[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