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

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