+(,121/,1(

Citation: 64 Fed. Reg. 19916 1999 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed May 13 14:28:18 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 78/Friday, April 23, 1999/Rules and Regulations

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: April 12, 1999.

William J. Muszynski,

A cting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

§52.1580 [Amended]

2. Section 52.1580 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (b).

§52.1581 [Removed and Reserved]

3. Section 52.1581 is removed and

reserved.

4. Section 52.1582 is amended by

adding a sentence to the end of

paragraph (d)(1) and by revising

paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) and adding

new paragraph (g) as follows:

§52.1582 Control strategy and

regulations: Ozone (volatile organic

substances) and carbon monoxide. * * * * *

(d)(1) * * * Revisions to the 1990

base year emission inventory dated

February 10, 1999 for the New York/

Northern New Jersey/Long Island and

Philadelphia/Wilmington/Trenton

nonattainment areas of New Jersey have

been approved. * * * * *

(3) The 1996 and 1999 ozone

projection year emission inventories

included in New Jersey's July 30, 1998

addendum and February 10, 1999 State

Implementation Plan revision for the

New York/Northern New Jersey/Long

Island and Philadelphia/Wilmington/

Trenton nonattainment areas have been

approved.

(4) The conformity emission budgets

for the McGuire Air Force Base included

in New Jersey's December 31, 1996 State

Implementation Plan revision have been

approved. The 1999 conformity

emission budgets for the North Jersey

Transportation Planning Authority,

South Jersey Transportation Planning

Organization and Delaware Valley

Regional Planning Commission

included in New Jersey's July 30, 1998

addendum and the February 10, 1999

State Implementation Plan revision have

been approved. * * * * *

(g) The 15 Percent Rate of Progress

(ROP) Plans and the recalculation of the

9 Percent ROP Plans included in the

July 30, 1998 addendum and the

February 10, 1999 State Implementation

Plan revision for the New York/

Northern New Jersey/Long Island and

Philadelphia/Wilmington/Trenton

nonattainment areas have been

approved.

[FR Doc. 99 9872 Filed 4 22 99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA126-0129a; FRL-6233-1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans for Arizona and

California; General Conformity Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action approves various

revisions to State Implementation Plans

(SIP) which contain regulations for

implementing and enforcing the general

conformity rules which the EPA

promulgated on November 30, 1993.

EPA is approving SIP revisions which

contain general conformity rules for the

Arizona SIP and the California SIP for

the following California Air Pollution

Control Districts (APCD) and Air

Quality Management Districts (AQMD):

El Dorado County APCD, Great Basin

Unified APCD, Monterey Bay Unified

APCD, San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD, Santa Barbara County APCD,

South Coast AQMD, Feather River

AQMD, Placer County APCD,

Sacramento Metro AQMD, Imperial

County APCD, Bay Area AQMD, San

Diego County APCD, Butte County

AQMD, Ventura County APCD, Mojave

Desert AQMD and Yolo-Solano AQMD.

The approval of these general

conformity rules into the SIP will result

in the SIP criteria and procedures

governing general conformity

determinations instead of the Federal

rules at 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B for

those actions under the jurisdiction of

the SIPs. Federal actions by the Federal

Highway Administration and Federal

Transit Administration (under Title 23

U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act) are

covered by the transportation

conformity rules under 40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart T-Conformity to State or

Federal Implementation Plans of

Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Developed, Funded or

Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the

Federal Transit Act (and 40 CFR Part 93,

Subpart A) and are not affected by this

action.

EPA approves these SIP revisions

under sections l10(k) and 176(c) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). A more

detailed discussion of this action is

provided below and in the support

documentation.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 22,

1999 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse comments by May 24,

1999. If EPA receives such comment, it

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be

submitted to: Doris Lo, Planning Office

[AIR2], Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's

evaluation report are available for

public inspection at EPA's Region 9

office during normal business hours.

Copies of the submitted rule revisions

are also available for inspection at the

following locations:

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento,

California 95812

El Dorado County APCD, 2850 Fairlane

Court, Placerville, California 95667

Great Basin Unified APCD, 157 Short Street,

Suite #6, Bishop, California 93514

Monterey Bay Unified APCD, 24580 Silver

Cloud Court, Monterey, California 93940

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, 1999

Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno,

California 93721

Santa Barbara County APCD, 26 Castillian

Drive, B 23, Goleta, California 93117

South Coast AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California 91765 4182

Feather River AQMD, 463 Palora Avenue,

Yuba City, California 95991 4711

Placer County APCD, 11464 B Avenue,

Auburn, California 95603

Sacramento Metro AQMD, 8411 Jackson

Road, Sacramento, California 95826

Bay Area AQMD, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, California 94109

Imperial County APCD, 150 South Ninth

Street, El Centro, California 92243 2850

San Diego County, APCD 9150 Chesapeake

Drive, San Diego, California 92123 1096

Butte County AQMD, 9287 Midway, Suite

IA, Durham, California 95938

Ventura County APCD, 669 County Square

Drive, Ventura, California 93003

Mojave Desert AQMD, 15428 Civic Drive,

Suite 200 Victorville, California 92392

2383

19916
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 78/Friday, April 23, 1999/Rules and Regulations

Yolo-Solano AQMD, 1947 Galileo Court,

Suite 103, Davis, California 95616

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doris Lo, Planning Office (AIR2), Air

Division, U.S., Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX,75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105-3901, (415) 744-1287.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

Section 176(c) of the Act requires that

all Federal actions conform to an

applicable implementation plan.

Conformity is defined in section 176(c)

of the Act as conformity to the SIP's

purpose of eliminating or reducing the

severity and number of violations of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

and achieving expeditious attainment of

such standards, and that such activities

will not: (1) Cause or contribute to any

new violation of any standard in any

area, (2) increase the frequency or

severity of any existing violation of any

standard in any area, or (3) delay timely

attainment of any standard or any

required interim emission reductions or

other milestones in any area.

As required by section 176(c) of the

Act, EPA published the final general

conformity rules implementing this

statutory section on November 30, 1993

(58 FR 63214), which are codified under

40 CFR part 51 subpart W-Determining

Conformity of General Federal Actions

to State or Federal Implementation

Plans. Among other things, EPA's

general conformity rules require the

States and local air quality agencies

(where applicable) to adopt and submit

a general conformity SIP revision to

EPA which are "no less stringent than

the requirements" of Subpart W (40 CFR

Part 51.851(b)). See also, § 176(c)(4)(C).

The governors of Arizona and

California submitted SIP revisions in

accordance with 40 CFR part 51, subpart

W that contained general conformity

rules for the following areas on the

following dates summarized below.

Arizona Rule and Subm ittal Date

-Arizona Administrative Code Title 18,

Chapter 2, Article 14, Conformity

Determinations, 3/3/95

California District Rules and Submittal

Dates

-El Dorado County APCD, Rule 502

General Conformity Rule, 11/30/94

-Great Basin Unified APCD, Reg XIII

Conformity of General Federal

Actions to SIPs, 11/30/94

-Monterey Bay Unified APCD,

(Appendix G) General Conformity, 11/

30/94

-San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD,

Rule 9110 General Conformity, 11/30/

94

-Santa Barbara County APCD, Rule 702

General Conformity, 11/30/94

-South Coast AQMD, Rule 1901

General Conformity, 11/30/94

-Feather River AQMD, Rule 10.4

General Conformity, 12/22/94

-Placer County APCD, Rule 508

General Conformity, 12/22/94

-Sacramento Metro AQMD, Rule 104

General Conformity, 12/22/94

-Bay Area AQMD, Federal General

Conformity Regulation, 12/28/94

-Imperial County APCD, Rule 925

General Conformity, 2/24/95

-San Diego County APCD, Rule 1501

General Conformity, 5/24/95

-Butte County AQMD, Rule 1103

General Conformity, 5/25/95

-Ventura County APCD, Rule 220

General Conformity, 8/10/95

-Mojave Desert AQMD, Rule 2002-

General Federal Actions Conformity,

5/10/96

-Yolo-Solano AQMD, Rule 10.3

General Conformity, 12/3/98

II. EPA Evaluation and Final Action

EPA compared each of the submitted

rules to the Federally promulgated rule

at 40 CFR part 51. EPA believes that all

of the submitted SIP revisions are

consistent with 40 CFR 51.851(b) and

are no less stringent than the Federal

rule. EPA is thus approving the above

rules into the SIP under 110(k) and

176(c) of the CAA. A more detailed

discussion of EPA's evaluation can be

found in the Support Documentation

available at the EPA Region 9 Office.

EPA is publishing these rules without

prior proposal because the EPA views

this as a noncontroversial amendment

and anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to

approve the SIP revisions should

adverse comments be filed. These rules

will be effective June 22, 1999 without

further notice unless the Agency

receives adverse comments by May 24,

1999.

If the EPA receives any adverse

comments, then EPA will publish a

timely withdrawal of this direct final

rule in the Federal Register informing

the public that the rule will not take

effect. All public comments received

will then be addressed in a subsequent

final rule based on the proposed rule.

The EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this rule. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

rule should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this rule will be effective

on June 22, 1999 and no further action

will be taken on the proposed rule.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a

regulation that is not required by statute

and that creates a mandate upon a State,

local or tribal government, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments "to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates."

Today's rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments.

The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply

to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be "economically

significant" as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

19917
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 78/Friday, April 23, 1999/Rules and Regulations

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does

not involve decisions intended to

mitigate environmental health or safety

risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA's

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments "to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities." Today's rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. 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. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule 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. This rule is not a "major" rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

H. 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 June 22, 1999.

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 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,

General conformity, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,

Volatile organic compound.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California and the State of Arizona was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: January 29, 1999.

Laura Yoshii,

A cting Regional A dm inistrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D-Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(92) to read as

follows:

§52.120 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(92) Plan revisions were submitted on

March 3, 1995, by the Governor's

designee.

(A) Arizona State Administrative

Code Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 14,

adopted on December 23, 1994. * * * * *

19918
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 78/Friday, April 23, 1999/Rules and Regulations

Subpart F-California

3. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(205) introductory

text, (c)(205)(i) introductory text,

(c)(205)(i)(B)(2), (c)(207)(i)(B)(5),

(c)(207)(i)(E)(2), (c)(207)(i)(F),

(c)(207)(i)(G), (c)(207)(i)(H),

(c)(207)(i)(I), (c)(210)(i)(F), (c)(210)(i)(G),

(c)(210)(i)(H), (c)(215)(i)(E),

(c)(220)(i)(D), (c)(221)(i)(B),

(c)(224)(i)(B)(2), (c)(231)(i)(C) and

(c)(259) to read as follows:

§52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(205) New and amended plans for the

following APCDs were submitted on

December 28, 1994, by the Governor's

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. * * * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Federal General Conformity

Regulation, adopted on September 7,

1994.

* * * * *

(207) * * * (i) * * *

(B) ***

(5) Rule 502, adopted on November 8,

1994.

* * * * *

(E) * * *

(2) Appendix G General Conformity,

adopted on October 19, 1994.

(F) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Regulation XIII, adopted on

October 5, 1994.

(G) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 9110, adopted on October 20,

1994.

(H) Santa Barbara County Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 702, adopted on October 20,

1994.

(I) South Coast Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 1901, adopted on September

9, 1994. * * * * *

(210) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) Feather River Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 10.4, adopted on November 7,

1994.

(G) Placer County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rule 508, adopted on November 3,

1994.

(H) Sacramento Metropolitan Air

Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 104, adopted on November 3,

1994.

* * * * *

(215) * * * (i) * * *

(E) Imperial County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rule 925, adopted on November

29, 1994. * * * * *

(220) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) San Diego County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rule 1501, adopted on March 7,

1995.

* * * * *

(221) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Butte County Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 1103, adopted on February

16, 1995. * * * * *

(224) * * *

(i) * * *

(B)* * *

(2) Rule 220, adopted on May 9, 1995. * * * * *

(231) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) Mojave Desert Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 2002, adopted on October 26,

1994.

* * * * *

(259) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on December 3, 1998, by the Governor's

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 10.3, adopted on February 8,

1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99 9996 Filed 4 22 99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[MD056-3022a; FRL-6330-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Air Quality Plans for Designated

Facilities and Pollutants, Maryland;

Control of Emissions From Large

Municipal Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the

municipal waste combustor (MWC)

111(d)/129 plan submitted by the Air

and Radiation Management

Administration, Maryland Department

of the Environment, on December 4,

1997, and as amended on October 7,

1998. The plan was submitted to fulfill

requirements of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), and EPA emission guidelines

(EG) applicable to existing MWC

facilities with a unit combustor capacity

of more than 250 tons per day (TPD) of

municipal solid waste. An existing

MWC unit is defined as one for which

construction has commenced on or

before September 20, 1994.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on June 22, 1999, without further notice,

unless the EPA receives adverse

comment by May 24, 1999. If adverse

comment is received, the EPA 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: Comments may be mailed to

Makeba A. Morris, Chief, Technical

Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP22,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations: Air

Protection Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

and the Air and Radiation Management

Administration, Maryland Department

of the Environment, 2500 Broening

Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James B. Topsale at (215) 814-2190, or

by e-mail at topsale.jim@epamail.gov.

While information may be obtained via

e-mail, any comments must be

submitted, in writing, as indicated in

the ADDRESSES section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 111(d) of the CAA requires

that "designated" pollutants controlled

under standards of performance for new

stationary sources by section 111(b) of

the CAA must also be controlled at

existing sources in the same source

category. Also, section 129 of the CAA

specifically addresses solid waste

combustion. It requires EPA to establish

emission guidelines (EG) for MWC units

and requires states to develop state

plans for implementing the promulgated

EG. The part 60, subpart Cb, EG for

MWC units differ from other EG

adopted in the past because the rule

addresses both sections 111(d) and 129

CAA requirements. Section 129

requirements override certain related

aspects of section 111(d).

19919