[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63075-63079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24240]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[R03-OAR-2004-VA-0002a; FRL-7831-5]


Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for 
Designated Facilities and Pollutants, Commonwealth of Virginia; Control 
of Municipal Waste Combustor Emissions From Large Existing Municipal 
Solid Waste Combustor Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve the Commonwealth 
of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) municipal waste 
combustor plan (the plan) for implementing emission guideline (EG) 
requirements promulgated under the Clean Air Act (the Act). The plan 
establishes emission limits, monitoring, operating, and recordkeeping 
requirements for existing large MWC with a unit capacity of more than 
250 tons per day (TPD) of municipal solid waste (MSW). An existing MWC 
unit is defined as one for which construction commenced on or before 
September 20, 1994.

DATES: This rule is effective December 28, 2004 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 29, 2004. If 
EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in 
EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2004-VA-0002 by one of the following 
methods:
    A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    B. Agency Web Site: http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA's 
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method 
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting 
comments.
    C. E-mail: http:<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#042b2b736d686f6d612a736568706176446174652a636b72">//<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="76011f1a1d1f135801171a0213043613061758111900">[email protected]</span></a>.
    D. Mail: R03-OAR-2004-VA-0002, Walter Wilkie, Chief, Air Quality 
Analysis, Mailcode 3AP22, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R03-OAR-2004-VA-
0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change, and may be made available online at 
http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov 
or e-mail. The EPA RME and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
RME index at http://www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in RME 
or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James B. Topsale, P.E., at (215) 814-
2190, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#790d16090a18151c57131014391c0918571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="40342f3033212c256e2a292d002530216e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 19, 1995, pursuant to sections 111 and 129 of the Clean 
Air Act (Act), EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) 
applicable to new MWC units and emission guidelines (EG) applicable to 
existing MWC units. The NSPS and EG are codified at 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts Eb and Cb, respectively. See 60 FR 65387. Subparts Cb and Eb 
regulate the following: particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, 
hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, 
mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans.

[[Page 63076]]

    However, on April 8, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit vacated subparts Cb and Eb as they 
apply to MWC units with combustion capacity less than or equal to 250 
tons per day of MSW (small MWCs), consistent with their opinion in 
Davis County Solid Waste Management and Recovery District v. EPA, 101 
F.3d 1395 (D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). 
As a result, subparts Cb and Eb now apply only to MWC units with 
individual unit combustion capacity of more than 250 tons per day of 
MSW (i.e., large MWC units). This change was published in the Federal 
Register (62 FR 45116) on August 25, 1997. In addition, subsequent 
clarifying amendments were published in the Federal Register (66 FR 
57824) on November 16, 2001.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An additional EG amendment was promulgated in the Federal 
Register (66 FR 36473) on July 12, 2001. However, the amendment is 
known to impact only one affected facility in Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 129(b)(2) of the Act requires States to submit to EPA for 
approval State Plans that implement and enforce the EG. State Plans 
must be at least as protective as the EG, and become Federally 
enforceable as a section 111(d)/129 plan upon approval by EPA. The 
procedures for adoption and submittal of State Plans are codified in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart B.
    As required by section 129(b)(3) of the Act, on November 12, 1998 
EPA promulgated a Federal implementation plan (FIP), amended May 24, 
2000, for large MWC units that commenced construction on or before 
September 20, 1994. The FIP (40 CFR part 62, subpart FFF, 63 FR 63191 
and 65 FR 33461) is a set of maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) requirements that implement the 1995 large MWC emission 
guidelines for states, such as Virginia, without an approved plan. The 
FIP fills a Federal enforceability gap until state plans are approved 
and ensures that the affected MWC units stay on track to complete 
pollution control equipment retrofit schedules in order to meet the 
final statutory compliance date of December 19, 2000.

II. Review of Virginia's MWC Plan

    EPA has reviewed the Virginia plan, submitted on August 18, 2003, 
for existing large MWC units in the context of the requirements of 40 
CFR part 60, and subparts B and Cb, as amended. State plans must 
include the following essential elements: (1) Identification of legal 
authority, (2) identification of mechanism for implementation, (3) 
inventory of affected facilities, (4) emissions inventory, (5) 
emissions limits, (6) compliance schedules, (7) testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, (8) public hearing records, and (9) 
annual state progress reports on facility compliance.

A. Identification of Legal Authority

    Title 40 CFR 60.26 requires the plan to demonstrate that the State 
has legal authority to adopt and implement the emission standards and 
compliance schedules. The DEQ has demonstrated that it has the legal 
authority to adopt and implement the emission standards governing large 
MWC units. DEQ's legal authority is provided in the Air Pollution 
Control Law of Virginia, Title 10.1, Chapter 13, of the Code of 
Virginia. This authority is discussed in the plan narrative and a July 
1, 1998 letter from the Virginia Office of the Attorney General to the 
DEQ. This meets the requirements of 40 CFR 60.26.

B. Identification of Enforceable State Mechanisms for Implementing the 
Plan

    The subpart B provision at 40 CFR 60.24(a) requires that state 
plans include emissions standards, defined in 40 CFR 60.21(f) as ``a 
legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of 
emissions into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications 
for control of air pollution emissions.'' The Commonwealth of Virginia 
through the DEQ, has adopted State Air Pollution Control Board 
Regulations (Rule 4-54 and other supporting air program rules) to 
control large MWC emissions. Rule 4-54, Emission Standards for Large 
MWC, became effective on August 4, 1999, and was subsequently amended 
on February 1, 2002, and July 1, 2003. Other applicable and effective 
supporting air program rules were identified and submitted to EPA on 
August 11, 2003 and April 6, 2004. These rules collectively met the 
requirement of 40 CFR 60.24(a) to have a legally enforceable emission 
standard.

C. Inventory of Affected MWC Units

    Title 40 CFR 60.25(a) requires the plan to include a complete 
source inventory of all affected facilities (i.e., existing MWC units 
with a capacity greater than 250 TPD). The DEQ has identified three (3) 
affected facilities. Each have an MWC unit capacity greater than 250 
TPD. The affected facilities are Covanta Fairfax with four units, 
Covanta Alexandria with three units, and the Southeastern Public 
Service Authority with four units.

D. Inventory of Emissions From Affected MWC Units

    Title 40 CFR 60.25(a) requires that the plan include an emissions 
inventory that estimates emissions of the pollutant regulated by the 
EG. Emissions from MWC units contain organics (dioxin/furans), metals 
(cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity), and acid gases 
(hydrogen chloride, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides). For each MWC 
facility, the DEQ plan contains MWC unit emissions rates estimates that 
are given in an acceptable format. This meets the emission inventory 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(a).

E. Emissions Limitations for MWC Units

    Title 40 CFR 60.24(c) specifies that the State plan must include 
emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG, except as 
specified in 40 CFR 60.24(f) which allows for less stringent emission 
limitations on a case-by-case basis if certain conditions are met. 
However, this exception clause is superseded by section 129(b)(2) of 
the Act which requires that state plans be ``at least as protective'' 
as the EG , in this case 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. A review of the 
applicable Rule 4-54 emissions limitations shows that all are ``at 
least as protective'' as those in the EG, as amended. In addition to 
the required section 129 emissions limitations, other limitations under 
Rule 4-54 (i.e., 9 VAC 5-40-8080, 8100, and 8100E), relating to odors, 
toxic pollutants (state only requirements), and nitrogen oxides 
(NO<INF>X</INF>) emissions trading, are not within the scope of section 
129 requirements for plan approval. These other emissions limitations 
are not relevant or approvable under this plan approval action. This is 
discussed further in Section III, Final Action.

F. Compliance Schedules

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(c) and (e), a state plan must include an 
expeditious compliance schedule that owners and operators of affected 
MWCs must meet in order to comply with the requirements of the plan. 
Also, Title 40 CFR 60.39b of the EG provides that planning, awarding of 
contracts, and installation of air emission collection and control 
equipment capable of meeting the EG requirements must be accomplished 
within 3 years of EPA plan approval, but in no case later than December 
19, 2000. Accordingly, the DEQ determined that source compliance with 
the EG emissions limits must be achieved on or before December 19, 
2000, as stipulated in the promulgated FIP. In order to implement this 
requirement, Rule 4-54, 9 VAC 5-40-8110, incorporates by reference the 
Federal plan compliance schedule provisions of 40 CFR 62.14108 and

[[Page 63077]]

62.14109(e) through (m) which establish expeditious interim and final 
compliance dates that are consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 
60.24(c) and (e), and 40 CFR 60.39b of subparts B and Cb, respectively. 
The state plan meets the applicable Federal compliance schedule 
requirements.

G. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    The provisions of 40 CFR 60.24(b) and 60.25(b) stipulate facility 
testing, monitoring recordkeeping and reporting requirements for state 
plans. Also, related EG provisions 40 CFR 60.38b and 60.39b cross 
reference applicable NSPS (subpart Eb) requirements that state plans 
must include. The DEQ regulation meets the subpart B requirements of 40 
CFR 60.24 and 60.25; and the related subpart Cb provisions of 40 CFR 
60.38b and 60.39b. However, when considering that Rule 4-54 references 
40 CFR 60.11(e), which allows use of continuous opacity monitoring 
(COM) data, a point of clarity is in order. The opacity limitations 
promulgated under subparts Cb and Eb were based on stack test data 
using EPA Method 9. Accordingly, COM data is used only as an indicator 
for corrective actions, if necessary, or as the basis for a compliance 
retest of the MWC facility. This matter is discussed and clarified in 
EPA's Background Information Document (EPA-453/R-95-0136) for the MWC 
rules.

H. A Record of Public Hearing on the State Plan

    Public hearings on the plan were held October 17, 2000 and July 23, 
2003. Applicable portions of Rule 4-54 became effective initially on 
August 4, 1999, with subsequent amendments on February 1, 2002 and July 
1, 2003. The state provided evidence of complying with public notice 
and other hearing requirements, including a record of public comments 
received. The DEQ has met the 40 CFR 60.23 requirement for a public 
hearing on the plan.

I. Annual State Progress Reports to EPA

    The DEQ will submit to EPA on an annual basis a report which 
details the progress in the enforcement of the plan in accordance with 
40 CFR 60.25. Accordingly, the DEQ will submit reports on progress in 
plan enforcement to EPA on an annual (calendar year) basis, commencing 
with the first full report period after plan approval.
    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden 
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information about the content of those documents that are the product 
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not 
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed 
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that 
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public 
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege 
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents 
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program 
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce 
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less 
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion 
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or 
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of 
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and 
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required 
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or 
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that 
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal 
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a 
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, 
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from 
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute 
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since 
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal 
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with 
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and 
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its 
section 111(d)/129 program consistent with the Federal requirements. In 
any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege 
and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any 
impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 
its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions 
of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In 
addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is 
likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity 
law.

III. Final Action

    Based upon the rationale discussed above and in further detail in 
the technical support document (TSD) associated with this action, EPA 
is approving the Virginia plan, excluding the non-applicable rule 
provisions, as identified in the DEQ letters of August 11, and 18, 
2003; and April 6, and August, 25, 2004 to EPA. The identified 
exclusions, for example, include Rule 4-54 provisions relating to 
odors, toxic pollutants (state only requirements), NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions trading, and MWC operator requirements under the Virginia 
Board for Waste Management Facility Operators. As a result of this EPA 
approval action, the Federal plan is no longer applicable, except for 
the compliance schedule provisions of 40 CFR 62.14108 and 62.14109(e) 
through (m) that are incorporated by reference into Rule 4-54. Also, 
with respect to certain plan decisions, EPA retains discretionary 
authority for several actions as listed in the August 18, 2003 plan 
narrative, paragraph H. As provided by 40 CFR 60.28(c), any revisions 
to the Virginia plan or supporting regulations will not be considered 
part of the applicable plan until submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia in accordance with 40 CFR 60.28(a) or (b), as applicable, and 
until approved by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, 
requirements.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency

[[Page 63078]]

views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse 
comments. This action simply reflects already existing Federal 
requirement for state air pollution control agencies and existing large 
MWC units that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts B, and Cb; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart FFF, as applicable. 
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, 
EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal 
to approve the section 111(d)/129 plan should relevant adverse or 
critical comments be filed. This rule will be effective December 28, 
2004 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments by 
November 29, 2004. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the 
rule did not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not 
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct 
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to 
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 
Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing 
requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), 
EPA has no authority to disapprove a 111(d)/129 plan submission for 
failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law 
for EPA, when it reviews a 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in 
place of a 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the 
provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-
specific requirements for three (3) specific facilities.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 December 28, 2004. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, approving the Virginia section 111(d)/129 
plan for large MWC units, may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, 
Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry, 
Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Sulfur acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: September 27, 2004.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 is revised to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. Add a center heading, and Sec. Sec.  62.11640, 62.11641, and 
62.11642 to subpart VV to read as follows:

EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING LARGE MUNICIPAL WASTE

COMBUSTOR (MWC) UNITS--SECTION 111(d)/129 PLAN

Sec.  62.11640  Identification of plan.

    Section 111(d) /129 plan for large MWC units with a capacity 
greater than 250 tons per day (TPD) and the associated Virginia Air 
Pollution Control Board Regulations (Rule 4-54, and other supporting 
rules identified in the plan), submitted to EPA on August 18, 2003, 
including supplemental information submitted on August 11

[[Page 63079]]

and September 30, 2003; and April 6, and August 25, 2004.


Sec.  62.11641  Identification of sources.

    The affected facility to which the plan applies is each large MWC 
unit for which construction commenced on or before September 20, 1994.


Sec.  62.11642  Effective date.

    The effective date of the plan for large MWC units is December 28, 
2004.

[FR Doc. 04-24240 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>