[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48095-48099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22185]



[[Page 48095]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA-35-1-6659a; A-1-FRL-6425-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Massachusetts; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major 
Stationary Sources of Nitrogen Oxides and Nitrogen Oxide Requirements 
at Municipal Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 
submitted by the State of Massachusetts. These revisions establish and 
require the implementation of reasonably available control technology 
(RACT) at major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX). 
Additionally, Massachusetts has requested SIP approval of 
NOX emission limits, monitoring, record keeping, and 
reporting requirements for municipal waste combustors. The intended 
effect of this action is to approve regulations and facility-specific 
requirements in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 1, 1999 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 4, 1999. 
If adverse comment is received, 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 Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, 
MA 02114-2023. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Office Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, 
MA; Division of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental 
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Rapp, at (617) 918-1048, or 
by e-mail at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following questions will be covered in 
this section:

    A. What action is EPA taking?
    B. What air pollutants are reduced by the Massachusetts 
regulation?
    C. Who is affected by today's action?
    D. When does today's action take effect?
    E. What is ``reasonably available control technology'' (RACT) 
for sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX)?
    F. Where is NOX RACT required?
    G. Why is the Massachusetts submittal approvable as 
NOX RACT?
    H. Why is EPA approving the municpal waste combustor 
NOX requirements as a SIP revision?
    I. Where to go for more information on NOX RACT?
    J. What does ``direct final rulemaking'' mean?

A. What Action is EPA Taking?

    Today, EPA is approving Massachusetts regulation, 310 CMR 7.19, 
``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of Nitrogen 
(NOX),'' as well as facility-specific NOX RACT 
emission control plans (ECPs) for Specialty Minerals, Incorporated in 
Adams, Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard facility in Springfield, 
Medusa Minerals Company (formerly Lee Lime) in Lee, Turners Falls 
Limited Partnership/Indeck Energy Services Turners Falls, Inc., in 
Montague (Turners Falls). These SIP revisions were submitted in 
response to the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement that States require 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) at all major stationary 
sources of NOX. EPA is taking this approval action under 
section 110, Implementation Plans, of the CAA. By adding this 
regulation and ECPs to its SIP, Massachusetts meets the nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) found in sections 182(b)(2), 
Reasonably Available Control Technology; 182(f), NOX 
Requirements; and 184(b) Plan Provisions for States in Ozone Transport 
Regions.
    Additionally, EPA is approving the NOX emission limits, 
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements for municipal 
waste combustors (MWCs) that were promulgated under Massachusetts' 
regulation 310 CMR 7.08(2), ``Municipal Waste Combustors.'' These 
requirements were developed pursuant to requirements under sections 111 
and 129 of the CAA but will reduce NOX emissions at MWCs and 
were therefore submitted as a SIP revision under section 110 as well.

B. What Air Pollutants Are Reduced by the Massachusetts Regulation?

    Massachusetts' NOX RACT regulation and facility-specific 
RACT determinations require certain stationary sources, for example, 
powerplants and factories with boilers, to limit their daily, or in 
some cases monthly, airborne emissions of nitrogen oxides. Since June 
1995, the regulation has reduced NOX emissions at major 
stationary sources by almost 50% each year from a 1990 baseline. The 
NOX requirements under 310 CMR 7.08(2) will reduce 
NOX emissions at MWC facilities by as much as 45% below RACT 
emission levels.
    Decreases in NOX emissions help improve the environment 
in several important ways. First, because NOX, is an ozone 
precursor, reducing NOX reduces concentrations of ground 
level ozone. Decreases in NOX emissions also reduce 
concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and certain 
other types of toxic air pollutants. Additionally, decreases in 
NOX emissions to the air also decrease acidic rain and snow, 
nitrates in drinking water, and nitrogen loadings to water and land 
ecosystems. And, on a global scale, decreases in NOX 
emissions help reduce greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone 
depletion.

C. Who Is Affected By Today's Action?

    All sources that are subject to 310 CMR 7.19, the facility-specific 
ECPs, and 310 CMR 7.08(2) are affected by this action. EPA's approval 
today does not change the applicability of 310 CMR 7.19, the facility-
specific ECPs, or 310 CMR 7.08(2). But, today's action makes the 
requirements of 310 CMR 7.19, the facility-specific ECPs, and 310 CMR 
7.08(2) enforceable by EPA as well as by the Massachusetts DEP.

D. When Does Today's Action Take Effect?

    If EPA receives no adverse comments during the 30-day public 
comment period that follows the publication of this document, EPA 
approval action will be effective 60 days after the date of 
publication.

E. What Is ``Reasonably Available Control Technology'' (RACT) for 
Sources of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)?

    EPA defines RACT as the lowest emission limit that a polluting 
source is capable of meeting if it uses pollution control equipment 
and/or material or process changes that are reasonably available 
considering costs and current technology. In general, EPA considers a 
30 to 50% reduction in NOX from a 1990 baseline emission 
level to be reasonable. EPA believes such a reduction is available at a 
cost between $250 to $1,300 per ton of NOX reduced. EPA 
allows States to require the reduction from each and every piece of 
equipment or as an average among sources or categories of sources.

[[Page 48096]]

F. Where Is NOX RACT Required?

    The CAA required certain States to develop RACT regulations for 
major stationary sources of NOX. Section 182(b)(2) requires 
States with areas that were classified as ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' 
``severe,'' and ``extreme'' nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS, 
subsequent to the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, to 
impose RACT requirements on major sources of volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs). Section 182(f) of the CAA extends the RACT requirement of 
section 182(b)(2) to major stationary sources of NOX as 
well. Under the CAA, the definition of major stationary source is based 
on the tons per year of air pollution a source emits and the quality of 
the air in the area of the source. In ``serious'' non-attainment areas, 
a major stationary source is defined as a source with the potential to 
emit 50 tons per year.
    The entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts was classified as serious 
nonattainment when it developed its NOX RACT regulations. 
The reader should refer to the November 6, 1991, Federal Register 
document at 56 FR 56694 for more information regarding nonattainment 
classifications. The NOX RACT requirements approved today 
apply the 50 tons per year threshold to the entire Commonwealth. Thus, 
any stationary source with the potential to emit 50 tons or more per 
year of NOX must install and operate NOX RACT.

G. Why is the Massachusetts Submittal Approvable as NOX 
RACT?

    EPA considers an aggregate reduction in NOX of 30% to 
50% from a 1990 baseline emission level to be RACT. Since June 1995, 
the emission limits and requirements in regulation 310 CMR 7.19 and 
facility-specific ECPs have reduced NOX by almost 50% each 
year from the major stationary sources in Massachusetts. Therefore, EPA 
considers the regulation and ECPs to meet the CAA NOX RACT 
requirements.

H. Why Is EPA Approving the Municipal Waste Combustor 
NOX Requirements as a SIP Revision?

    On July 3, 1999, EPA approved all of the requirements for municipal 
waste combustors (MWCs) in 310 CMR 7.08(2) as meeting sections 111(d) 
and 129 of the Clean Air Act. However, because NOX is a 
ground level ozone precursor and 310 CMR 7.08(2) will reduce 
NOX from 1995 levels, Massachusetts requested that EPA 
approve the NOX related requirements of 310 CMR 7.08(2) into 
the State implementation plan (SIP) to reduce ozone pursuant to section 
110 as well.

I. Where To Go for More Information on NOX RACT?

    EPA provides additional guidance on determining NOX RACT 
in a Federal Register document entitled, ``State Implementation Plans; 
Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' 
published November 25, 1992 (57 FR 55620). The November 25, 1992 notice 
is also known as ``The NOX Supplement.'' EPA also published 
additional NOX RACT guidance memoranda in the 
``NOX Policy Document for the Clean Air Act of 1990,'' also 
known as ``The NOX Policy Document,'' (EPA-452/R-96-005, 
March 1996). You can refer to The NOX Supplement and The 
NOX Policy Document for more information on NOX 
RACT.
    Additionally, for a more detailed discussion of Massachusetts' 
NOX RACT regulation and EPA's proposed action, you can refer 
to the Technical Support Document, entitled, ``Technical Support 
Document for Massachusetts' Regulation 310 CMR 7.19, Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of Nitrogen 
(NOX),'' dated April 1999. For copies of the Technical 
Support Document, contact the EPA or Massachusetts Department of 
Environmental Protection at the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this notice.

J. What Does ``Direct Final Rulemaking'' Mean?

    Essentially, direct final rulemaking means that the EPA is 
publishing this rule without prior proposal. EPA is doing so because 
the Agency 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 revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective November 1, 
1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments 
by October 4, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document 
withdrawing the final rule and 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. Parties interested in commenting 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on November 1, 1999 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Massachusetts' regulation, 310 CMR 7.19, 
``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of Nitrogen 
(NOX),'' as well as facility-specific NOX RACT 
emission control plans (ECPs) for Specialty Minerals, Incorporated in 
Adams, Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard facility in Springfield, 
Medusa Minerals Company (formerly Lee Lime) in Lee, Turners Falls 
Limited Partnership/Indeck Energy Services Turners Falls, Inc., in 
Montague (Turners Falls). Additionally, EPA is approving the 
NOX emission limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements for municipal waste combustors (MWCs) that were 
promulgated under Massachusetts' regulation 310 CMR 7.08(2), 
``Municipal Waste Combustors.''

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, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, 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 written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 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

[[Page 48097]]

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 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13084 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 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 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 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 promulgated approval action 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. 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 November 1, 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).) 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 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: August 10, 1999.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

[[Page 48098]]

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart W--Massachusetts

    2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(119) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1120  Identification of plan

* * * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (119) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on July 15, 1994, 
October 4, 1996, December 2, 1996, January 11, 1999, and April 16, 
1999.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letters from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection dated July 15, 1994, October 4, 1996, December 2, 1996, 
January 11, 1999, and April 16, 1999 submitting revisions to the 
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
    (B) Regulation, 310 CMR 7.19, ``Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) for Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)'' 
as adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June 29, 1994 and 
effective on July 1, 1994.
    (C) Emission Control Plan for Specialty Minerals, Incorporated, in 
Adams, issued by Massachusetts and effective on June 16, 1995.
    (D) Emission Control Plan for Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard 
facility in Springfield, issued by Massachusetts and effective on 
October 28, 1996.
    (E) Emission Control Plan for Turners Falls Limited Partnership/
Indeck Energy Services Turners Falls, Inc., in Montague, issued by 
Massachusetts and effective on March 10, 1998.
    (F) Emission Control Plan for Medusa Minerals Company in Lee, 
issued by Massachusetts and effective on April 17, 1998.
    (G) Regulation 310 CMR 7.08(2), ``Municipal Waste Combustors, 
adopted on July 24, 1998 and effective on August 21, 1998, excluding 
the following sections which were not submitted as part of the SIP 
revision: (a); the definition of ``Material Separation Plan'' in (c); 
(d)1; (d)2; (d)3; (d)4; (d)5; (d)6; (d)8; (f)1; (f)2; (f)5; (f)6; (f)7; 
(g)1; (g)2; (g)3; (g)4; (h)2.a; (h)2.b; (h)2.d; (h)2.e; (h)2.g; (h)2.h; 
(h)4; (h)5.a; (h)5.c; (h)5.d; (h)9; (h)10; (h)13; (i)1.b; (i)1.g; 
(i)2.c; (i)2.d; (i)2.e; and (k)3.
    (H) Amendments to regulation 310 CMR 7.19, ``Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen 
(NOX)'' as adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on 
January 5, 1999 and effective on January 22, 1999.
For the State of Massachusetts:
    3. In Sec. 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding new entries 
to existing state citations for 310 CMR 7.08 and 310 CMR 7.19 to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1167  EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.

* * * * *

                                                 Table 52.1167--EPA--Approved Massachusetts Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Date         Date
           State citation                  Title/Subject       submitted   approved by     Federal Register      52.1120(c)    Explanations/unapproved
                                                                by state       EPA             citation                                sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
310 CMR 7.08(2), except sections:     MWC NOX requirements..      1/11/99       9/2/99  [Insert FR citation             119  Only approved NOX related
 (a); the definition of ``Material                                                       from published date].                requirements of state plan
 Separation Plan'' in (c); (d)1;                                                                                              for MWCs. The following
 (d)2; (d)3; (d)4; (d)5; (d)6; (d)8;                                                                                          sections were not
 (f)1; (f)2; (f)5; (f)6; (f)7; (g)1;                                                                                          submitted as part of the
 (g)2; (g)3; (g)4; (h)2.a; (h)2.b;                                                                                            SIP: (a), the definition
 (h)2.d; (h)2.e; (h)2.g; (h)2.h;                                                                                              of ``Material Separation
 (h)4; (h)5.a; (h)5.c; (h)5.d; (h)9;                                                                                          Plan'' in (c), (d)1, (d)2,
 (h)10; (h)13; (i)1.b; (i)1.g;                                                                                                (d)3, (d)4, (d)5, (d)6,
 (i)2.c; (i)2.d; (i)2.e; and (k)3..                                                                                           (d)8, (f)1, (f)2, (f)5,
                                                                                                                              (f)6, (f)7, (g)1, (g)2,
                                                                                                                              (g)3, (g)4, (h)2.a,
                                                                                                                              (h)2.b, (h)2.d, (h)2.e,
                                                                                                                              (h)2.g, (h)2.h, (h)4,
                                                                                                                              (h)5.a, (h)5.c, (h)5.d,
                                                                                                                              (h)9, (h)10, (h)13,
                                                                                                                              (i)1.b, (i)1.g, (i)2.c,
                                                                                                                              (i)2.d, (i)2.e, and (k)3.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
310 CMR 7.19........................  NOX RACT..............      7/15/94       9/2/99  [Insert FR citation             119  NOX RACT regulations.
                                                                                         from published date].
310 CMR 7.19........................  NOX RACT..............      10/4/96       9/2/99  [Insert FR citation             119  Facility specific NOX RACT
                                                                                         from published date].                for Specialty Minerals,
                                                                                                                              Incorporated.
310 CMR 7.19........................  NOX RACT..............      12/2/96       9/2/99  [Insert FR citation             119  Facility specific NOX RACT
                                                                                         from published date].                for Monsanto Company's
                                                                                                                              Indian Orchard facility.
310 CMR 7.19........................  NOX RACT..............      4/16/99       9/2/99  [Insert FR citation             119  Facility specific NOX RACT
                                                                                         from published date].                for Turners Falls Limited
                                                                                                                              Partnership/Indeck Energy
                                                                                                                              Services Turners Falls,
                                                                                                                              Inc., in Montague.

[[Page 48099]]

 
310 CMR 7.19........................  NOX RACT..............      4/16/99       9/2/99  [Insert FR citation             119  Facility specific NOX RACT
                                                                                         from published date].                for Medusa Minerals
                                                                                                                              Company in Lee.
310 CMR 7.19........................  NOX RACT..............      4/16/99       9/2/99  [Insert FR citation             119  Approval of the replacement
                                                                                         from published date].                of section 310 CMR
                                                                                                                              7.19(1)(c)1, (1)(c)8,
                                                                                                                              (2)(b), (3)(a), (3)(c)2,
                                                                                                                              (4)(a)3.b, (7)(a)4, (9),
                                                                                                                              (13)(a), (13)(a)3,
                                                                                                                              (13)(a)9, and (13)(a)13.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-22185 Filed 9-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P