6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0185; FRL-11616-02-R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Massachusetts on July 22, 2021, and
supplemented on June 15, 2022, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule for the program’s second implementation period.
Massachusetts’ SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their
long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any
future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional
haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable
requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is
taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPAR01-OAR-2023-0185. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://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 at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 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 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square - Suite 100, (Mail code 5MI), Boston, MA 02109 - 3912, tel. (617) 918-1628, email rackauskas.eric@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On July 22, 2021, and supplemented on June 15, 2022, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for
the second implementation period. MassDEP made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements
of the CAA’s regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR
51.308.
On January 10, 2024, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which the
EPA proposed to approve Massachusetts’ July 22, 2021 (as supplemented on June 15, 2022),1 SIP

Massachusetts submitted a letter on May 3, 2024, to clarify the intent of their June 15, 2022 supplement regarding the
incorporation of the Canal permit provisions into the SIP.

submission as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period
contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. The EPA is now determining that the Massachusetts
regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period meets the applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements and thus approves Massachusetts’ submission into its SIP.
Other specific requirements of the Massachusetts submittal and the rationale for the EPA's
proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

II. Response to Comments
In response to the NPRM, the EPA received a comment letter signed by the National Parks
Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Appalachian Mountain Club, and the Coalition to Protect
America’s National Parks (collectively, the “Conservation Groups” or the “Groups”) and is
providing responses to the comments raised in the letter. The Conservation Groups state in their
comment letter that they “do not oppose EPA’s proposal to approve Massachusetts’ [Regional
Haze] SIP Revision,” but rather “urge EPA to address the issues raised [in the comment letter]
before finalizing” the approval. EPA also received a comment letter from the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU) in support of the proposed action. The specific
comments may be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0185 on the
https://www.regulations.gov website.

Comment: The Conservation Groups contend that MANEVU’s visibility modeling and source
selection method used an inappropriately high threshold. The Conservation Groups comment that
the MANEVU threshold on which Massachusetts relied (3.0 Mm-1) identified only two sources for
a Four-Factor Analysis—Brayton Unit 4 and Canal Unit 1—and failed to select other significant
sources, such as municipal waste combustors (MWCs), that have higher NOx emissions. The
Groups state that “Massachusetts should have used a lower threshold that captured a meaningful
portion of in-state sources, such as a Q/d of 5 or lower, or an equivalent threshold.” As the 3.0

Mm-1 threshold identified only two sources in the entire State for a four-factor analysis, the Groups
claim that Massachusetts failed to conduct a rigorous and meaningful source selection process.
Response: As explained in the NPRM, the EPA does not necessarily agree that the 3.0 inverse
megameters (Mm−1) visibility impact is a reasonable threshold for source selection. The Regional
Haze Rule recognizes that, due to the nature of regional haze visibility impairment, numerous and
sometimes relatively small sources may need to be selected and evaluated for implementation of
control measures to make reasonable progress.2 As EPA has explained, while states have discretion
to choose any source selection threshold that is reasonable, “[a] state that relies on a visibility (or
proxy for visibility impact) threshold to select sources for four-factor analysis should set the
threshold at a level that captures a meaningful portion of the state’s total contribution to visibility
impairment to Class I areas.” In this case, the 3.0 Mm−1 threshold used in MANEVU Ask 2
identified only two sources in Massachusetts (and only 22 across the entire MANEVU region),
indicating that it may, in some cases, be unreasonably high. But these were not the only sources
Massachusetts selected for analysis. As EPA noted in the NPRM, Massachusetts considered a large
set of sources that burn fuel oil throughout much of the Commonwealth and considered the four
statutory factors to develop sulfur in fuel regulations that control SO2 emissions from them.3
Massachusetts also examined the emissions from, and the controls that apply to, its largest
operating electric generating unit (EGU) and industrial/commercial/institutional boiler (ICI boiler)
sources.4 In addition, Massachusetts examined emissions from peaking combustion turbines that
have the potential to run on high electric demand days and identified existing stringent controls for
such sources or equivalent alternative reductions achieved through retirements.5 Massachusetts also
examined emissions from the municipal waste combustors (MWCs) identified by the National Park
Service through the federal land manager (FLM) consultation process, and thus demonstrated that it

See Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, at 4 (July 8, 2021) (“2021 Clarifications Memo”).
3 89 FR 1482, 1499 (January 10, 2024).
4 Id. at 1495, 1499.
5 Id. at 1496, 1499.

relied upon previously EPA-approved NOx emission limits for both large and small MWCs in its
long-term strategy, and reasonably explained its decision not to conduct four factor analyses at this
time for the four MWCs included in the National Park Service’s final list.6
Furthermore, the Regional Haze Rule does not require states to consider controls for all sources,
all source categories, or any or all sources in a particular source category. Rather, states have
discretion to choose any source selection methodology or threshold that is reasonable, provided that
the choices they make are reasonably explained.7 To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state’s SIP submission must include “a description of the criteria it used to determine which
sources or groups of sources it evaluated.” The technical basis for source selection must also be
appropriately documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). In this instance, EPA proposed
to find that Massachusetts had demonstrated that the sources of SO2 and NOx within the
Commonwealth that would be expected to contribute to visibility impairment have small emissions
of those pollutants, are subject to stringent SIP-approved emission control measures, or both.
Massachusetts’ information and explanation indicate that the State in fact examined a reasonable
set of sources, including sources captured by the other MANEVU Asks and sources flagged by the
FLMs, and reasonably concluded that additional four-factor analyses were not necessary because
the outcome would be that no further emission reductions would be reasonable for this planning
period.

Comment: Relying on EPA Regional Haze guidance documents and legislative history of the Clean
Air Act, the Conservation Groups state that Massachusetts improperly exempts from four factor
analysis sources that are “Effectively Controlled” under other CAA programs. The Groups assert
that EPA cannot excuse Massachusetts’ failure to conduct four-factor analyses for sources “just
because they are subject to controls under the [National Ambient Air Quality Standards] NAAQS

6
Id. at 1504; Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP Revision at 104-08.
See Clarifications Memo at sections 2 and 2.1.

program.” The comment states that “none of these existing measures are included in
Massachusetts’ long-term strategy or the SIP Revision’s regulatory requirements, so neither
Massachusetts nor EPA can rely on them to demonstrate that the State is making reasonable
progress under the Regional Haze program.” The comment further states: “Massachusetts relied on
existing air permits to exempt sources from complete four-factor analyses and adopting additional
controls,” and “EPA cannot rely on control requirements or emission limits in state-issued permits
that are not incorporated into the SIP Revision’s long-term strategy or regulatory requirements to
justify its proposed approval of Massachusetts’ SIP Revision.”

Response: EPA's approval of Massachusetts’ regional haze SIP is based on Massachusetts’
satisfaction of the applicable regulatory requirements for the second planning period in 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (i). These requirements include that states must evaluate and determine the
emission reduction measures necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four
statutory factors and that the measures that are necessary for reasonable progress must be in the
SIP. Massachusetts’ submission includes four-factor analyses in response to Asks 2 (for NOx and
SO2 emissions from Canal Unit 1) and 3 (for SO2 emissions from sources across the
Commonwealth). As EPA explained in the NPRM, in assessing its compliance with these Asks
Massachusetts explicitly engaged with the statutory and regulatory requirement to determine
measures necessary for reasonable progress based on the four factors.8 As a result, EPA proposed
in the NPRM to find that Massachusetts’ SIP submittal satisfies the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) that a State determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the four factors.9 Further, Massachusetts requested that EPA
approve the new permit conditions for Canal Unit 1 into the SIP. In addition, Massachusetts relied
on several State air pollution control regulations already approved into the SIP, including 310 CMR

8
89 FR at 1498-99.
Id. at 1500.

7.05(1), Fuels All Districts, Sulfur Content of Fuels, 310 CMR 7.08(2), Incinerators, Municipal
Waste Combustors, and 310 CMR 7.19, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). Thus, EPA is appropriately finalizing its approval of
Massachusetts’ Regional Haze SIP revision based on EPA’s determination that Massachusetts’ SIP,
including its long-term strategy, satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), and additional
four-factor analyses are not required.
Furthermore, contrary to commenters’ arguments, Massachusetts’ reliance on already effective
controls in lieu of four-factor analyses for other sources in the Commonwealth is not inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act legislative history or EPA Regional Haze Guidance. As the comment notes,
EPA stated in the NPRM that Congress determined that “a visibility protection program is needed
in addition to the [Clean Air Act]’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs, as further emission reductions may be necessary
to adequately protect visibility in Class I areas throughout the country.”10 Contrary to commenters’
arguments, however, this statement does not say that Congress determined that every State must
analyze the four factors for all sources, or for sources that are already well controlled. Indeed, EPA
recognized that reasonable progress analyses will vary from State to State.11 Further, EPA specified
that further emissions reductions “may be” necessary, which recognizes that additional reductions
will not always be necessary, depending on the effectiveness of other existing programs.
Accordingly, in both guidance documents, EPA recognized that a State may reasonably decide not
to select sources that have recently installed effective controls.12 As EPA put it in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, “The underlying rationale for the ‘effective controls’ flexibility is that if a
source’s emissions are already well controlled, it is unlikely that further cost-effective reductions
are available.” Thus, contrary to the claim in the comment, both guidance documents recognize that
a State may reasonably decide not to select sources that have recently installed effective controls. In

89 FR at 1485 (citing H.R. Rep No. 95–294 at 205).
Id. at 1484-85.
12 2019 Guidance at 22-25; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5.
such a scenario, per the guidance, the State should explain why it is reasonable to assume that a full
four-factor analysis would likely result in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary.13
Massachusetts did not decline to conduct four-factor analyses for certain sources “just because they
are subject to controls under the NAAQS program,” as commenters argue. Instead, Massachusetts
evaluated these sources, including applicable facility permits and regulations, and demonstrated
that the high level of control already required makes it reasonable to conclude that a full four-factor
analysis would likely result in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary.
Comment: The Conservation Groups claim that the State should, and that the EPA must, consider
the environmental justice implications of Massachusetts’ SIP revision. The Groups cite EPA
Regional Haze guidance and 1994 and 2023 Executive orders addressing environmental justice and
use the EPA EJ Screen tool to identify communities near several municipal waste combustors that
may have higher percentages of low-income populations and people of color than the rest of the
State as a whole.
Response: The regional haze statutory provisions do not explicitly address considerations of
environmental justice, and neither do the regulatory requirements of the second planning period in
40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). However, the lack of explicit direction does not preclude the State
from addressing EJ in the State's SIP submission. As explained in “EPA Legal Tools to Advance
Environmental Justice”14 and EPA Regional Haze guidance,15 the CAA provides states with the
discretion to consider environmental justice in developing rules and measures related to regional
haze. While a State may consider environmental justice under the reasonable progress factors,
neither the statute nor the regulation compels states or the EPA to conduct an environmental justice
analysis in developing or evaluating a SIP submission.

2019 Guidance at 23; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5.
See EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, at 35–36 (May 2022), available at
https://www.epa.gov/ogc/epa-legal-tools-advance-environmental-justice.
15 Clarifications Memo at 16.
In this instance, Massachusetts explained in its SIP submission that the “SIP revision includes
measures that reduce air pollutant emissions and will not create any burdens on environmental
justice populations.”16 MassDEP noted that it “considers environmental justice in all of its
programs as described in the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affair’s 2017
Environmental Justice Policy,” which “directs [Massachusetts] agencies to engage in enhanced
public participation for certain projects and to conduct enhanced analysis and review of impacts
and mitigation for certain projects.”17 MassDEP explained that while its Regional Haze SIP
revision did not trigger the project criteria in the State policy, MassDEP nonetheless translated the
Notice of Public Hearing and Comment into several languages and sent the notice to a broad array
of stakeholders, including environmental justice advocacy organizations.18 In addition, MassDEP
explained that “Massachusetts has and is continuing to take significant actions to reduce air
pollution that affects environmental justice communities, including adopting California low and
zero emissions standards for cars and trucks; providing grants for electric buses and rebates for
purchase of electric cars and trucks, providing grants for electric vehicle charging stations and for
diesel truck emissions controls and electrification; and implementing a net-zero climate goal that
prioritizes reducing air pollution from fossil fuel combustion in over-burdened and environmental
justice communities.”19
The commenter also provided additional information from an EJ Screen analysis that the State
did not consider as part of its regional haze decision making. The EPA acknowledges the EJ Screen
information provided as part of the comment, which identifies certain demographic and
environmental information regarding areas across Massachusetts. The focus of the SIP at issue
here, the regional haze SIP for Massachusetts, is SO2 and NOX emissions and their impacts on
visibility impairment at the 156 mandatory federal Class I areas. This action addresses

Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP Submission, App. 43 at page 8.
Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
Massachusetts’ choices to reduce these emissions at several EGUs and other sources of air
pollution across the State. As discussed in the NPRM and in this notice of final rulemaking, EPA
has evaluated Massachusetts’ SIP submission against the statutory and regulatory regional haze
requirements and determined that it satisfies those minimum requirements. The CAA and
applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an evaluation of environmental
justice with a SIP. With respect to the EPA’s adherence with the Executive orders, see section V
below.

Comment: MANEVU commented to support the EPA's proposal to approve Massachusetts’
regional haze State implementation plan (SIP). MANEVU also stated that it supports the EPA's
thorough approach in reviewing Massachusetts’ SIP, including its response to each MANEVU Ask.
MANEVU also noted that it “expects EPA will review other states’ responses to the MANEVU
Ask in a similar manner, including states outside the MANEVU region, particularly those found by
MANEVU technical analysis to be reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at
one or more of MANEVU’s Class I areas.”

Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment.

III. Final Action
The EPA is approving the “Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision
for the Second Planning Period (2018–2028)”, submitted July 22, 2021, and “Regional Haze SIP
Revision for Massachusetts—Supplement” source specific requirements for Canal Generating
Station, submitted May 26, 2022, as collectively satisfying the regional haze requirements for the
second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference
“Regional Haze SIP Revision for Massachusetts—Supplement” source specific requirements for
Canal Generating Station (Permit number 21–AQ02F–011–APP), submitted June 15, 2022 (and
clarified on May 3, 2024) to limit the sulfur content of fuel oil, described in the amendments to 40
CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that
plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date
of the final rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update
to the SIP compilation.20
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 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

• 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); and
• 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.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area
where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to
identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects”
of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations,
and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should

bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or
programs and policies.”
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection did not evaluate environmental
justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis
and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration
of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, lowincome populations, and Indigenous peoples.
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 [INSERT DATE 60
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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: June 27, 2024.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 1.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W—Massachusetts
2. Amend § 52.1120 by:
a. In the table in paragraph (d), adding an entry for “Canal Generating Station” at the end of the
table; and
b. In the table in paragraph (e), adding an entry for “Massachusetts Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan Revision for the Second Planning Period (2018-2028)” at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
§ 52.1120 Identification of plan
*

*

*

*

*

(d) * * *
EPA Approved Massachusetts Source Specific Requirements
Name of source

Permit number

State effective
EPA approval date 2
date
*******

Explanations

Canal Generating
Station

21-AQ02F-011APP

May 26, 2022

[INSERT DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]

Regional Haze SIP Revision
Supplement: fuel oil purchased
for EU1 restricted to 0.3%
sulfur content limit

[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER
CITATION ]
To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
(e) * * *
Massachusetts NonRegulatory
Name of nonregulatory SIP
provision

Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment area

State submittal
date/effective date

EPA approved
date 3

Explanations

*******
Massachusetts
Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Revision for the
Second Planning
Period (2018-2028)

Statewide

Submitted July 22,
[Insert date of
publication in the
Federal Register]
[Insert Federal
Register citation]

To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2024-14632 Filed: 7/5/2024 8:45 am; Publication Date: 7/8/2024]