2: 85 NOX: 396...            0.15
                                    Distillate Oil.
Wheelabrator Saugus Units 1......  Mixed Waste........  Municipal            SO2: 42 NOX: 357...            0.25
                                                         Incinerator.
Wheelabrator Saugus Unit 2.......  Mixed Waste........  Municipal            SO2: 42 NOX: 364...            0.25
                                                         Incinerator.
Exxon Mobil--Everett All                                Petroleum Storage..  N/A.
 Processing Units.
Global Petroleum--Revere All                            Petroleum Storage..  N/A.
 Processing Units.
Gulf Oil--Chelsea All Processing                        Petroleum Storage..  N/A.
 Units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Located at a facility greater than 750 MW.


[[Page 30940]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Massachusetts' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 regionally-consistent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 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/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The NWS and MM5 platform modeling results can be found in 
Appendices R-1 and R-2 of the SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Trigen-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Source Specific BART Determination
    The Regional Haze Rule allows Massachusetts to either make 
individual BART determinations or to implement

[[Page 30941]]

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 cost-effective 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The 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.

[[Page 30942]]



                Table 2--MANE-VU Recommended BART Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category                 SO2 Limits            NOX Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-CAIR EGUs...............  Coal--95% control or  In NOX SIP call
                               0.15 lb/MMBtu.        area, extend use of
                                                     controls to year
                                                     round.
                              Oil--95% control or   0.1-0.25 lb/MMBtu
                               0.33 lb/MMBtu (0.3%   depending on coal
                               fuel sulfur limit).   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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 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.
    \13\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 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.
    \15\ Conservation Law Foundation v. Dominion Energy New England, 
Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-11069 (D. Mass. 2012), https://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Signed-Consent-Decree-12_11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Appendix HH of the Massachusetts February 17, 2012 SIP 
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 BART-eligible 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).

[[Page 30943]]



                                         Table 3--BART Benchmark for SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      MANE-VU
                                                     2002 SO2                       recommended   Estimated  SO2
         BART eligible facility            Unit      emissions       2002 Heat       SO2 BART        emissions
                                                      (tons)      input  (MMBtu)   emission rate      (tons)
                                                                                    (lbs/MMBtu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2002 SO2       2002 Heat input    Alternative BART   Estimated  SO2
            Facility               Unit      emissions        (MMBtu) or      emission rate (lbs/    emissions
                                              (tons)       generation (MWh)    MMBtu or lbs/MWh)      (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 source-specific 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.

[[Page 30944]]

     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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Appendix HH of the Massachusetts February 17, 2012 SIP 
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      MANE-VU
                                                     2002 NOX                       recommended    Estimated NOX
         BART-eligible facility            Unit      emissions       2002 Heat       BART NOX        emissions
                                                      (tons)      input  (MMBtu)   emission rate      (tons)
                                                                                    (lbs/MMBtu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2002 NOX       2002 heat input    Alternative BART    Estimated NOX
            Facility               Unit      emission         (MMBtu) or      emission rate (lbs/    emissions
                                              (tons)       generation (MWh)    MMBtu or lbs/MWh)      (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

[[Page 30945]]

 
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 source-specific 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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), https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            PM emission
                                                                           2002 PM10       2009 PM10                                       limits  lbs/
                    Source                       Unit      PM10  dv        emissions       emissions               PM controls              MMBtu as of
                                                                             (tpy)           (tpy)                                             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.

[[Page 30946]]

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) Five-Factor 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/bart-control-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) on-road 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

[[Page 30947]]

relied on the following controls on non-EGU 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 
Spark-Ignition 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 Spark-Ignition 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30948]]

2. Modeling To Support the LTS
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11 
Mid-Atlantic 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 Fifth-Generation 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 regional-
scale 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 
in-depth 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/) (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 
Mid-Atlantic 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

[[Page 30949]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Appendix E--``Top Electrical Generating Unit List'' of 
the Massachusetts SIP submittal for a complete listing of the 167 
stacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
source-specific 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          2018 Projected  2018 Projected  2018 Projected
                            Facility                               Unit      2002 SO2        2011 SO2      SO2 emissions   SO2 emissions   SO2 emissions
                                                                             emissions       emissions    (conservative)     (likely)      (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ https://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111216MATSfinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 30950]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Appendix G on Massachusetts December 30, 2011 SIP 
submittal.
    \24\ Appendix W, Table 1 of the Massachusetts December 30, 2011 
SIP submittal.
    \25\ Two 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [mu] g/m\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Massachusetts Chapter 353 of the Acts of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 30951]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ This document has been provided as part of the docket to 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This document has been included as part of the docket to 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 30952]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Projected 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/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Inter-
RPO 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The comments and MassDEP's responses have been included in 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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, re-propose 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