Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21351

including the reasons therefore, and

established an effective date of April 21,

2000. 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 correction to

the identification of plan for Missouri is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

April 7, 2000.

Patricia D. Hull,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

In rule FR Doc. 99–31536, published

on December 6, 1999 (64 FR 68034),

make the following corrections:

PART 52—[CORRECTED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA—Missouri [Corrected]

2. On page 68038, in the third

column, 3 lines from the top of the

column, correct ‘‘§ 52.1320’’ to read

‘‘§ 52.1322’’.

3. On page 68038, in the third

column, in amendatory instruction 2,

correct ‘‘52.1320(c)(42)’’ to read

‘‘52.1322(c)(42)’’.

[FR Doc. 00–9926 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN99–1a; FRL–6573–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to

particulate matter (PM) emissions

regulations for Dubois County, Indiana,

which the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management (IDEM)

submitted to EPA on February 3, 1999,

as amendments to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The

revisions include relaxation of some PM

limits, elimination of limits for boilers

which are no longer operating, updating

facility names, and changing some

boiler fuel types.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 20,

2000, unless EPA receives adverse

written comments by May 22, 2000. If

adverse comment is received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the rule

in the Federal Register and inform the

public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should mail written

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

You may inspect copies of the State

submittal and EPA’s analysis of it at:

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Pohlman, Environmental

Scientist, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the EPA Approving?

II. What Are the Changes From Current

Rules?

A. Sources Eliminated From the Rules

B. Source Name Revisions

C. Fuel Usage and Heat Input Changes

D. Revised or Added Limits

III. Air Quality Modeling Analysis

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of

This Action?

V. EPA Rulemaking Action

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Is the EPA Approving?

We are approving revised PM rules for

Dubois County, Indiana, which the

Indiana Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) submitted to EPA

on February 3, 1999. The revisions

include relaxation of some PM limits,

elimination of limits for boilers which

are no longer operating, updating

facility names, and changing some

boiler fuel types. The submitted

revisions are contained in Title 326

Indiana Administrative Code, Article 6,

Rule 1, Section 9 (326 IAC 6–1–9).

II. What Are the Changes From Current

Rules?

A. Sources Eliminated From the Rules

IDEM eliminated Indiana Cabinet,

Dolly Madison Plant No. 3, Jasper Table,

Hoosier Desk, Jasper Turning boilers No.

1 and No. 2, Jasper Novelty Furniture

Plant No. 1, Jasper Novelty Furniture

Plant No. 2, Jasper Novelty Furniture

Plant No. 3 wood boiler, Jasper Cabinet

coal and wood boiler, and Jasper Veneer

boiler No. 3 from rule 326 IAC 6–1–9.

These sources have shut down.

B. Source Name Revisions

Indiana Chair is changed to Indiana

Dimension; Indiana Desk is changed to

Indiana Furniture Industries;

Huntingburg Wood Products is changed

to Styline Industries, Plant #8; Jasper

Laminates is changed to Jasper

Laminates, Plant #1—Division of

Kimball; Jasper Cabinets No. 2 is

changed to Jasper Cabinets Corporation;

Jasper Stylemasters 15th and Cherry is

changed to Artec; Jasper Office

Furniture is changed to Jasper Office

Furniture Co., Inc., Plant #1; Jasper

Turning is changed to Artec; Jasper

Novelty Furniture Plt. No. 3 is changed

to Jasper Furniture 30th St.; and Jasper

Cabinet is changed to Jasper Corp.-

Kimball International.

C. Fuel Usage and Heat Input Changes

The fuel for Jasper Laminates, Plant

#1—Division of Kimball boiler No. 1 is

changed from Wood-Oil-Waste Solvent

to Wood-Wood Waste, and its heat input

is changed from 23 MMBTU/hr to 20.5

MMBTU/hr. The fuel for Jasper

Laminates, Plant #1—Division of

Kimball boiler No. 2 is changed from Oil

to Natural Gas, and its heat input is

changed from 16 MMBTU/hr to 16.8

MMBTU/hr. The fuel for Jasper Cabinets

Corporation’s boiler is changed from

Coal to Wood, and the heat input is

changed from 3 MMBTU/hr to 5.3

MMBTU/hr. The heat input for Jasper

Wood Products’ Coal-Wood Boiler No. 1

is changed from 10 MMBTU/hr to 6

MMBTU/hr. The heat input for Jasper

Wood Products’ Coal-Wood Boiler No. 2

is changed from 10 MMBTU/hr to 6

MMBTU/hr. The heat input for Artec’s

Wood Chip Boiler is changed from 24

MMBTU/hr to 14 MMBTU/hr. The fuel

for Jasper Chair’s boiler is changed from

Coal to Wood, and its heat input is

changed from 6 MMBTU/hr to 18

MMBTU/hr.

D. Revised or Added Limits

The limits for Styline Industries, Plant

#8 are changed from 2.8 tons/yr to 9.0

tons/yr, and from 0.340 lbs/MMBTU to

0.60 lbs/MMBTU. The limits for Forest

21352 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Wood Products No. 1 are changed from

2.1 tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr, and from

0.140 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU.

For Jasper Laminates, Plant #1—

Division of Kimball, the short-term limit

for boiler No. 1 was changed from 0.10

lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU and

the limits for boiler #2 were changed to

add limits of 0.2 tons/yr and 0.01

grains/dscf in addition to the

previously-existing limit of 0.003 lbs/

MMBTU. For Jasper Cabinets

Corporation, a new 6.7 MMBTU/hr

Wood Boiler was added to the rule. This

boiler has limits of 7.6 tons/yr and 0.60

lbs/MMBTU. The limits for Coal-Wood

Boiler No. 1 at Jasper Wood Products

were changed from 1.04 tons/yr to 9.0

tons/yr and from 0.060 lbs/MMBTU to

0.60 lbs/MMBTU. The limits for CoalWood Boiler No. 2 at Jasper Wood

Products were changed from 3.1 tons/yr

to 9.0 tons/yr and from 0.070 lbs/

MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. Limits for

Artec’s Wood Chip Boiler were changed

from 2.8 tons/yr to 12.0 tons/yr and

from 0.060 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/

MMBTU.

III. Air Quality Modeling Analysis

The general criteria used by the EPA

to evaluate such emissions trades, or

‘‘bubbles’’, under the Clean Air Act and

applicable regulations are set out in the

EPA’s Emissions Trading Policy

Statement (ETPS) (see 51 FR 43814).

Emissions trades such as this, which

result in an overall increase in allowable

emissions, require a ‘‘Level III’’

modeling analysis under the ETPS to

ensure that the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) will be

protected. A Level III analysis is a full

dispersion modeling analysis which

must consider all sources affecting the

trade’s area of impact.

The submitted modeling analysis

includes emissions from all sources

with revised SIP limits, and uses a

conservative background concentration

to account for other, nearby sources.

In the submitted modeling analysis,

which uses 5 years of meteorological

data, a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS

is indicated when six exceedances of

the 24-hour standard are predicted.

Each receptor’s predicted 6th highest

24-hour value is, therefore, compared to

the standard. The 24-hour PM standard

is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/

m3). Indiana’s modeling indicated that

the highest, sixth highest predicted 24-

hour PM concentration at any receptor

in the Dubois County area was 132.5 μg/

m3. Thus, the modeling analysis

predicts that the 24-hour NAAQS will

be protected.

A modeled violation of the annual PM

standard is indicated when any

receptor’s 5 year arithmetic mean

annual PM concentration exceeds the

annual PM standard of 50 μg/m3.

Indiana’s modeling analysis indicated

that the highest arithmetic mean annual

PM concentration predicted by the

modeling for the Dubois County area

was 33.6 μg/m3. Therefore, the modeling

analysis predicts that the annual PM

NAAQS will be met.

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects

of This Action?

As stated above, the air quality

modeling analysis conducted by IDEM

shows that the maximum daily and

annual PM concentrations in Dubois

County should stay below the NAAQS.

V. EPA Rulemaking Action

We are approving, through direct final

rulemaking, revisions to particulate

matter (PM) emissions regulations for

Dubois County, Indiana. We are

publishing this action without prior

proposal because we view this as a

noncontroversial revision and anticipate

no adverse comments. However, in a

separate document in this Federal

Register publication, we are proposing

to approve the SIP revision should

adverse written comments be filed. This

action will be effective without further

notice unless we receive relevant

adverse written comment by May 22.

2000. Should we receive such

comments, we will publish a final rule

informing the public that this action

will not take effect. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, you are advised

that this action will be effective on June

20, 2000.

VI. 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 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.

C. 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, 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. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

D. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21353

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

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.

This 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.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

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 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 sections 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 by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated 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. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 28, 2000.

Francis X. Lyons,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(132) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(132) On February 3, 1999, Indiana

submitted revised particulate matter

emissions regulations for Dubois

County, Indiana. The submitted revision

amends 326 IAC 6–1–9, and includes

relaxation of some PM limits, the

elimination of limits for boilers which

are no longer operating, updated facility

names, and changes to boiler fuel types.

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