[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 24, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33461-33469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11811]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[AD-FRL-6603-5]
RIN 2060-ZA03


Federal Plan Requirements for Large Municipal Waste Combustors 
Constructed On or Before September 20, 1994

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action on the ``Federal Plan 
Requirements for Large Municipal Waste Combustors Constructed on or 
Before September 20, 1994.'' The amendments in this document clarify 
the final compliance date, update the list of which large municipal 
waste combustor (MWC) units are affected by the Federal plan, and add a 
site-specific compliance schedule for one MWC unit.
    On November 12, 1998, the EPA adopted the Federal plan to implement 
emission guidelines for large MWC units located in areas that are not 
covered by an approved and currently effective State plan. We are 
updating the MWC Federal plan to identify large MWC units for which a 
State plan was approved and became effective since adoption of the 
Federal plan (November 12, 1998). We are also amending certain 
regulations to reflect receipt of negative declarations from States 
that have certified that there are no large MWC units located in the 
State that would be subject to the Federal plan. We are also amending a 
table in the Federal plan to clarify that in all cases for all large 
MWC units, final compliance with all emission limits including the 
mercury (Hg) and dioxins/furans emission limits must be achieved by 
December 19, 2000. Finally, we are amending a table to add the site-
specific compliance schedule for one additional MWC unit. Today's 
action does not change the emission limits for large MWC units nor does 
it change the level of health protection that the Federal plan 
provides.

DATES: These amendments to part 62 are effective on July 24, 2000, 
without further notice unless we receive significant material adverse 
comments by June 23, 2000. If we receive such comments, we will 
publish, on or before this rule's effective date, a document in the 
Federal Register withdrawing this direct final rule and informing the 
public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to: 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), Attn: Docket 
No. A-97-45/Category V-D, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted 
electronically. For information on submitting comments electronically, 
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Address all comments and 
data for this action, whether on paper or in electronic form, such as 
through e-mail or disk, to Docket No. A-97-45/Category V-D.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For procedural and implementation 
information regarding these amendments, contact Ms. Julie Andresen 
McClintock at (919) 541-5339, Program Implementation and Review Group, 
Information Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-12), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711. For State-specific information regarding the implementation of 
this Federal plan, contact the appropriate Regional Office (table 1) as 
shown in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket. Docket No. A-97-45 contains information considered by EPA 
in developing the MWC Federal plan and this action. You can inspect the 
docket and copy materials from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket is located at the EPA's 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room 
M1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
(202) 260-7548 or fax (202) 260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged 
for copying.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are publishing these amendments without 
prior proposal because we view these amendments as noncontroversial and 
anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' 
section of today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a 
separate document that will serve as the proposal to these amendments 
if adverse comments are filed. These amendments will be effective on 
July 24, 2000, without further notice unless we receive adverse comment 
on the parallel proposal by June 23, 2000. If we receive such comments, 
we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing 
the public that these amendments will not take effect. We will address 
all public comments in a subsequent final amendment package based on 
the proposed amendments. We will not institute a second comment period 
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this 
time. If no comments are received, the public is advised that these 
amendments will be effective on July 24, 2000, and no further action 
will be taken on these amendments.

Regulated Entities

    Entities regulated by this action are existing MWC units with the 
capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid 
waste (MSW) (large MWC units) unless the unit is subject to a section 
111(d)/129 State plan that has been approved by EPA and is currently in 
effect. Regulated categories and entities include the following North 
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes and Standard 
Industrial Classification System (SIC) codes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                     NAICS codes   SIC codes       Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry and local government agencies........       562213         4953  Waste-to-energy plants that generate
                                                      92411         9511   electricity or steam from the
                                                                           combustion of garbage by feeding
                                                                           municipal waste into large furnaces.
                                                                          Incinerators that combust trash but do
                                                                           not recover energy from the waste.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The foregoing table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by the MWC Federal plan. For specific applicability criteria, see 40 
CFR 62.14100 and 62.14102.

Electronic Submittal of Comments

    Comments may be submitted electronically. Send electronic 
submittals to: ``[email protected]''. Submit

[[Page 33462]]

electronic comments in American Standard Code for Information 
Interchange (ASCII) format. Avoid the use of special characters and any 
form of encryption. Electronic comments on the proposed amendments to 
the Federal plan may be filed online at any Federal Depository Library. 
Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in 
WordPerfect version 5.1 or 6.1 file format (or ASCII file 
format). Address all comments and data for the proposal, whether on 
paper or in electronic form, such as through e-mail or disk, to Docket 
No. A-97-45/ Category V-D.

Regional Office Contacts

    For information regarding the implementation of the MWC Federal 
plan, contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office as shown in table 1. 
This table has been updated since published on November 12, 1998 (63 FR 
63193).

                         Table 1.--EPA Regional Contacts for Municipal Waste Combustors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Regional contact                                   Phone No.           Fax No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Courcier, U.S. EPA, Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New      (617) 918-1659     (617) 918-1505
 Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont), 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP)
 Boston, MA 02114-2023....................................................
Kirk Wieber...............................................................     (212) 637-3381     (212) 637-3901
Argie Cirillo.............................................................     (212) 637-3203
Craig Flamm...............................................................     (212) 637-4021
U.S. EPA, Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands),
 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866
James B. Topsale, U.S. EPA/3AP22, Region III (Delaware, District of            (215) 814-2190     (215) 814-2114
 Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia), 1650 Arch
 Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029......................................
Scott Davis, U.S. EPA/APTMD, Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia,             (404) 562-9127     (404) 562-9095
 Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), Sam
 Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303....
Douglas Aburano (MN)......................................................     (312) 353-6960     (312) 886-5824
Mark Palermo (IL, IN, OH).................................................     (312) 886-6082
Charles Hatten (MI, WI)...................................................     (312) 886-6031
U.S. EPA/AT18J, Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
 Wisconsin), 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604
Mick Cote, U.S. EPA, Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,     (214) 665-7219     (214) 665-7263
 Texas), 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733................
Wayne Kaiser, U.S. EPA, Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), 726     (913) 551-7603     (913) 551-7065
 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101....................................
Mike Owens, U.S. EPA, Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South      (303) 312-6440     (303) 312-6064
 Dakota, Utah, Wyoming), 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466
Patricia Bowlin, U.S. EPA/Air 4, Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona,           (415) 744-1188     (415) 744-1076
 California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada), 75 Hawthorne
 Street, San Francisco, CA 94105..........................................
Catherine Woo, U.S. EPA, Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington),         (206) 553-1814     (206) 553-0110
 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101.......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Amendments to Part 62--Negative Declarations
II. Amendments to Part 62, Subpart FFF
    A. Amendment to Table 1
    B. Amendment to Table 5
    C. Amendment to Table 6
    D. Amendment to Table 6
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Congressional Review Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    J. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

I. Amendments to Part 62--Negative Declarations

    We are amending part 62 to reflect the receipt of negative 
declaration letters. A negative declaration letter is a letter from a 
State authority certifying that there are no designated facilities (MWC 
units with a capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of 
municipal solid waste) in the State. The negative declaration letter is 
submitted in lieu of a State plan. We are documenting the receipt of 
negative declarations by amending 40 CFR part 62, subparts C (Alaska), 
D (Arizona), E (Arkansas), G (Colorado), I (Delaware), J (District of 
Columbia), N (Idaho), S (Kentucky), T (Louisiana), Z (Mississippi), BB 
(Montana), DD (Nevada), GG (New Mexico), JJ (North Dakota), NN 
(Pennsylvania), QQ (South Dakota), SS (Texas), TT (Utah), XX (West 
Virginia), YY (Wisconsin), ZZ (Wyoming), BBB (Puerto Rico), and CCC 
(Virgin Islands).

II. Amendments to Part 62, Subpart FFF

    We published in the Federal Register of November 12, 1998 (63 FR 
63191) the final rule establishing a Federal plan to implement emission 
guidelines for large MWC units located in areas not covered by an 
approved and currently effective State plan. We are making the 
following technical amendments and updates to the MWC Federal plan.

A. Amendments to Table 1

    We are amending table 1 of subpart FFF (40 CFR part 62) to add MWC 
units for which a State plan was approved and became effective since 
the final MWC Federal plan was published in November 1998. MWC units 
covered by the State plans for Alabama, Maine, Maryland, Oklahoma, 
Pennsylvania and Washington are added to table 1 of subpart FFF.

B. Amendment to Table 5

    We are amending table 5 of subpart FFF (40 CFR part 62) by adding 
footnote e to clarify that in all cases for all large MWC units, final 
compliance with all emission limits including the mercury and dioxins/
furans emission limits must be achieved no later than December 19, 
2000. This footnote was inadvertently omitted from the final MWC 
Federal

[[Page 33463]]

plan. The addition of this footnote makes table 5 consistent with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act, the emission guidelines, and tables 
4 and 6 of subpart FFF. Sections 129(b)(2) and (3) of the Clean Air Act 
require State and Federal plans to ensure that each unit subject to the 
emission guidelines is in compliance with all requirements of the 
guidelines not later than 5 years after the guidelines are promulgated. 
Section 60.39b(d) of the emission guidelines requires each unit subject 
to the emission guidelines to be in compliance with the mercury and 
dioxins/furans emission limits no later than 5 years after promulgation 
of the guidelines. The emission guidelines, which are implemented by 
either the Federal or a State plan, were promulgated on December 19, 
1995, making the final compliance date for mercury and dioxins/furans 
for all large MWC units December 19, 2000. The emission guidelines 
require that the owner or operator of an affected facility that began 
construction, modification or reconstruction after June 26, 1987 
achieve final compliance with the mercury and dioxins/furans emission 
limits within 1 year after promulgation of subpart FFF (i.e., by 
November 12, 1999) or 1 year after permit issuance.

C. Amendment to Table 6

    We are amending table 6 of subpart FFF (40 CFR part 62) by adding 
footnote c to clarify that the owner or operator of an affected 
facility that began construction, modification, or reconstruction after 
June 26, 1987 must achieve final compliance with the mercury and 
dioxins/furans emission limits within 1 year after promulgation of 
subpart FFF (i.e., by November 12, 1999) or 1 year after permit 
issuance. Permit issuance is issuance of a revised construction permit 
or revised operating permit, if a permit modification is required to 
retrofit controls. Consistent with Sec. 60.39b(c)(5), we included the 
provision pertaining to permit modification in the Federal plan in 
recognition of the fact that some owners or operators of affected 
facilities would need to obtain a permit modification before they could 
retrofit controls. We never intended for this accommodation to be 
construed as relieving an owner or operator of the obligation to be in 
compliance with all emission limits by no later than 5 years after 
promulgation of the emission guidelines (i.e., December 19, 2000). The 
addition of this footnote makes table 6 consistent with table 5 of 
subpart FFF and the emission guidelines. The emission guidelines 
(Sec. 60.39b(c)(5)) require MWC units that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after June 26, 1987 to achieve 
compliance with the mercury and dioxins/furans emission limits within 1 
year after State plan approval (or permit modification).
    The footnote also clarifies that in all cases for all large MWC 
units, final compliance must be achieved no later than December 19, 
2000. (See explanation in Section II.B above.) This footnote was not 
originally included in the final MWC Federal plan. The addition of this 
footnote makes it clear that table 6 is consistent with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act and the emission guidelines. Sections 
129(b)(2) and (3) of the Clean Air Act require State and Federal plans 
to ensure that each unit subject to the emission guidelines is in 
compliance with all requirements of the guidelines not later than 5 
years after the guidelines are promulgated. Section 60.39b(d) of the 
emission guidelines requires each unit subject to the emission 
guidelines to be in compliance with the mercury and dioxins/furans 
emission limits no later than 5 years after promulgation of the 
guidelines (i.e., by December 19, 2000).

D. Amendment to Table 6

    We are amending table 6 of subpart FFF (40 CFR part 62) by adding a 
site-specific compliance schedule and increments of progress for unit 
3A at the New Hanover County Waste-to-Energy Conversion facility in 
Wilmington, North Carolina. Unit 3A at the New Hanover County MWC 
facility had not been identified as a large MWC unit (capacity greater 
than 250 tpd) when subpart FFF was promulgated in November 1998. Prior 
to November 1998, the State of North Carolina submitted a negative 
declaration letter to certify that there were no large MWC units in 
North Carolina. Subsequently, the State obtained new information and 
notified EPA that it believed that Unit 3A at the New Hanover County 
MWC facility might be a large MWC unit and thus subject to subpart FFF. 
We confirmed that Unit 3A at the New Hanover County MWC facility is a 
large unit, and thus subject to subpart FFF. The negative declaration 
letter is, therefore, no longer applicable. Unit 3A is larger than 250 
tons per day (tpd) and is covered by subpart FFF.
    Due to the confusion over the size of Unit 3A, the owner/operator 
of the New Hanover County MWC did not have the opportunity to submit a 
site-specific compliance schedule. In developing the promulgated 
Federal plan, EPA provided the owner or operator of a large MWC unit 
the opportunity to submit a site-specific compliance schedule. Unit 3A 
at the New Hanover County MWC facility is already equipped with an air 
pollution control system incorporating a spray dryer/fabric filter, and 
selective noncatalytic reduction. Subpart FFF will only require the 
addition of carbon injection (or some other mechanism for meeting the 
applicable dioxins/furans and mercury emission limits), upgrading the 
continuous emissions monitoring system, and other less extensive 
changes. For these reasons, we determined that it was appropriate to 
allow the owner/operator of the New Hanover County MWC facility to 
submit a site-specific schedule for Unit 3A. The owner/operator of the 
New Hanover County MWC facility has since submitted such a schedule and 
we are amending table 6 to add that site-specific schedule for unit 3A. 
The site-specific compliance schedule achieves final compliance with 
all applicable requirements no later than December 19, 2000, the same 
date as required for all other MWC units subject to subpart FFF.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is 
a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking 
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively 
participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and 
promulgated rule and EPA responses to significant comments, the 
contents of the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial 
review (see 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(A)). Docket numbers A-89-08 and A-90-
45 contain the supporting information for the December 19, 1995 
emission guidelines. Because the MWC Federal plan implements the 
emission guidelines, these dockets also contain the supporting 
information for the MWC Federal plan. Public comments received on the 
MWC Federal plan are included in docket number A-97-45.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the MWC Federal plan 
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1847.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail 
at

[[Page 33464]]

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Environmental 
Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; by e-mail at 
``[email protected]'', or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also 
be downloaded off the internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/icr''. OMB 
approved ICR 1847.01 in December 1998 and the OMB approval number is 
#20600390.
    Today's direct final rule will have no effect on the estimates of 
the information collection burden. The technical changes clarify 
requirements and do not impose additional requirements. Therefore, we 
have not revised the ICR.

C. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore 
subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The 
Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that 
is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Today's direct final rule includes only minor amendments. 
Therefore, we have determined that this action is not significant and 
OMB has waived review. OMB determined that the promulgated Federal plan 
was ``not significant'' under Executive Order 12866. The promulgated 
Federal plan simply implements the 1995 MWC emission guidelines (as 
amended in 1997) and does not result in any additional control 
requirements or impose any additional costs above those previously 
considered during promulgation of the 1995 MWC emission guidelines. The 
EPA considered the 1995 emission guidelines and standards to be 
significant and the rules were reviewed by OMB in 1995 (see 60 FR 
65405).

D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal 
Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, 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 direct final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect 
the communities of Indian tribal governments. The Federal plan adopted 
on November 12, 1998 does not significantly or uniquely affect 
communities of Indian tribal governments. We believe that no large MWC 
units are located in Indian country. In addition, we have determined 
that the promulgated Federal plan does not include any new Federal 
mandates or additional requirements above those previously considered 
during promulgation of the 1995 MWC emission guidelines. (See the 
discussion above on Executive Order 12875 in this section.) 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this direct final rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et 
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires EPA to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment under 
the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless EPA 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in this 
industry with a gross annual revenue less than $6 million; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town 
school district or special district or a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in 
its field.
    Today's action is not subject to the requirements of the RFA as 
modified by SBREFA because it only makes minor technical amendments to 
some of the rule's requirements and it does not impose any additional 
requirements. During the 1995 MWC emission guidelines rulemaking, EPA 
estimated that few, if any, small entities would be affected by the 
promulgated guidelines and standards, and therefore, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis was not required (see 60 FR 65413). The EPA has 
concluded that these amendments to the MWC Federal plan will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least

[[Page 33465]]

burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this direct final rule 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 in any 1 year. Therefore, the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA do not apply to this action. The EPA 
has likewise determined that today's amendments to the rule do not 
include regulatory requirements that would significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. Thus, today's action is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the SBREFA 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. The EPA will submit a 
report containing this rule, its amendments, and other required 
information to the United States Senate, the United States 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). This rule will be 
effective July 24, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 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, business practices) that are developed or adopted 
by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when EPA decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Today's action does not amend or modify technical standards, 
therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA do not apply.

I. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children and Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is economically 
significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) for which 
the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA 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 EPA.
    Today's action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 
is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866. Further, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is 
based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

J. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), 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 section 6 of 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. The EPA also may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State 
law, unless the EPA consults with State and local officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism 
summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of 
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, 
a summary of the nature of their concerns and EPA's position supporting 
the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to 
which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, 
when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism implications to 
OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a 
certification from the agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA 
has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and 
timely manner.
    This direct final rule does not have Federalism implications. It 
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. This direct final 
rule clarifies the final compliance date, updates the status of which 
MWC units are affected by the Federal plan, and adds a site-specific 
compliance schedule for one MWC unit. These amendments would primarily 
affect private industry, and do not impose significant economic costs 
on State or local governments.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to these 
proposed amendments, EPA consulted with representatives of State and 
local governments during development of the Federal plan to enable them 
to provide meaningful and timely input (see 63 FR 63201, November 12, 
1998).

[[Page 33466]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 2, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    Part 62, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 et seq.

Subpart C--Alaska

    2. Amend subpart C by adding an undesignated center heading and 
Sec. 62.354 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.354  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation submitted 
June 30, 1997 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste 
combustor units in the State of Alaska that are subject to part 60, 
subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart D--Arizona

    3. Amend subpart D by adding an undesignated center heading, and 
adding Sec. 62.620 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.620  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Environmental Quality submitted June 
7, 1996 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste combustor 
units in the State of Arizona that are subject to part 60, subpart Cb, 
of this chapter.

Subpart E--Arkansas

    4. Amend subpart E by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.875 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.875  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 
submitted July 1, 1997 certifying that there are no existing municipal 
waste combustor units in the State of Arkansas that are subject to part 
60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.
    5. Amend subpart G by adding a title, adding an undesignated center 
heading, and adding Sec. 62.1370 to read as follows:

Subpart G--Colorado

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.1370  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Public Health and Environment 
submitted July 30, 1996 certifying that there are no existing municipal 
waste combustor units in the State of Colorado that are subject to part 
60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart I--Delaware

    6. Amend subpart I by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.1960 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.1960  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
Control submitted March 26, 1996 certifying that there are no existing 
municipal waste combustor units in the State of Delaware that are 
subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart J--District of Columbia

    7. Amend subpart J by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.2130 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.2130  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs 
submitted July 6, 1992 certifying that there are no existing municipal 
waste combustor units in the District of Columbia that are subject to 
part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart N--Idaho

    8. Amend subpart N by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.3130 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.3130  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Health and Welfare submitted October 
28, 1996 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste 
combustor units in the State of Idaho that are subject to part 60, 
subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart S--Kentucky

    9. Amend subpart S by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.4370 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.4370  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department for Environmental Protection submitted 
December 18, 1996 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste 
combustor units in the State of Kentucky that are subject to part 60, 
subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart T--Louisiana

    10. Amend subpart T by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.4650 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.4650  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter From the Department of Environmental Quality submitted May 
21, 1996 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste 
combustor units in the State of Louisiana that are subject to part 60, 
subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart Z--Mississippi

    11. Amend subpart Z by adding Sec. 62.6125 to read as follows:


Sec. 62.6125  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Environmental Quality submitted 
September 24, 1997 certifying that there are no existing municipal 
waste combustor units in the State of Mississippi that are subject to 
part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

[[Page 33467]]

Subpart BB--Montana

    12. Amend subpart BB by adding an undesignated center heading, and 
adding Sec. 62.6620 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.6620  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Environmental Quality submitted June 
3, 1997 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste combustor 
units in the State of Montana that are subject to part 60, subpart Cb, 
of this chapter.

Subpart DD--Nevada

    13. Amend subpart DD by adding an undesignated center heading, and 
adding Sec. 62.7120 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.7120  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 
submitted March 26, 1997 certifying that there are no existing 
municipal waste combustor units in the State of Nevada that are subject 
to part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.
    14. Amend subpart GG by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.7857 to read as follows:

Subpart GG--New Mexico

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.7857  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Environment Department submitted January 10, 1997 
certifying that there are no existing municipal waste combustor units 
in the State of New Mexico that are subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of 
this chapter.

Subpart JJ--North Dakota

    15. Amend subpart JJ by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.8620 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.8620  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Health submitted May 1, 1996 
certifying that there are no existing municipal waste combustor units 
in the State of North Dakota that are subject to part 60, subpart Cb, 
of this chapter.

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

    16. Amend subpart NN by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.9643 and 62.9644 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.9643  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Allegheny County Health Department submitted March 
14, 1996 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste 
combustor units in Allegheny County that are subject to part 60, 
subpart Cb, of this chapter.


Sec. 62.9644  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the City of Philadelphia Department of Public Health 
submitted February 14, 1997 certifying that there are no existing 
municipal waste combustor units in the City of Philadelphia that are 
subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart QQ--South Dakota

    17. Amend subpart QQ by adding an undesignated center heading, and 
adding Sec. 62.10370 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.10370  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources 
submitted June 20, 1997 certifying that there are no existing municipal 
waste combustor units in the State of South Dakota that are subject to 
part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart SS--Texas

    18. Amend subpart SS by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.10890 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.10890  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 
submitted May 13, 1997 certifying that there are no existing municipal 
waste combustor units in the State of Texas that are subject to part 
60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart TT--Utah

    19. Amend subpart TT by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.11130 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.11130  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Environmental Quality submitted June 
16, 1997 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste 
combustor units in the State of Utah that are subject to part 60, 
subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

    20. Amend subpart XX by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.12110 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.12110  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Division of Environmental Protection submitted 
March 11, 1996 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste 
combustor units in the State of West Virginia that are subject to part 
60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

    21. Amend subpart YY by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.12360 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.12360  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Natural Resources submitted September 
26, 1997 certifying that there are no existing

[[Page 33468]]

municipal waste combustor units in the State of Wisconsin that are 
subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

    22. Amend subpart ZZ by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.12620 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.12620  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Environmental Quality submitted 
October 29, 1996 certifying that there are no existing municipal waste 
combustor units in the State of Wyoming that are subject to part 60, 
subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart BBB--Puerto Rico

    23. Amend subpart BBB by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.13104 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.13104  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Office of the Governor submitted December 12, 1996 
certifying that there are no existing municipal waste combustor units 
in the Territory of Puerto Rico that are subject to part 60, subpart 
Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart CCC--Virgin Islands

    24. Amend subpart CCC by adding an undesignated center heading and 
adding Sec. 62.13354 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the 
Capacity To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid 
Waste


Sec. 62.13354  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Department of Planning and Natural Resources 
submitted September 29, 1997 certifying that there are no existing 
municipal waste combustor units in the Territory of Virgin Islands that 
are subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.
    25. Amend table 1 of subpart FFF by adding the following five 
entries in alphabetical order.

   Table 1 of Subpart FFF--Municipal Waste Combustor Units (MWC Units)
                       Excluded From SubparT FFF1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                              MWC units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................  Existing facilities with an MWC unit
                                     capacity greater than 250 tons per
                                     day of municipal solid waste at the
                                     following MWC sites:
                                    (a) Solid Waste Disposal Authority
                                     of the City of Huntsville, Alabama.
 
         *        *        *        *        *        *        *
Maine.............................  Existing facilities with an MWC unit
                                     capacity greater than 250 tons per
                                     day of municipal solid waste at the
                                     following MWC sites:
                                    (a) Penobscot Energy Recovery
                                     Company, Orrington, Maine.
                                    (b) Maine Energy Recovery Company,
                                     Biddeford, Maine.
                                    (c) Regional Waste Systems, Inc.,
                                     Portland, Maine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland..........................  Existing MWC facilities with an MWC
                                     unit capacity greater than 250 tons
                                     per day of municipal solid waste.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
         *        *        *        *        *        *        *
Oklahoma..........................  Existing MWC facilities with an MWC
                                     unit capacity greater than 250 tons
                                     per day of municipal solid waste at
                                     the following MWC site:
                                    Ogden-Martin Systems of Tulsa,
                                     Incorporated, 2122 South Yukon
                                     Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
 
         *        *        *        *        *        *        *
Pennsylvania......................  Existing MWC facilities with an MWC
                                     unit capacity greater than 250 tons
                                     per day of municipal solid waste at
                                     the following MWC site:
                                    (a) American Ref-fuel of Delaware
                                     Valley, LP (formerly Delaware
                                     County Resource Recovery facility),
                                     City of Chester, PA.
                                    (b) Harrisburg Materials, Energy,
                                     Recycling and Recovery Facility,
                                     City of Harrisburg, PA.
                                    (c) Lancaster County Solid Waste
                                     Management Authority, Conoy
                                     Township, Lancaster County, PA.
                                    (d) Montenay Montgomery Limited
                                     Partnership, Plymouth Township,
                                     Montgomery County, PA.
                                    (e) Wheelabrator Falls, Inc., Falls
                                     Township, Bucks County, PA.
                                    (f) York County Solid Waste and
                                     Refuse Authority, York, PA.
 
         *        *        *        *        *        *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the exclusions in table 1 of this subpart, this subpart
  applies to affected facilities not regulated by an EPA-approved and
  currently effective State or Tribal plan.

    26. Amend table 5 of subpart FFF by revising entry number 1 
``Emission limits for Hg, dioxins/furans'' to read as follows:

[[Page 33469]]



                          Table 5 of Subpart FFF--Generic Compliance Schedules and Increments of Progress (Post-1987 MWCs) a, b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Increment 1 Submit     Increment 2 Award    Increment 3 Begin on-  Increment 4 Complete      Increment 5 Final
        Affected facilities           final control plan         contracts          site construction    on-site construction          compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected facilities that commenced
 construction, modification, or
 reconstruction after June 26,
 1987
    1. Emission limits for Hg,      NAc..................  NAc..................  NAc..................  NAc.................  11/12/99 or 1 year after
     dioxin/furan.                                                                                                              permit issuance d, e
 
                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Table 4 or 5 of this subpart applies to MWC units subject to the Federal plan except those with site-specific compliance schedules shown in table 6 of
  this subpart.
b As an alternative to this schedule, the unit may close by December 19, 2000, complete retrofit while closed, and achieve final compliance upon
  restarting. See Secs.  62.14108(c), 62.14108(d), and 62.14109(i) of this subpart.
c Because final compliance is achieved in 1 year, no increments of progress are required.
d Permit issuance is issuance of a revised construction permit or revised operating permit, if a permit modification is required to retrofit controls.
e Final compliance must be achieved no later than December 19, 2000, even if the date ``1 year after permit issuance'' exceeds December 19, 2000.

    27. Amend table 6 of subpart FFF by revising the table headings, 
adding a footnote ``c'' and adding a new entry at the end of the table 
to read as follows:

                                 Table 6 of Subpart FFF--Site-Specific Compliance Schedules and Increments of Progress a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Increment
                                                                                            1 Submit  Increment   Increment 3   Increment 4  Increment 5
 Affected facilities at the following MWC sites                 City, State                  final     2 Award     Begin on-   Complete on-     Final
                                                                                            control   contracts      site          site       compliance
                                                                                              plan               construction  construction       c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                      *                  *                  *                  *                *                *                *
New Hanover County, Unit 3A.....................  Wilmington, North Carolina.............   09/15/99   03/01/00     07/01/00      11/19/00    12/19/00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a These schedules have been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by EPA.
b This schedule applies to HCl, SO2, PM, Pb, Cd, CO, and NOx. However, owners and operators of large MWC units in New Jersey have the option of
  reserving the portion of their control plan that addresses NOx. Owners and operators must submit the reserved portion to EPA by December 15, 1999.
c The owner or operator of an affected facility that began construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 26, 1987 must achieve final
  compliance with the mercury and dioxins/furans limits within 1 year after promulgation of subpart FFF (i.e., by 11/12/99) or 1 year after permit
  issuance. Permit issuance is issuance of a revised construction permit or revised operating permit if a permit modification is required to retrofit
  controls. Final compliance must be achieved no later than December 19, 2000, even if the date ``1 year after permit issuance'' exceeds December 19,
  2000.

[FR Doc. 00-11811 Filed 5-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P