[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21354-21358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9652]


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

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

[[Page 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    GCP and SD/ESP/CI, or GCP and SD/FF/
   Hg                                 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

[[Page 21356]]

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

[[Page 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 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 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 pre-existing 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-

[[Page 21358]]

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 Sec. 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)


Sec. 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 Sec. 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


Sec. 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