Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Massachusetts,

[Federal Register: September 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 170)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 48095-48099]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr02se99-15]

[[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 (NO‹INF›X‹/INF›). Additionally, Massachusetts has requested SIP approval of NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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: Rapp.Steve@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

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

1. What action is EPA taking?

2. What air pollutants are reduced by the Massachusetts regulation?

3. Who is affected by today's action?

4. When does today's action take effect?

5. What is ``reasonably available control technology'' (RACT) for sources of nitrogen oxides (NO‹INF›X‹/INF›)?

6. Where is NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT required?

7. Why is the Massachusetts submittal approvable as NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT?

8. Why is EPA approving the municpal waste combustor NO‹INF›X‹/INF› requirements as a SIP revision?

   1. Where to go for more information on NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT?

10. What does ``direct final rulemaking'' mean?

1. What Action is EPA Taking?

   Today, EPA is approving Massachusetts regulation, 310 CMR 7.19, ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of Nitrogen (NO‹INF›X‹/INF›),'' as well as facility-specific NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF›. 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 (NO‹INF›X‹/INF›) reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) found in sections 182(b)(2), Reasonably Available Control Technology; 182(f), NO‹INF›X‹/INF› Requirements; and 184(b) Plan Provisions for States in Ozone Transport Regions.

   Additionally, EPA is approving the NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› emissions at MWCs and were therefore submitted as a SIP revision under section 110 as well.

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

   Massachusetts' NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› emissions at major stationary sources by almost 50% each year from a 1990 baseline. The NO‹INF›X‹/INF› requirements under 310 CMR 7.08(2) will reduce NO‹INF›X‹/INF› emissions at MWC facilities by as much as 45% below RACT emission levels.

   Decreases in NO‹INF›X‹/INF› emissions help improve the environment in several important ways. First, because NO‹INF›X‹/INF›, is an ozone precursor, reducing NO‹INF›X‹/INF› reduces concentrations of ground level ozone. Decreases in NO‹INF›X‹/INF› emissions also reduce concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and certain other types of toxic air pollutants. Additionally, decreases in NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› emissions help reduce greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. What Is ``Reasonably Available Control Technology'' (RACT) for Sources of Nitrogen Oxides (NO‹INF›X‹/INF›)?

   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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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]]

6. Where Is NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT Required?

   The CAA required certain States to develop RACT regulations for major stationary sources of NO‹INF›X‹/INF›. 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› must install and operate NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT.

7. Why is the Massachusetts Submittal Approvable as NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT?

   EPA considers an aggregate reduction in NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› by almost 50% each year from the major stationary sources in Massachusetts. Therefore, EPA considers the regulation and ECPs to meet the CAA NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT requirements.

8. Why Is EPA Approving the Municipal Waste Combustor NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› is a ground level ozone precursor and 310 CMR 7.08(2) will reduce NO‹INF›X‹/INF› from 1995 levels, Massachusetts requested that EPA approve the NO‹INF›X‹/INF› related requirements of 310 CMR 7.08(2) into the State implementation plan (SIP) to reduce ozone pursuant to section 110 as well.

   1. Where To Go for More Information on NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT?

   EPA provides additional guidance on determining NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› Supplement.'' EPA also published additional NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT guidance memoranda in the ``NO‹INF›X‹/INF› Policy Document for the Clean Air Act of 1990,'' also known as ``The NO‹INF›X‹/INF› Policy Document,'' (EPA-452/R-96-005, March 1996). You can refer to The NO‹INF›X‹/INF› Supplement and The NO‹INF›X‹/INF› Policy Document for more information on NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT.

   Additionally, for a more detailed discussion of Massachusetts' NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 (NO‹INF›X‹/INF›),'' 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.

10. 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.

    2. Final Action

       EPA is approving Massachusetts' regulation, 310 CMR 7.19, ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of Nitrogen (NO‹INF›X‹/INF›),'' as well as facility-specific NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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.''

    3. Administrative Requirements

1. 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.''

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. Petitions for Judicial Review

   Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filedin 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 (NO‹INF›X‹/INF›)'' 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 (NO‹INF›X‹/INF›)'' 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 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› requirements.. 1/11/999/2/99[Insert FR citation

      119 Only approved NO‹INF›X‹/INF› 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........................ NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT.............. 7/15/94 9/2/99[Insert FR citation

      119 NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT regulations. from published date]. 310 CMR 7.19........................ NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT.............. 10/4/96 9/2/99[Insert FR citation

      119 Facility specific NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT from published date].

      for Specialty Minerals, Incorporated. 310 CMR 7.19........................ NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT.............. 12/2/96 9/2/99[Insert FR citation

      119 Facility specific NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT from published date].

      for Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard facility. 310 CMR 7.19........................ NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT.............. 4/16/999/2/99[Insert FR citation

      119 Facility specific NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT from published date].

      for Turners Falls Limited Partnership/Indeck Energy Services Turners Falls, Inc., in Montague.

      [[Page 48099]]

      310 CMR 7.19........................ NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT.............. 4/16/999/2/99[Insert FR citation

      119 Facility specific NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT from published date].

      for Medusa Minerals Company in Lee. 310 CMR 7.19........................ NO‹INF›X‹/INF› RACT.............. 4/16/999/2/99[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. 99-22185Filed9-1-99; 8:45 am]

      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P