[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57487-57496]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22692]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0025; A-1-FRL-9732-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Massachusetts State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first
planning period from 2008 through 2018. The revision was submitted by
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on
December 30, 2011, with supplemental final submittals on August 9, 2012
and August 28, 2012. These submittals address the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require States to prevent any
future, and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I Areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0025. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the Division of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 24, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) for the State of Massachusetts. See 77 FR 30932. The NPR proposed
approval of the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through
2018. In that rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve the MassDEP Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan dated December 30, 2011, and also
proposed to approve under parallel processing, proposed revisions to
the Massachusetts Haze SIP dated February 17, 2012.\1\ Specifically,
EPA proposed to approve the following adopted elements of
Massachusetts' Haze Plan: (1) 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations
(CMR) 7.29 ``Emission Standards for Power Plants;'' (2) 310 CMR
7.26(50)-(54) ``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters;'' (3) Amended Emission
Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated May 15, 2009; (4) Facility
Shutdown of Somerset Power, LLC dated June 22, 2011; (5) Modified
Emission Control Plan for General Electric Aviation--Lynn dated March
24, 2011; and (6) Modified Emission Control Plan for Wheelabrator
Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012. Furthermore, pursuant to MassDEP's
May 2, 2012 request for parallel processing, EPA proposed approval of
the following SIP elements that were still in the proposed stage: (1)
Massachusetts' proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.00 ``Definitions;'' (2)
Massachusetts' proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.05 ``Fuels All
Districts;'' (3) proposed Amended Emission Control Plan Approval for
Salem Harbor Station dated February 17, 2012; and (4) proposed Amended
Emission Control Plan Approval for Brayton Point Station dated February
16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MassDEP submitted ``Proposed Revisions to Massachusetts
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)'' dated February 17,
2012, for parallel processing on May 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012, MassDEP submitted additional
elements and a revised SIP narrative as a supplement to the
Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP. EPA has reviewed the August 9, 2012
and August 28, 2012 submittals and has determined that the State's
formal SIP submittal does not contain significant changes which
occurred after EPA's May 24, 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking.
    A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs,
as well as EPA's analysis of Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP
submittal, was provided in the NPR and is not restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments from Dominion Energy New England, Inc.
(Dominion) and a joint letter from the Sierra Club and Conservation Law
Foundation. The Dominion comments were generally supportive of the
Massachusetts Alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
demonstration and long term strategy and therefore require no response.
The following discussion summarizes and responds to the relevant
adverse comments submitted by the Sierra Club and Conservation Law
Foundation (for brevity, ``Sierra Club'') on EPA's proposed approval of
Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP.
    Comment A: The Sierra Club contends that Section 169A of the CAA
does not allow EPA to exempt BART-eligible sources \2\ from BART, and
that EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), which allows states to
develop alternative programs in lieu of BART, is contrary to the CAA.
The Sierra Club acknowledges that its position has been rejected by two
federal court decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 40 CFR 51.301 defines a BART-eligible source as an existing
facility which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was
in existence on August 7, 1977, has the potential to emit 250 tons
per year or more of any air pollutant, and meets one of the 26
listed stationary source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response A: As the Sierra Club notes, EPA's interpretation of the
CAA was upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333
(D.C. Cir. 2006). See 77 FR 33642, 33645-46 (June 7, 2012) for a more
detailed explanation.
    Comment B.1: The Sierra Club contends that Massachusetts' proposed
Alternative to BART analysis is flawed due to the lack of source-by-
source BART determinations. The commenter cited recent source-by-source
BART determinations which were more stringent than the benchmark BART
limits used in the Massachusetts alternative to BART analysis. The
commenter suggested that MassDEP must undertake the five step source-
by-source BART determination for each of the subject BART sources to
demonstrate that the alternative to BART provides greater reasonable
progress than the source-by-source BART. The commenter contends that
comparing emissions, based on the category-wide benchmark limits that
Massachusetts used, to the emissions from the alternative to BART
measures underestimates the reductions achievable through a five factor
determination and therefore does not conclusively show that the
Massachusetts alternative to BART measures provide greater reasonable
progress than source-by-source BART determinations.
    Response B.1: The primary requirement, as specified in CAA section
169A, is for major stationary sources to procure, install, and operate
BART. In some cases this requirement is met with an analysis of
potential controls considering five factors given in EPA's Regional
Haze Rule (RHR). See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). EPA has interpreted this
requirement to be met if an alternative set of emission limits are
established which mandate greater reasonable progress toward visibility
improvement than direct application of BART on a source-by-source
basis. In promulgating the RHR, EPA stated that to demonstrate that
emission reductions of an alternative program would result in greater
emission reductions, ``the State must estimate the emission reductions
that would result from the use of BART-level controls. To do this, the
State could undertake a source-specific review of the sources in the
State subject to BART, or it could use a modified approach that
simplifies the analysis.'' 64 FR 35742 (July 1, 1999).
    In final rulemaking published October 13, 2006, EPA offered further
clarification for States for assessing alternative strategies, in
particular regarding the benchmark definition of BART to use in judging
whether the alternative is better. See 71 FR 60612, 60615-20. In this
rulemaking, EPA stated in the preamble that the presumptive BART levels
given in the BART guidelines would be a suitable baseline against which
to compare alternative strategies where the alternative has been
designed to meet a requirement other than BART. See 71 FR at 60618; see
also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). MassDEP's analysis is fully consistent
with EPA's conclusions in this rulemaking.
    While EPA recognizes that a case-by-case BART analysis may result
in emission limits more stringent than the presumptive limits, the
presumptive limits are reasonable and appropriate for use in assessing
an alternative emissions reductions scenario such as the Massachusetts
plan when comparing it to the BART scenario. See 71 FR 60619 (stating
``the presumptions represent a reasonable estimate of a stringent case
BART . . . because . . . they would be applied across the board to a
wide variety of units with varying impacts on visibility, at power
plants of varying size and distance from Class I areas''). In other
words, while in some instances case-by-case BART could result in limits
more stringent than the presumptive limits, in other instances
consideration of all five statutory BART factors could

result in limits less stringent than the presumptive limits, and EPA's
considered conclusion is that the presumptive BART is, overall, ``a
reasonable estimate of a stringent case BART.'' \3\ Furthermore,
Massachusetts went beyond EPA's presumptive level of control and used
the more stringent Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU)
recommended level of control to develop its benchmark.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For this reason, the fact that facilities in other states
(with different facts for each of the BART factors) have received
BART determinations more stringent than the presumptive BART is not
directly relevant here.
    \4\ The MANE-VU recommended level of BART control can be found
in Appendix R of the Massachusetts December 30, 2011 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The components of Massachusetts' plan were developed to reduce
mercury emissions, bring Massachusetts into attainment with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone by CAA
deadlines, and to meet long term strategy requirements. The
Massachusetts plan imposes limitations on sulfur dioxide
(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and mercury
emissions from coal-fired electrical generating units (EGUs), sulfur in
fuel oil limits and NOX limits for oil fired EGUs, and
enforceable EGU shutdowns. Massachusetts is also now using these
controls as an alternative to BART for its EGU BART-eligible sources as
permitted pursuant to EPA's RHR (40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). Therefore, the
use of the benchmark limits for the alternative to BART analysis is
appropriate. EPA agrees with Massachusetts' analysis that emission
reductions from the units subject to MassDEP's alternative plan will
result in emission reductions that will provide greater reasonable
progress than would BART alone as described more fully in the NPR.
    Comment B.2.a: The Sierra Club contends that, even based on the
framework Massachusetts used, its BART alternative results in fewer
emission reductions for SO2 and NOX than would
BART. The Sierra Club argues that Massachusetts' analysis compares
emission reductions at the full set of sources subject to its BART
alternative to the much smaller set of subject-to-BART sources, and
this is impermissible under the regulations.
    Response B.2.a: EPA does not agree with the commenter's
interpretation of the regional haze rule. If a State opts to implement
or require participation in an emission trading program or other
alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to
install, operate, and maintain BART, the State must ``demonstrat[e]
that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will
achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the
installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in
the State and covered by the alternative program.'' 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i). This demonstration must include a list of all BART-
eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the
alternative program and an analysis of the best system of continuous
emission control technology available. ``This analysis must be
conducted by making a determination of BART for each source within the
State subject to BART and covered by the alternative program as
provided for in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, unless the emission
trading program or other alternative measure has been designed to meet
a requirement other than BART (such as the core requirement to have a
long term strategy to achieve the reasonable progress goals established
by the States). In this case, the State may determine the best system
of continuous emission control technology and associated emission
reductions for similar types of sources within a source category based
on both source-specific and category wide information as appropriate.''
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). This language indicates that BART
determinations are to be made for each source that is both subject to
BART and included in the alternative measure as provided for in
paragraph (e)(1). Paragraph (e)(1) calls for a BART determination for
BART-eligible sources. EPA does not agree that the language implies
that source-by-source BART determinations are required for units which
do not meet the definition of BART-eligible.\5\ Non-BART sources which
are included as members of the alternative measure need not be subject
to a BART analysis. Put simply, EPA's regulations allow a state to
develop an alternative that encompasses (and obtains emissions
reductions from) non-BART sources, and to compare that alternative to a
BART benchmark consisting only of subject-to-BART sources. Therefore,
Massachusetts was correct in only including benchmark emissions from
the BART sources in the baseline for comparison to the alternative
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See definition stated in footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.2.b: The Sierra Club argues that Brayton Point Station's
baseline SO2 emissions are lower than Massachusetts assumed.
    Response B.2.b: Massachusetts conducted its analysis under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) by developing two tables for SO2. The first
table, Table 16 of MassDEP's August 9, 2012 submittal, subtracted each
BART-eligible facility's projected SO2 emissions if the
MANE-VU SO2 BART emissions rate were achieved from that
facility's baseline SO2 emissions in 2002. The sum of those
differences constitutes the expected reductions from installation of
benchmark BART. The second table, Table 17 of MassDEP's August 9, 2012
submittal, subtracted each facility's alternative BART expected
SO2 emissions from its emissions for the same baseline year
(2002). The sum of those differences constitutes the expected
reductions from installation of Massachusetts' BART alternative. The
comment essentially argues that Brayton Point's baseline SO2
emissions are overstated because, as of 2010, Brayton Point achieved
greater control than in 2002. However, Massachusetts' use of the 2002
emissions inventory as a baseline is consistent with MANE-VU's regional
approach and EPA's national approach. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii); see
also 64 FR 35742 (explaining that the ``baseline date of the SIP'' in
this context means ``the date of the emissions inventories on which the
SIP relies''), 70 FR 39104, 39143 (``The baseline date for regional
haze SIPs is 2002. . . .'') & id. n.84. Furthermore, EPA notes that
Massachusetts used the same baseline SO2 emissions for
Tables 16 and 17, so even if the baseline emissions were overstated,
they would be overstated by the same amount in both cases, and the
overstatement would neither benefit nor prejudice the BART alternative
for comparison.
    Comment B.2.c: The Sierra Club contends that Brayton Point
Station's SO2 and NOX emissions under BART would
be lower than Massachusetts assumed.
    Response B.2.c: As noted above in Response B.1, while in some
instances case-by-case BART could result in limits more stringent than
the presumptive limits, in other instances consideration of all five
statutory BART factors could result in limits less stringent than the
presumptive limits, and EPA's considered conclusion is that the
presumptive BART is, overall, a reasonable estimate of a stringent case
BART. EPA has concluded that ``there is no need to develop a precise
estimate of the emissions reductions that could be achieved by BART in
order simply to compare two programs'' and that ``the State may
establish a BART benchmark based on an analysis that includes
simplifying assumptions about BART control levels for sources within a
source category.'' See 70 FR 60618. Massachusetts used the MANE-VU
recommended level of control to develop its benchmark.

    Comment B.2.d: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts
improperly takes credit in its BART alternative for the Salem Harbor
Station shutdown by (1) assuming for purposes of the BART benchmark
that Salem Harbor Unit 4 would continue to operate past 2014 when in
fact it will not (due to a consent decree), and then (2) crediting the
emission reductions from the pending shutdown of Units 1 through 4 to
Massachusetts's BART alternative, when these reductions will happen
regardless of what Massachusetts does, due to the same consent decree.
    Response B.2.d: The consent decree requires that Salem Harbor
``remove from service'' Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2011, and Units 3
and 4 by June 1, 2014.\6\ However, the consent decree defines ``remove
from service'' as ceasing to generate electricity to supply the power
grid. The consent decree does not prohibit these units from operating
for purposes other than generating electricity to supply the power
grid. Consequently, the consent decree is not a federally enforceable
limit on emissions from these units. The facility requested, and
MassDEP granted, a modified emission control plan under Massachusetts
regulation 310 CMR 7.29 which caps NOX and SO2
emissions from the various units. This emission control plan, along
with the Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.29, will become federally
enforceable with this action. MassDEP's permit restrictions apply
regardless of the use to which the station owner might wish to put the
units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The consent decree is available at http://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Signed-Consent-Decree-12_11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the consent decree is, by its terms, enforceable by
the parties thereto (Conservation Law Foundation, HealthLink, Dominion
Energy New England, Inc., and Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC),
whereas a state permit restriction incorporated into a federally
enforceable SIP is enforceable by Massachusetts, EPA, and citizens,
under state law and under the federal Clean Air Act.
    The Sierra Club suggests that the absence of specific public plans
for an alternative use of Salem Harbor's units (i.e., a use that would
be allowed under the consent decree but prohibited under Massachusetts'
SIP revision) means that it is unlikely that Salem Harbor will operate
regardless of what Massachusetts does in its SIP and therefore the
reductions that Massachusetts attributes by its permit restrictions are
only hypothetical.
    EPA believes Massachusetts' approach was reasonable, for several
reasons. First, in Tables 16 and 18, Massachusetts used a reasonable
(and consistent) method to derive the BART benchmark emissions, namely,
multiplying each BART-eligible unit's 2002 heat input \7\ by the MANE-
VU recommended BART emission rates. See also Response B.2.b. This
streamlined calculation was conducted at all BART-eligible facilities
without examining whether the facilities' more recent operating
scenarios involve a higher or lower heat input. Thus, it was reasonable
and consistent for Massachusetts to include Salem Harbor Unit 4 in
Tables 16 and 18 as operating at 2002 heat input levels. The comment
essentially argues that, even if Massachusetts had not imposed any
permit restrictions, Salem Harbor's likely future actual emissions
would be much lower than its full potential to emit, and therefore the
BART benchmark calculation should use Salem Harbor Unit 4's likely
future actual emissions under anticipated business scenarios (i.e.,
zero), rather than simply apply the benchmark BART emission rate to its
2002 heat input rate. However, the Sierra Club points to no provision
of the Regional Haze Rule requiring states to project likely future
actual emissions under anticipated business scenarios, rather than use
the approach that Massachusetts used.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The heat input is a proxy for the quantity of fuel used.
    \8\ If anything, the Regional Haze Rule focuses on facilities'
potential to emit. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.301 (definition of
``existing stationary facility''); accord 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y,
Sec.  II.A Step 3 (explaining that potential to emit is developed
``considering all federally enforceable and State enforceable permit
limits''). Using potential to emit, rather than 2002 heat input
rate, would result in higher BART benchmark emissions in Tables 16
and 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in Massachusetts' analysis of its alternative program in
Tables 17 and 19, the Commonwealth conservatively assumed that all
units covered by the alternative program would operate at their 2002
heat input rate, and took credit only for legally enforceable
restrictions on potential to emit. The Sierra Club focuses on the
reductions at Salem Harbor Units 1-4 in Tables 17 and 19, arguing that
Massachusetts is taking credit for reductions that would have happened
anyway and therefore that Tables 17 and 19 overstate the additional
reductions achieved through the alternative program. However,
Massachusetts' underlying assumption that any facility without an
operational restriction would operate at 2002 levels is in fact
conservative and likely substantially overstates emissions (i.e.,
understates reductions) for several facilities in Tables 17 and 19.
Many of the still active units listed in Tables 17 and 19 are in fact
now operating well below 2002 heat input levels. For example, according
to 2011 data,\9\ the annual heat input was 18,244,945 MMBtu for Brayton
Point Unit 3 and 500,264 MMBtu for Canal Station Unit 1. The 2002
benchmark annual heat inputs for these units were 36,339,809 MMBtu and
27,295,648 MMBtu, respectively.\10\ In other words, the logic under
which Massachusetts did count Salem Harbor's reductions in Tables 17
and 19 (because Massachusetts attributes the reductions to a legally
enforceable emission control plan) is the same logic under which
Massachusetts did not count likely actual reductions at other
facilities in those tables. This methodology is reasonable and
internally consistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For 2011 EGU emission data, see EPA's Air Markets Program
Web page at http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
    \10\ See Tables 16 and 18 of the Massachusetts Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan dated August 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Sierra Club argues that, if the facility owner planned
to use the Salem Harbor units for a purpose not prohibited by the
consent decree, it would be required to apply for new permits ``because
the permits issued to the units to operate as electric generating units
would no longer be valid.'' While there are certainly scenarios in
which re-use of the units (as coal generating units but not for
supplying electricity to the grid) could require new permit
applications, the comment identifies no provisions of the pre-existing
permits (or of Massachusetts or federal law) indicating that this would
be necessary in all cases. Therefore, it was reasonable for
Massachusetts to assume that its permit restriction would achieve
reductions that would not be legally required to occur otherwise.
    Comment B.3: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts has not
demonstrated that the SO2 and NOX emissions
reductions relied on it its BART alternative are properly surplus for
purposes of BART. The Sierra Club stated that in order to claim credit
under the BART requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for emission
reductions attributable to a BART alternative, Massachusetts must
demonstrate that ``the emission reductions resulting from the . . .
alternative measures will be surplus to those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements of the [Clean Air Act] as of the
baseline date of the SIP.'' The Sierra Club claims that Massachusetts

has not identified what portion, if any, of the emission reductions
exceeded those necessary to comply with the purposes for which the
regulations were designed.
    Response B.3: As part of the alternative to BART demonstration, 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv) requires a ``demonstration that the emission
reductions resulting from the emission trading program or other
alternative measures will be surplus to those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline
date of the SIP.'' In promulgating the RHR in 1999, EPA explained that
the ``baseline date of the SIP'' in this context means ``the date of
the emissions inventories on which the SIP relies.'' 64 FR 35742; see
also 70 FR 39104, 39143 (``The baseline date for regional haze SIPs is
2002. . . .'') & id. n.84.
    Any measure, including a measure to meet a requirement of the CAA,
adopted after 2002 is accordingly ``surplus'' under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv). Massachusetts is using regulation 310 CMR 7.29 in
conjunction with the sulfur in fuel oil standard and emission control
plans as an alternative to BART for its EGU BART-eligible sources as
permitted by the RHR and as discussed in the NPR. EPA agrees with
Massachusetts' analysis that emission reductions from the alternative
program will result in emission reductions that are surplus to the
baseline date of the SIP. As discussed in the NPR, Massachusetts' use
of the 310 CMR 7.29 (with a compliance year of 2008) as an alternative
to BART for EGUs, in addition to the newly adopted revised sulfur in
fuel oil requirements and revised emission control plans, are in
accordance with and satisfies the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)
for BART alternatives, including the requirement that the emission
reductions be surplus to the baseline date of the SIP. The NPR also
discusses how Massachusetts estimated the emission reductions required
by the alternative plan. EPA is not restating that analysis here.
Finally, the Sierra Club has not identified any specific elements of
Massachusetts' alternative program that it believes are not surplus to
reductions from measures adopted to meet CAA requirements.
    Comment B.4: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts has not
demonstrated that the distribution of the emissions under its BART
alternative is substantially similar to that under BART or conducted
dispersion modeling to show the BART alternative results in greater
reasonable progress toward achieving natural baseline visibility
conditions in affected Class I areas. Under EPA's RHR, it is
insufficient to simply compare the total emissions reductions from
source-specific BART and a State's BART alternative; the State must
take into consideration the location of these emission reductions.
Where the distribution of emissions under BART and the alternative are
substantially different, the State proposing to rely on a BART-
alternative must conduct dispersion modeling to show the difference in
visibility under each program for each impacted Class I area on the
worst and best 20 percent days. The Sierra Club commented that the mere
fact that all the subject-to-BART units are a subset of the alternative
BART units, does not demonstrate that similar geographic distribution.
The Sierra Club contends that to assess the emission distribution,
``the State would have to compare the magnitude of emission reductions
at units common to both schemes and evaluate whether the additional
units covered by the BART alternative are proximate to subject to BART
sources.'' The Sierra Club further states that Massachusetts would also
need to consider, for example, whether differences in stack heights
among the sources would result in different geographic distribution.
The Sierra Club states that neither Massachusetts nor EPA has presented
any further analysis, and therefore neither has demonstrated that the
BART alternative produces a similar distribution of emission reductions
to BART.
    Response B.4: The RHR states that ``[i]f the distribution of
emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the
alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the
alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). EPA discussed in the NPR how
Massachusetts' alternative to BART was acceptable and met the
requirements for a BART alternative program in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA
finds that the distribution of emission reductions in Massachusetts
sources included in the alternative program are comparable to, and not
substantially different from, emission reductions under BART at subject
units. See 77 FR 30943. The emission reductions from the alternative to
BART are discussed in detail in the NPR. Massachusetts' alternative
program covers all of the BART-subject EGU sources and also includes
additional EGUs which are too old to be BART-subject sources.
    All of the emission reductions, with the exception of Mount Tom,
are from EGUs located in eastern Massachusetts and, in many cases, at
the same physical location as the BART-eligible EGUs. For example, as
compared to the BART benchmark, the BART alternative achieves fewer
reductions from Brayton Point Station, but greater reductions from
Somerset Power, which is located in the same municipality as Brayton
Point. Similarly, as compared to the BART benchmark, the BART
alternative achieves fewer reductions from Canal Station (on the south
shore of Massachusetts, about 60 miles south of Boston) and Mystic
Station (just a few miles north of Boston), but much greater reductions
from Salem Harbor (on the north shore of Massachusetts, about 20 miles
north of Boston). As for Mount Tom Unit 1, it is located in Holyoke,
Massachusetts, approximately 80 miles west of Boston. The contribution
of the Mount Tom emission reductions to the Massachusetts alternative
to BART is 6% of the SO2 reduction and 9% of the
NOX reduction. While this does create a minor variation in
the geographic distribution of emission reductions, this does not lead
to a substantial difference in geographic distribution of the emission
reduction, particularly since the distances between the units involved
are generally much less than the distances from any of the units to the
relevant Class I areas.
    Moreover, to the extent that there are any differences in
geographic distribution, they may be beneficial for regional haze
purposes. As noted above, the principal difference in distribution is
that the BART benchmark relies more heavily on reductions at Brayton
Point and Canal Station (both in Massachusetts's southeast corner),
whereas the alternative to BART relies more heavily on reductions at
Salem Harbor (slightly closer to Maine and New Hampshire, with their
five Class I areas) and Mount Tom (slightly closer to the Lye Brook
Wilderness in Vermont and the Brigantine Wilderness Area in New
Jersey). While neither Massachusetts nor EPA has modeled the impact of
these slight geographic differences, the fact that the reductions occur
slightly closer to the Class I areas makes it unlikely that the
alternative would result in less visibility benefits to those areas.
    Therefore, EPA finds that Massachusetts was reasonable in the
determination that the geographic distribution of the emission
reductions from the alternative plan is not substantially different
from the emission reduction distribution projected under BART.
    Comment C: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts has not
demonstrated that the State will achieve

the reasonable progress goals established by MANE-VU for 2018.
Specifically, the Sierra Club noted that Massachusetts is not projected
to achieve the 90% SO2 reduction target by 2018 at major
EGUs and instead projects emission reductions of between 67 and 87%
from the affected units. The Sierra Club contends that even though
Brayton Point Units 1 and 2 are achieving 90% control, Massachusetts
must require as an enforceable operating condition the continuous
operation of the spray dry absorbers. In addition, Massachusetts should
require at least 96% control for the dry scrubber to be installed on
Brayton Point Unit 3. Finally, Sierra Club states that Massachusetts
should require Mount Tom to continuously operate its installed dry
scrubber.
    Response C: Through the consultation process, Massachusetts agreed
to pursue the MANE-VU ``Ask'' (Ask) as part of the long term strategy
to ensure reasonable progress toward the goal of natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas impacted by emissions from Massachusetts.
The Ask consists of the implementation of BART, the adoption of the low
sulfur in fuel oil strategy, and a 90% percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from the greatest impacting EGUs or comparable
SO2 reductions. Emission reductions resulting from these
strategies were incorporated into the projected 2018 emissions
inventory. The 2018 emission inventory was used to model the expected
visibility improvement at the end of the first planning period. Based
on the inventories developed for the MANE-VU states and the resulting
modeling, the MANE-VU Class I States determined that the control
strategies for the first planning period were sufficient to meet the
reasonable progress goals for the Class I areas. As stated in the NPR,
the 2018 modeling inventory for Massachusetts EGUs, based on the
implementation of the Ask, is 45,941 tons SO2. Massachusetts
targeted EGUs' 2011 SO2 emissions were only 22,165 tons
SO2 in 2011, and under the most conservative (worst case)
long term strategy projected emission inventory, Massachusetts EGUs are
limited to 26,811 tons SO2 in 2018 (and more likely 10,505
tons, which is below the level that would be achieved by the 90%
target). The long term strategy limit is 19,130 tons SO2
less than the inventory used to model visibility improvement in 2018.
Since the long term strategy program is outcome-based, rather than
technology-based, Massachusetts may develop a program that will achieve
emissions reductions that are adequate for Class I states' reasonable
progress goals even if it does not rely on the particular reductions
that were used to develop the assumptions upon which those reasonable
progress goals were based. It is worth noting that the MANE-VU Ask does
not itself establish federal regulatory requirements. States'
obligations are defined by the Regional Haze Rule, not the Ask.
    Finally, since future emission projections are somewhat uncertain,
the RHR requires States to submit a 5-year progress report. At the time
of this progress report, MassDEP will determine if the controls
approved into the Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to achieve
reasonable progress at the impacted Class I areas for the first
planning period.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Massachusetts Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan, submitted on December 30, 2011 with supplemental
submittals on August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012, as meeting the
applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. Included as
part of the Regional Haze Plan are the following Appendices, which EPA
is approving and incorporating by reference into the SIP: (1) Appendix
BB. Modified Emission Control Plan for General Electric Aviation--Lynn
dated March 24, 2011; (2) Appendix CC. Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.26(50)-
(54) ``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters;'' (3) Appendix DD. Massachusetts 310
CMR 7.29 ``Emission Standards for Power Plants,'' the sections relating
to NOX and SO2; (4) Appendix EE. Amended Emission
Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated May 15, 2009; (5) Appendix FF.
Amended Emission Control Plan Approval for Salem Harbor Station dated
March 27, 2012; (6) Appendix GG. Amended Emission Control Plan Approval
for Brayton Point Station dated April 12, 2012; (7) Appendix HH.
Facility Shutdown of Somerset Power, LLC dated June 22, 2011; (8)
Appendix II. Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.00 ``Definitions;'' and 310 CMR
7.05 ``Fuels All Districts;''and (9) Appendix JJ. Modified Emission
Control Plan for Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 18, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 12, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register September 13, 2013.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart W--Massachusetts

0
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(139) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (139) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan regarding Regional
Haze submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection on December 30, 2011, August 9, 2012, and August 28, 2012.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.00, ``Definitions,'' amended
definition of SULFUR IN FUEL, effective August 3, 2012.
    (B) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.05, ``U Fuels All
Districts,'' effective August 3, 2012, with the following exceptions
which are not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
    (1) 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)(3);
    (2) 310 CMR 7.05(2) through (4); and
    (3) 310 CMR 7.05(7) through (9).
    (C) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.29, ``Emissions Standards
for Power Plants,'' effective on January 25, 2008 (which includes
previous sections effective on June 29, 2007), with the following
exceptions which are not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to
BART:
    (1) In 310 CMR 7.29(1), the reference to mercury (Hg), carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) in the first sentence and the phrase ``. . .
and CO2 and establishing a cap on CO2 and Hg
emissions from affected facilities. CO2 emissions standards
set forth in 310 CMR 7.29(5)(a)5.a. and b. shall not apply to emissions
that occur after December 31, 2008'' in the second sentence;
    (2) In 310 CMR 7.29(2), the definitions of Alternate Hg Designated
Representative, Automated Acquisition and Handling System or DAHS,
Mercury (Hg) Designated Representative, Mercury Continuous Emission
Monitoring System or Mercury CEMS, Mercury Monitoring System, Sorbent
Trap Monitoring System, and Total Mercury;
    (3) 310 CMR 7.29(5)(a)(3) through (5)(a)(6);
    (4) In 310 CMR 7.29(5)(b)(1), reference to compliance with the
mercury emissions standard in the second sentence;
    (5) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(a)(3) through (6)(a)(4);
    (6) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(b)(10);
    (7) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(h)(2);
    (8) The third and fourth sentences in 310 CMR 7.29(7)(a);
    (9) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1), the reference to CO2 and
mercury;
    (10) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(a), the reference to CO2
and mercury;
    (11) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(b) through 7.29(7)(b)(1)(d);
    (12) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(3), the reference to CO2 and
mercury;
    (13) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(4)(b), the reference to CO2
and mercury; and
    (14) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(e) through 7.29(7)(i).
    (D) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.26, ``Industry Performance
Standards, Outdoor Hydronic Heaters'' paragraphs (50) through (54) and
related footnotes effective December 26, 2008.
    (1) 310 CMR 7.26(50) Outdoor Hydronic Heaters--Applicability;
    (2) 310 CMR 7.26(51) Definitions;
    (3) 310 CMR 7.26(52) Requirements for Operators;
    (4) 310 CMR 7.26(53) Requirements for Sellers; and
    (5) 310 CMR 7.26(54) Requirements for Manufacturers.
    (E) The sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), and PM2.5 provisions of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection Emission Control Plan ``Saugus--
Metropolitan, Boston/Northeast Region, 310 CMR 7.08(2)--Municipal Waste
Combustors, Application No. MBR-98-ECP-006, Transmittal No. W003302,
Emission Control Plan Modified Final Approval'' dated March 14, 2012 to
Mr. Jairaj Gosine, Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. and signed by Cosmo
Buttaro and James E. Belsky, with the following exceptions which are
not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to BART.
    (1) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2 Unit Load Restriction/Operating
Practices;
    (2) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2 Emission Limit/Standard for
Opacity, HCl, Dioxin/Furon, Cd, Pb, CO, Hg, NH3, and associated
footnotes;
    (3) In Table 2, EU3 Fugitive Ash requirement and associated
footnote.
    (4) In Table 2, Footnote 1 which is a State Only Requirement.
    (F) The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Emission Control Plan ``Lynn--Metropolitan, Boston/Northeast Region,
310 CMR 7.19, Application No. MBR-94-COM-008, Transmittal No. X235617,
Modified Emission Control Plan Final Approval'' dated March 24, 2011 to
Ms. Jolanta Wojas, General Electric Aviation and signed by Marc
Altobelli and James E. Belsky. Note, this document contains two section
V; V. RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS and V. GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS/PROVISIONS.
    (G) The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Emission Control Plan, ``Holyoke Western Region 310 CMR 7.29 Power
Plant Emission Standards, Application No. 1-E-01-072, Transmittal No.
W025214, Amended Emission Control Plan'' dated May 15, 2009 to Mr. John
S. Murry, Mt. Tom Generating Company, LLC and signed by Marc Simpson,
with the following exceptions which are not

applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
    (1) In Table 2, the EU 1 Emission Limit/Standard for Hg, CO,
CO2, and PM2.5 and related footnotes;
    (2) In Table 3, the EU1 Monitoring/Testing Requirements for
CO2, CO, PM2.5, and Hg;
    (3) In Table 4, the EU 1 Record Keeping Requirements for
CO2, CO, PM2.5, and Hg;
    (4) In Table 5, the EU1 Reporting Requirements for Hg;
    (5) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting requirements
    (6) In Table 6, the Compliance Paths for Hg and CO2 and
related footnote;
    (7) In Section 4, Special Conditions for ECP, Item 4, applicable to
CO2;
    (8) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
    (9) Section 7, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act; and
    (10) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
    (H) The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Emission Control Plan ``Salem--Metropolitan Boston/Northeast Region,
310 CMR 7.29 Power Plant Emission Standards, Application No. NE-12-003,
Transmittal No. X241756, Final Amended Emission Control Plan Approval''
dated March 27, 2012 to Mr. Lamont W. Beaudette, Dominion Energy Salem
Harbor, LLC and signed by Edward J. Braczyk, Cosmo Buttaro, and James
E. Belsky with the following exceptions which are not applicable to the
Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
    (1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Emission Limit/Standard
for Hg and related footnotes;
    (2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Emission Limit/
Standard for CO, CO2, PM2.5 and related
footnotes;
    (3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for CO2, CO, and PM2.5;
    (4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for Hg;
    (5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Record Keeping
Requirements for CO2, CO, and PM2.5;
    (6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Record Keeping
Requirements for Hg;
    (7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Reporting
Requirements for CO2;
    (8) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Reporting Requirements for
Hg;
    (9) In Section 3, Compliance Schedule, the 3rd paragraph text which
reads ``In order to meet the regulatory Hg limits which are effective
on October 1, 2012, the facility owner/operator has proposed using a
combination strategy involving fuel mix optimization (for
SO2 compliance but this action will benefit Hg compliance as
well) and installation of a Calcium Bromide injection system. In order
to meet the 310 CMR 7.29 CO2 emission targets, the Dominion
Energy Salem Harbor, LLC facility owner/operator procured offset
credits from both its Dominion Energy Brayton Point facility and third
party contacts and paid into the Greenhouse Gas Expendable Trust;''
    (10) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
    (11) Section 7, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act; and
    (12) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
    (I) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Emission
Control Plan ``Amended Emission Control Plan Final Approval Application
for: BWP AQ 25, 310 CMR 7.29 Power Plant Emission Standards,
Transmittal Number X241755, Application Number SE-12-003, Source
Number: 1200061'' dated April 12, 2012 to Peter Balkus, Dominion Energy
Brayton Point, LLC and signed by John K. Winkler, with the following
exceptions which are not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to
BART:
    (1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Emission Limit/Standard
for Hg;
    (2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, EU 4 Emission Limit/Standard
for CO, CO2, PM2.5 and related footnotes;
    (3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for CO2, Hg, CO, and PM2.5;
    (4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for Hg;
    (5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Record Keeping
Requirements for CO2, Hg, CO, and PM2.5;
    (6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Record Keeping
Requirements for Hg;
    (7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Reporting Requirements for
Hg and CEMS monitoring and certification;
    (8) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting Requirements;
    (9) In Table 6, the Compliance Path for CO2, and Hg;
    (10) In Section 4, Special Conditions for ECP, the CO2
requirement in Item 2;
    (11) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
    (12) Section 7, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act; and
    (13) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
    (J) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection letter
``Facility Shutdown, FMF Facility No. 316744'' dated June 22, 2011 to
Jeff Araujo, Somerset Power LLC and signed by John K. Winkler.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) ``Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation Plan'' dated
August 9, 2012.

0
3. In Sec.  52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding new entries to
existing state citations for 310 CMR 7.00, 310 CMR 7.05, 310 CMR 7.08,
and 310 CMR 7.19 in order of ``Date approved by EPA''; and by adding
new state citations for 310 CMR 7.26 and 310 CMR 7.29 in order of
``State citation'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1167  EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.

* * * * *

                                                    Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
                                                               [See notes at end of table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Date          Date
       State citation              Title/Subject       submitted by   approved by      Federal Register       52.1120(c)    Comments/unapproved sections
                                                           State          EPA              citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.00...............  Definitions.............        8/9/12       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Approving the definition of
                                                                                page number where the                   ``Sulfur in Fuel.''
                                                                                document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.05...............  U Fuels All Districts...        8/9/12       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Approves the sulfur content
                                                                                page number where the                   of fuel oil. The following
                                                                                document begins].                       sections were not submitted
                                                                                as part of the SIP:
                                                                                (1)(a)(3), (2), (3), (4),
                                                                                (7), (8), (9).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.08(2)............  MWC NOX requirements....        8/9/12       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific MWC
                                                                                page number where the                   Emission Control Plan for
                                                                                document begins].                       Wheelabrator Saugus revises
                                                                                the NOX limits to 185 ppm by
                                                                                volume at 7% O2 dry basis
                                                                                (30-day rolling average).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.19...............  NOX RACT................      12/30/11       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific NOX RACT
                                                                                page number where the                   for General Electric
                                                                                document begins].                       Aviation Boiler No. 3 to cap
                                                                                annual SO2 and NOX emissions
                                                                                at 249.0 tons each.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.26...............  Industry Performance          12/30/11       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Only approving the Outdoor
                              Standards.                                            page number where the                   Hydronic Heaters (50)-(54).
                                                                                document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.29...............  Emissions Standards for       8/9/2012       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Only approving the SO2 and
                              Power Plants.                                         page number where the                   NOX requirements.
                                                                                document begins].
310 CMR 7.29...............  Emission Standards for        8/9/2012       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific Emission
                              Power Plants.                                         page number where the                   Control Plan requirement for
                                                                                document begins].                       Brayton Point Station Unit
                                                                                1, 2, 3, and 4 which
                                                                                disallows the use of 310 CMR
                                                                                7.29 SO2 Early Reduction
                                                                                Credits or Federal Acid Rain
                                                                                allowances for compliance
                                                                                with 310 CMR 7.29 after June
                                                                                1, 2014.
310 CMR 7.29...............  Emission Standards for        8/9/2012       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific Emission
                              Power Plants.                                         page number where the                   Control Plan requirement for
                                                                                document begins].                       Mt. Tom Station which
                                                                                disallows the use of 310 CMR
                                                                                7.29 SO2 Early Reduction
                                                                                Credits or Federal Acid Rain
                                                                                allowances for compliance
                                                                                with 310 CMR 7.29 after
                                                                                October 1, 2009.

310 CMR 7.29...............  Emission Standards for        8/9/2012       9/19/13  [Insert Federal Register           137  Facility specific Emission
                              Power Plants.                                         page number where the                   Control Plan for Salem
                                                                                document begins].                       Harbor Station Units 1, 2,
                                                                                3, and 4 which limits NOX
                                                                                emissions from Unit 1 to 276
                                                                                tons per rolling 12 month
                                                                                period starting 1/1/2012,
                                                                                limits NOX emissions for
                                                                                Unit 2 to 50 tons per
                                                                                rolling 12 month period
                                                                                starting 1/1/2012, limits
                                                                                SO2 emissions form Unit 2 to
                                                                                300 tons per rolling 12
                                                                                month period starting 1/1/
                                                                                2012, shuts down units 3 and
                                                                                4 effective 6/1/2014.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this
  date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.

[FR Doc. 2013-22692 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59694-59695]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-153]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58730; File No. SR-DTC-2008-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Expand DTC's Debit Cap
Look-Ahead Processing

October 3, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on September 12, 2007, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared
primarily by DTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend the Look-Ahead Process in
DTC's Settlement Services Guide to allow Money Market Issuance
Deliveries pending for a Custodian's or Dealer's net debit cap to
complete against Maturity Presentments pending for an Issuing/Paying
Agent's net debit cap. DTC's processing system would calculate the net
effect of the dollar amount of offsetting transactions in the accounts
of the two Participants involved. If the net of the transactions would
result in positive risk management controls in those two accounts, the
transactions would be completed.

 II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    On June 10, 2003, the Commission approved a proposed rule change to
establish a transaction Look-Ahead Process which became available for
municipal and corporate bonds, including Money Market Instruments
(``MMIs'').\3\ On August 11, 2004, the Commission approved another
proposed rule change which expanded the application and extended the
benefit of the Look-Ahead Process to all equity transactions.\4\ With
this proposed rule change, DTC is proposing to expand the Look-Ahead
Process to MMIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48007 (June 10, 2003),
68 FR 35744 (June 16, 2003) (File No. SR-DTC-2003-07).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50182 (August 11, 2004),
69 FR 51341 (August 18, 2004) (File No. SR-DTC-2004-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of DTC's Look-Ahead Process is to reduce the number of
recycling transactions in the system caused by the Net Debit Cap Risk
Management Control.\5\ The existing Look-Ahead Process finds delivery
transactions that are pending because the Receiving Participant has
reached its net debit cap.\6\ It then looks to see whether the
Receiving Participant has a pending delivery for the same security to
another Participant.\7\ In such a situation, DTC's Account Transaction
Processor (``ATP'') \8\ will calculate the net effect to the collateral
\9\ and net debit cap controls for all three Participants involved. If
the net effect will not result in a deficit in the collateral or net
debit cap controls for any of the three Participants, ATP processes the
transactions simultaneously. Without the Look-Ahead Process, the
transaction would pend in DTC's system until another transaction
created sufficient credit in the Receiving Participant's account. Most
credits are generated when a Participant delivers securities versus
payment, pledges securities for value, receives principal, dividend or
other interest allocations, or wires funds (a Settlement Progress
Payment (``SPP'')) to DTC's account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York in order to reduce its DTC net debit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Net debit caps help ensure that DTC can complete settlement,
even if a Participant fails to settle.
    \6\ Before completing a transaction in which a Participant is
the receiver, DTC calculates the resulting effect the transaction
would have on the Participant's account and determines whether the
resulting net balance would exceed the Participant's net debit cap.
Any transaction that would cause the Participant's net settlement
debit to exceed its net debit cap is placed in a pending (recycling)
queue until another transaction creates credits in the Participant's
account.
    \7\ For example, Participant A is delivering shares to
Participant B and Participant B has a delivery obligation of shares
with the same CUSIP to Participant C.
    \8\ ATP is the core processing system for all transaction
activity affecting security positions held at DTC.
    \9\ DTC tracks collateral in a Participant's account through its
Collateral Monitor (``CM''). At all times, the CM reflects the
amount by which the collateral in the account exceeds the net debit
in the account. When processing a transaction, DTC verifies that the
deliverer's and receiver's CMs will not become negative when the
transaction completes. If the transaction would cause either party
to have a negative CM, the transaction will recycle until the
deficient account has sufficient collateral for the transaction to
complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to further reduce the number of recycling transactions in
the system and to improve the timeliness and certainty of transactions
completing, DTC is proposing to expand the Look-Ahead Process beyond
same securities for MMIs to allow pairs of money market instrument
transactions between two Participants (i.e., an Issuing Paying Agent
[''IPA''] and a custodian or dealer) that are pending for both party's
net debit caps to complete. This situation occurs when an IPA has a
delivery of a new money market instrument to a custodian or a dealer
for X dollars and that same custodian or dealer has a maturity of a
money market instrument of equal or greater value awaiting acceptance
by the same IPA. The proposed rule change would allow ATP to process
those transactions simultaneously, as long as neither Participant's
risk management controls were overridden.

    This enhancement to the Look-Ahead Process will reduce the number
of MMI recycling transactions. The Look-Ahead enhancement to DTC's
processing system will not result in any systematic changes for
Participants.
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC in that
the proposed rule change will promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions because it will allow
transactions to settle through a Look-Ahead Process and as such will
allow MMI transactions to clear and settle in a more prompt and
efficient manner. The proposed rule change will be implemented in a
manner that is consistent with DTC's risk management controls.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments from relating to the proposed rule change have not
yet been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (a) By order approve the proposed rule change or
    (b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2008-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2008-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2008-09 and should be
submitted on or before October 30, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23979 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P