21354 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(i) Incorporation by reference. Indiana

Administrative Code Title 326: Air

Pollution Control Board, Article 6:

Particulate Rules, Rule 1:

Nonattainment Area Limitations,

Section 9: Dubois County. Added at 22

In. Reg. 423. Effective October 18, 1998.

[FR Doc. 00–9920 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket No. CT–055–7214a; FRL—6577–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Connecticut; Plan for

Controlling MWC Emissions From

Existing MWC Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) approves the sections

111(d)/129 State Plan submitted by the

Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection (CTDEP) on

October 1, 1999. This State Plan

implements and enforces provisions at

least as protective as the Emissions

Guidelines (EGs) applicable to existing

Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs)

units with capacity to combust more

than 250 tons/day of municipal solid

waste (MSW).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on June 20, 2000, without further notice

unless EPA receives significant, material

and adverse comment by May 22, 2000.

If EPA receives adverse comment, we

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: You should address your

written comments to: Mr. John Courcier,

Acting Manager, Air Permits Unit,

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.

EPA—New England, Region 1, One

Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP),

Boston, Massachusetts 02114–2023.

Documents which EPA has

incorporated by reference are available

for public inspection at the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460. You may examine relevant

copies of materials the DEP submitted to

EPA during normal business hours at

the following locations. The interested

persons wanting to examine these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the day of the

visit.

Environmental Protection Agency—

New England, Region 1, Air Permits

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,

Suite 1100, One Congress Street, Boston,

Massachusetts 02114–2023.

Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

Management, Planning and Standards

Division, 79 Elm Street, Hartford,

Connecticut 06106–5127, (860) 424–

3026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Courcier at (617) 918–1659.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

II. When Did These Requirements First

Become Known?

III. When Does the State Plan Become

Effective?

IV. What Happens to the Federal Plan After

the Effective Date of the State Plan?

V. Who Must Comply With the

Requirements?

VI. By What Date Must MWCs in Connecticut

Achieve Compliance?

VII. MWC Operators Must Control Which

Pollutants?

VIII. What Emission Controls Are Necessary

To Achieve Compliance?

IX. What Happens if an MWC Does Not/

Cannot Meet the Requirements by the Final

Compliance Date?

X. What Did the State Submit as Part of Its

State Plan?

XI. How Did the State Show That its Plan is

Approvable?

XII. What is Connecticut’s Nitrogen Oxides

(NOX) Emissions Trading Program?

XIII. Is Connecticut’s NOX Emissions Trading

Program Approvable?

XIV. When Did EPA Publish the Rules?

XV. Why Does EPA Need to Approve State

Plans?

XVI. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is approving the above

referenced State Plan. EPA is publishing

this approval action without a prior

proposal because the Agency views this

as a noncontroversial action 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 State Plan should anyone

file relevant adverse comments. If EPA

receives no significant, material, and

adverse comments by May 22, 2000, this

action will be effective June 20, 2000.

If EPA receives significant, material,

and adverse comments by the above

date, we will withdraw this action

before the effective date by publishing a

subsequent document in the Federal

Register that will withdraw this final

action. EPA will address all public

comments received in a subsequent

final rule based on the parallel proposed

rule published in today’s Federal

Register. EPA will not begin a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If EPA

receives no comments, this action will

be effective June 20, 2000.

EPA’s approval of CTDEP’s State Plan

is based on our findings that:

(1) CTDEP provided adequate public

notice of public hearings for the

proposed rule-making that allows

Connecticut to carry out and enforce

provisions that are at least as protective

as the EGs for large MWCs, and

(2) CTDEP demonstrated its legal

authority to adopt emission standards

and compliance schedules applicable to

the designated facilities; enforce

applicable laws, regulations, standards

and compliance schedules; seek

injunctive relief; obtain information

necessary to determine compliance;

require record keeping; conduct

inspections and tests; require the use of

monitors; require emission reports of

owners and operators; and make

emission data publicly available.

II. When Did These Requirements First

Become Known?

Some form of the EGs was first

published in the Federal Register in

1989. On December 19, 1995, according

to sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act (Act), the EPA published the current

form of the EGs applicable to existing

MWCs. The EGs are at 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Cb. See 60 FR 65387 and the

Background section.

III. When Does the State Plan Become

Effective?

This direct final rule is effective on

June 20, 2000, without further notice

unless as explained under I. above, EPA

receives adverse comment by May 22,

2000.

IV. What Happens to the Federal Plan

After the Effective Date of the State

Plan?

The Federal Plan is an interim action.

On the effective date of this action, the

Federal Plan will no longer apply to

MWC units covered by the State Plan.

V. Who Must Comply With the

Requirements?

The State Plan affects all MWCs:

1. With a combustion capacity greater

than 250 tons per day of municipal solid

waste (large MWC units), and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21355

2. Which commenced construction on

or before September 20, 1994 (existing

MWC units).

CTDEP submitted its Plan after the

Court of Appeals vacated 40 CFR part

60, subpart Cb as it applies to small

MWC units. Thus, the Connecticut State

Plan, as approved by EPA, covers only

large, existing MWC units. Small and

new units are not subject to the

requirements of subpart Cb and not

subject to this approval.

VI. By What Date Must MWCs in

Connecticut Achieve Compliance?

All existing large MWC units in the

state of Connecticut must comply with

these emission standards by December

19, 2000.

VII. MWC Operators Must Control

Which Pollutants?

Subpart Cb regulates the following

pollutants: particulate matter, opacity,

sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride,

oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide,

lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxin

and dibenzofurans.

VIII. What Emission Controls Are

Necessary To Achieve Compliance?

The basis for control of each pollutant

is as follows:

a. for PM, opacity, Cd, Pb,

and Hg

GCP and SD/ESP/

CI, or GCP and

SD/FF/CI;

b. for dioxin/

furan

GCP and SD/ESP,

or GCP and SD/

FF;

c. for SO2 and

HCl

GCP and SD/ESP,

or GCP and SD/

FF;

d. for NOX SNCR.

GCP—good combustion practice

SD—spray dryer

ESP—electrostatic precipitator

FF—fabric filter

CI—carbon injection

SNCR—selective noncatalytic

reduction

IX. What Happens if an MWC Does Not/

Cannot Meet the Requirements by the

Final Compliance Date?

Any existing large MWC unit that fails

to meet the requirements by December

19, 2000 must shut down. The unit

cannot start up until the owner/operator

installs the controls necessary to meet

the requirements.

X. What Did the State Submit as Part of

Its State Plan?

The CTDEP submitted to EPA on

October 1, 1999 the following sections

111(d)/129 State Plan components for

carrying out and enforcing the EGs for

existing MWCs in the State: Legal

Authority; Emission Standards and

Limitations; Compliance Schedule;

MWC Emissions and MWC Plant/Unit

Inventories; Procedures for Testing and

Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants;

Source Surveillance, Compliance

Assurance and Enforcement;

Demonstration That the Public Had

Adequate Notice and Opportunity to

Submit Written Comments and Public

Hearing Summary; and applicable State

regulations (CTDEP regulations section

22a–174–38).

The State excluded from the State

Plan the provision requiring compliance

with a mercury emission limit of 0.028

mg/dscm, or 85% reduction by weight.

Accordingly, only the limit of 0.080 mg/

dscm, or 85% reduction by weight is

included in the State Plan.

Also, as part of its MWC regulations,

CT included a nitrogen oxides (NOX)

emissions trading program. Basically,

the program allows MWCs that

commenced construction before

December 20, 1989, and therefore are

not subject to the NSPS, to use NOX

credits to comply with the NOX

emission limits of subsection (c) of the

regulation. The regulation allows MWCs

constructed after December 20, 1989 to

participate in the NOX credit trading

program. However, such sources may

not use credits to meet the NOX limits

but may only generate credits if

emissions are below the applicable

limits and lower than the source’s

trading baseline.

The trading program regulations

define the methodology and formulas

for determining, on a daily basis, the

quantity of credit that a unit generates

or uses, including the recordkeeping

and reporting requirements. The trading

program regulations define the trading

baseline as well as the credit

quantification procedures. The program

regulations also define violations and

penalty provisions for MWC sources

that do not meet the NOX emission

limits or fail to acquire sufficient credits

to meet the limits on a daily basis.

XI. How Did the State Show That Its

Plan is Approvable?

In section II of Connecticut’s Plan,

CTDEP states that the Connecticut

General Assembly has granted the

Commissioner of the CTDEP broad

general authority to carry out his duties

to protect the environment. In addition,

this section documents the CTDEP’s

authority to: (1) Adopt emission

standards and compliance schedules; (2)

enforce applicable laws, regulations,

standards and compliance schedules; (3)

seek injunctive relief; (4) obtain

information necessary to determine

compliance; (5) require recordkeeping;

(6) conduct inspections; (7) conduct

compliance tests; (8) require the use of

monitors; (9) require emission reports;

and (10) make emissions data available

to the public.

In Section III of the State Plan, CTDEP

identifies a new regulation, Regulations

of Connecticut State Agencies (R.S.C.A.)

section 22a–174–38 for Municipal

Waste Combustors (Appendix A of the

Plan) and the part 70, Title V permit as

the enforceable mechanisms. EPA is

approving the standards and limitations

under section 22a–174–38 for being at

least as protective as the Federal

requirements contained in subpart Cb

for existing large MWC units.

In its State Plan and MWC

regulations, CTDEP established a

compliance schedule and legally

enforceable increments of progress for

each large MWC. EPA has reviewed and

approved this portion of the State Plan

for being at least as protective as Federal

requirements for existing large MWC

units.

In Section IV of the State Plan, CTDEP

listed the five Designated Facilities that

make up the MWC unit inventory for

Connecticut. CTDEP also included a

Table 2 in its Plan that contains the

emissions data for Connecticut’s MWCs.

EPA reviewed and approved this

portion of the Plan as meeting the

Federal requirements for existing large

MWC units. Although section 22a–174–

38 regulates both existing MWCs and

MWCs constructed after September 20,

1994, this action approves the State Plan

only for the purpose of regulating

existing large MWC units. The

provisions of section 22a–174–38 which

apply to new units (constructed after

September 20, 1994) are not approved as

part of the State Plan.

In Section V of the State Plan, CTDEP

describes the emission limits and other

requirements of R.S.C.A. Section 22a–

174–38. EPA has determined that the

applicable requirements of Section 22a–

174–38 are at least as protective as the

EGs.

In section V of the State Plan, CTDEP

states that section 22a–174–38(m)

requires MWC owners and operators to

comply with any compliance schedules.

In section VII of the State Plan,

CTDEP describes its legal authority to

require owners and operators of

designated facilities to maintain records

and report to the State the nature and

amount of emissions and any other

information necessary to enable the

State to judge the compliance status of

the affected facilities. Section 22a–174–

38 differs significantly from the EGs in

that the State requires quarterly, rather

than semiannual, reports of instances in

which an MWC exceeds emission

standards. CTDEP also cites its legal

21356 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

authority to provide periodic inspection

and testing and provisions for making

reports of MWC emissions data,

correlated with applicable emission

standards, available to the public. EPA

reviewed and approved these State

requirements for being at least as

protective as the Federal requirements

for existing large MWC units.

In section VIII of the State Plan,

CTDEP describes the record of the

public hearing process. Appendix D of

the State Plan contains the pertinent

information. EPA reviewed and

approved this portion of the Plan as

meeting the minimum Federal public

hearing requirements for a State Plan.

In section IX of the State Plan, CTDEP

states it commitment to provide annual

progress reports to EPA. The reports

will include such things as the

compliance status, enforcement actions,

increments of progress, identification of

sources that have ceased operation or

started operation, contingency plan

actions, any plan revisions, emission

inventory information for sources that

have started operation, updated

emission inventory and compliance

information, and copies of technical

reports on all performance testing and

monitoring, including concurrent

process data.

XII. What is Connecticut’s Nitrogen

Oxides (NOX) Emissions Trading

Program?

As part of the MWC control program

regulations, CT included a nitrogen

oxides (NOX emissions trading program.

Basically, the program allows MWCs

that commenced construction before

December 20, 1989, and therefore are

not subject to the NSPS, to use NOX

credits to comply with the NOX

emission limits of subsection (c) of the

regulation. The regulation allows MWCs

constructed after December 20, 1989 to

participate in the NOX credit trading

program. However, such sources may

not use credits to meet the NOX limits

but may only generate credits if

emissions are below the applicable

limits and lower than the source’s

trading baseline.

The trading program regulations

define the methodology and formulas

for determining, on a daily basis, the

quantity of credit that a unit generates

or uses, including the recordkeeping

and reporting requirements. The trading

program regulations define the trading

baseline as well as the credit

quantification procedures. The program

regulations also define violations and

penalty provisions for MWC sources

that do not meet the NOX emission

limits or fail to acquire sufficient credits

to meet the limits on a daily basis.

XIII. Is Connecticut’s NOX Emissions

Trading Program Approvable?

In EPA’s guidelines, EPA allowed

states to include a NOX emission credit

trading program as part of the NOX

control portion of its MWC regulations.

The guideline states that such NOX

emissions trading must be approved by

EPA.

EPA has reviewed subsection (d) of

section 22a–174–38. EPA finds CT’s

NOX emissions trading program

approvable as an emissions trading

program for MWCs according to the

EPA’s EIP rules, 40 CFR part 51, subpart

51.490 through 51.493. The regulations

under section 22a–174–38(d) adequately

define the applicability of the program;

the state program requirements, such as

the program scope; source specific

requirements, such as credit calculation

procedures, emissions monitoring,

recordkeeping, reporting, and

compliance requirements; as well as the

administrative requirements, schedule,

and the enforcement and penalty

mechanisms. Additionally, CTDEP

currently conducts annual trading

program audits which include an

accounting of the credits created and

used by MWCs. Furthermore, EPA finds

that the emissions quantification

protocols for credit creation and use

under subsection (d)(4) are fully

approvable as generic protocols for

MWC units to create or use NOX credits.

In this way, upon approval of this

regulation, NOX credits created using

the creation formula in that subsection

will be considered federally enforceable

for other purposes under CT regulations,

e.g., for compliance with NOX RACT

limits under section 22a–174–22.

XIV. When Did EPA Publish the Rules?

On December 19, 1995, according to

sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act (Act), EPA issued new source

performance standards (NSPS)

applicable to new MWCs and emissions

guidelines (EGs) applicable to existing

MWCs. The NSPS and EGs 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 dioxin and

dibenzofurans.

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

capacity to combust less than or equal

to 250 tons/day of MSW (small MWCs),

consistent with its 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 Eb and Cb apply only to MWC

units with individual capacity to

combust more than 250 tons/day of

municipal solid waste (large MWC

units).

XV. Why Does EPA Need To Approve

State Plans?

Under section 129 of the Act, EGs are

not federally enforceable. Section

129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to

submit State Plans to EPA for approval.

Each state must show that its State Plan

will carry out and enforce the EGs. State

Plans must be at least as protective as

the EGs, and they become federally

enforceable upon EPA’s approval.

The procedures for adopting and

submitting State Plans are in 40 CFR

part 60, subpart B. EPA originally issued

the subpart B provisions on November

17, 1975. EPA amended subpart B on

December 19, 1995, to allow the

subparts developed under section 129 to

include specifications that supersede

the general provisions in subpart B

regarding the schedule for submittal of

State Plans, the stringency of the

emission limitations, and the

compliance schedules. See 60 FR 65414.

XVI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21357

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

Under section 129 of the Act, EPA is

required to approve State Plans that

meet the criteria of the statute.

Furthermore, this final rule will 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, because it

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. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order 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 Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

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 Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects 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. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must 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 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 action does not create any

new requirements on any entity affected

by this State Plan. Thus, the action will

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

State Plan approvals under section

111(d) and section 129(b)(2) of the Clean

Air Act do not create any new

requirements on any entity affected by

this rule, including small entities. They

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Furthermore,

in developing the MWC EGs and

standards, EPA prepared a written

statement pursuant to the Regulatory

Flexibility Act which it published in the

1995 promulgation notice (see 60 FR

65413). In accordance with EPA’s

determination in issuing the 1995 MWC

EGs, this State Plan does not include

any new requirements that will have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, because the Federal 111(d)

Plan approval does not impose any new

requirements and pursuant to section

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

the Regional Administrator certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

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 costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 on by the rule.

In developing the MWC EGs and

standards, EPA prepared a written

statement pursuant to section 202 of the

Unfunded Mandates Act which it

published in the 1995 promulgation

notice (see 60 FR 65405 to 65412). The

EPA has determined that this State Plan

does not include any new Federal

mandates above those previously

considered during promulgation of the

1995 MWC guidelines. In approving the

State Plan, EPA is approving preexisting requirements under State law

and imposing no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from EPA’s

approval of State Plan provisions, nor

will EPA’s approval of the State Plan

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Thus, this action is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202, 203, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act.

G. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. section 801(a)(1)(A),

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. section 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub. L. 104–

21358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus bodies. The

NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

In approving or disapproving state

plans under section 129 of the Clean Air

Act, EPA does not have the authority to

revise or rewrite the State’s rule, so the

Agency does not have authority to

require the use of particular voluntary

consensus standards. Accordingly, EPA

has not sought to identify or require the

State to use voluntary consensus

standards. Furthermore, Connecticut’s

Plan incorporates by reference test

methods and sampling procedures for

existing MWC units already established

by the emissions guidelines for MWCs

at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb, and does

not establish new technical standards

for MWCs. Therefore, the requirements

of the NTTAA are not applicable to this

final rule.

I. 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 20, 2000.

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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)). EPA

encourages interested parties to

comment in response to the proposed

rule rather than petition for judicial

review, unless the objection arises after

the comment period allowed for in the

proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control,

Environmental protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, sulfur

oxides.

Dated: March 31, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642.

Subpart H—Connecticut

2. Part 62 is amended by adding a

new § 62.1500 and a new undesignated

center heading to subpart H to read as

follows:

Plan for the Control of Designated

Pollutants From Existing Facilities

(Section 111(d) Plan)

§ 62.1500 Identification of Plan.

(a) Identification of Plan. Connecticut

Plan for the Control of Designated

Pollutants from Existing Plants (section

111(d) Plan).

(b) The plan was officially submitted

as follows:

(1) Plan for Implementing the

Municipal Waste Combustor Guidelines

and New Source Performance

Standards, submitted on October 1,

1999.

(c) Designated facilities. The plan

applies to existing sources, constructed

on or before September 20, 1994, in the

following categories of sources:

(1) Existing municipal waste

combustor units greater than 250 tons

per day.

3. Part 62 is amended by adding a

new § 62.1501 and a new undesignated

center heading to subpart H to read as

follows:

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic

Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustor Units With the

Capacity To Combust Greater Than 250

Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.1501 Identification of sources.

(a) The plan applies to the following

existing municipal waste combustor

facilities:

(1) Bridgeport RESCO in Bridgeport.

(2) Ogden Martin Systems of Bristol.

(3) Resource Recovery Systems of

Mid-Connecticut in Hartford.

(4) Riley Energy Systems of Lisbon.

(5) American Ref-Fuel Company of

Southeastern Connecticut in Preston.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 00–9652 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket# ID–02–0001; FRL–6580–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators State Plan for Designated

Facilities and Pollutants: Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of

Idaho’s section 111(d) State Plan for

controlling emissions from existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators (HMIWI). The plan was

submitted on December 16, 1999, to

fulfill the requirements of sections

111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The

State Plan adopts and implements the

Emissions Guidelines applicable to

existing HMIWIs, and establishes

emission limits and controls for sources

constructed on or before June 20, 1996.

EPA has determined that Idaho’s State

Plan meets CAA requirements and

hereby approves this State Plan, thus

making it federally enforceable.

DATES: This action will be effective on

June 20, 2000, without further notice,

unless EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by May 22, 2000. If EPA

receives such comments, then it will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that this rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Catherine Woo, US

EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Copies of materials submitted to EPA

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following location:

US EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Woo, US EPA, Region X,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553–1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, whenever

we, us or our is used, this refers to EPA.

Information regarding this action is

presented in the following order:

I. EPA Action

What action is EPA taking today?

Why is EPA taking this action?

Who is affected by Idaho’s State Plan?

How does this approval affect sources

located in Indian Country?