53272 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 62, and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215; FRL–8217–6] 

RIN 2060–AJ41 and A2060–AH13 

Standards of Performance, Emission 

Guidelines, and Federal Plan for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing 

amendments to the ‘‘Standards of 

Performance for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills’’ (Landfills NSPS), to the 

‘‘Emission Guidelines and Compliance 

Times for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills’’ (landfills emission 

guidelines), to the ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills’’ 

(Landfills NESHAP), and to the ‘‘Federal 

Plan Requirements for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills that Commenced 

Construction Prior to May 30, 1991 and 

Have Not Been Modified or 

Reconstructed since May 30, 1991’’ 

(landfills Federal plan). The proposed 

amendments to the Landfills NSPS are 

supplemental amendments to those 

proposed on May 23, 2002. Based on 

public comments on the proposed 

amendments and additional analysis, 

we are proposing supplemental 

amendments to the Landfills NSPS to 

clarify what constitutes treated landfill 

gas. We are also proposing amendments 

to the Landfills NSPS, emission 

guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills 

NESHAP to clarify who is responsible 

for compliance activities where multiple 

parties are involved in the ownership or 

operation of a landfill and the 

associated landfill gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment systems. In 

addition, we are proposing revisions to 

both the Landfills NSPS and the 

Landfills NESHAP regarding startup, 

shutdown, malfunction, and routine 

maintenance. 

The proposed amendments to the 

Landfills NSPS would also serve to 

amend the emission guidelines and the 

Federal plan for existing municipal 

solid waste landfills because these rules 

incorporate the provisions of the 

‘‘Standards of Performance for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.’’ We 

are proposing changes to the emission 

guidelines and Federal plan themselves 

to reflect the proposed changes to the 

Landfills NSPS where these rules did 

not directly incorporate the provisions 

of the Landfills NSPS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 7, 2006. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA by September 28, 2006 requesting 

to speak at a public hearing, EPA will 

hold a public hearing on October 10, 

2006. If you are interested in attending 

the public hearing, contact Karen 

Rackley at (919) 541–0634 to verify that 

a hearing will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0215, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Send your comments via 

electronic mail to a-and-rdocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215. 

• Fax: Fax your comments to (202) 

566–1741, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215. 

• Mail: By U.S. Postal Service, send 

your comments to: EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215. Please 

include a total of two copies. The EPA 

requests a separate copy also be sent to 

the contact person identified below (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver your comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Building, Room B–108, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215. Such 

deliveries are accepted only during the 

normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays), and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered 

damage due to flooding during the last week 

of June 2006. The Docket Center is 

continuing to operate. However, during the 

cleanup, there will be temporary changes to 

Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, 

and hours of operation for people who wish 

to make hand deliveries or visit the Public 

Reading Room to view documents. Consult 

EPA’s Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 

(July 5, 2006), or the EPA Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for 

current information on docket operations, 

locations, and telephone numbers. The 

Docket Center’s mailing address for U.S. mail 

and the procedure for submitting comments 

to www.regulations.gov are not affected by 

the flooding and will remain the same. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0215. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Public Hearing: If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at the EPA Facility 

Complex located at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an 

alternate site nearby. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA 

West Building, Room B–102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53273 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Karen Rackley, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01), U.S. EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–0634, email address: rackley.karen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by the 

proposed amendments include 

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills 

and owners/operators of combustion 

devices that burn untreated landfill gas, 

which may include the following 

entities: 

Category NAICS* code Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry: Air and water resource and solid waste management 924110 Solid waste landfills. 

Industry: Refuse systems—solid waste landfills ......................... 562212 Solid waste landfills. 

State, local, and tribal government agencies ............................. 562212 

924110 

Solid waste landfills; Air and water resource and solid waste 

management. 

Any industry, commercial business, or institution or utility that 

burns untreated landfill gas in a reciprocating engine, turbine, boiler, or other combustion device (e.g., for energy recovery).

4911 Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution. 

49 Electric, gas, and sanitary services. 

37 Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories. 

82 Educational services. 

29 Petroleum refineries and manufacturers of coal products. 

28 Chemical manufacturers. 

*North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by the proposed amendments. 

To determine whether your facility 

would be regulated by the proposed 

amendments, you should carefully 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 60.32c of subpart Cc, 40 CFR 

60.750 of subpart WWW, 40 CFR 

62.14352 of subpart GGG, or 40 CFR 

63.1935 and 40 CFR 63.1940 of subpart 

AAAA. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of the 

proposed amendments to a particular 

entity, contact the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Docket. The docket number for the 

proposed amendments to the Landfills 

NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW), 

emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cc), Federal plan (40 CFR part 

62, subpart GGG), and Landfills 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

AAAA) is Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2003–0215. Docket ID No. A–88–

09 contains supporting information for 

the landfills NSPS and emission 

guidelines and Docket ID No. EPA–

OAR–2002–0047 and Docket ID No. A–

98–28 contain the supporting 

information for the Landfills NESHAP. 

Docket ID No. A–98–03 and Docket ID 

No. A–88–09 contain supporting 

information for the landfills Federal 

plan. 

WorldWide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the proposed 

amendments is available on the WWW 

through the Technology Transfer 

Network Website (TTN). Following 

signature, EPA will post a copy of the 

proposed amendments on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

A. What rules affect MSW landfills? 

B. What is the purpose of the proposed 

amendments? 

II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments 

A. What changes did we propose to the 

Landfills NSPS on May 23, 2002? 

B. What supplemental amendments are we 

proposing to the Landfills NSPS, 

emission guidelines, and Federal plan? 

C. What changes are we proposing to the 

Landfills NSPS and Landfills NESHAP 

regarding startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction? 

D. What other corrections and 

clarifications are we proposing? 

E. Are we requesting public comment on 

any other issues? 

III. Rationale for the Proposed Supplemental 

Amendments 

A. Definition of Landfill Owner/Operator 

and Allowance for Off-site Control or 

Treatment Option 

B. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and 

Treatment System and Clarification to 

the Treatment Option 

IV. Rationale for Proposed Landfills NSPS 

and Landfills NESHAP Amendments 

Regarding Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction 

A. Proposed Landfills NSPS Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions 

B. Proposed Landfills NESHAP Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions 

V. Rationale for Other Proposed Corrections 

and Clarifications 

A. Clarification of Temperature Monitoring 

for Enclosed Combustors 

B. Correction of Cross-Reference in the 

Landfills NSPS 

C. Clarification of Bioreactor Moisture 

Content Determination for the Landfills 

NESHAP 

D. Correction of Date in the Landfills 

NESHAP 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

I. Background 

A. What rules affect MSW landfills? 

On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), we 

promulgated the emission guidelines for 

existing MSW landfills and the NSPS 

for new or modified MSW landfills 

under authority of section 111 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). The goal of the 

emission guidelines and NSPS is to 

control landfill gas emissions to the 

level achievable through the application 

of the best system of emissions 

reductions which (taking into account 

the cost of such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements) we 

determine has been adequately 

demonstrated. This is termed the Abest 

demonstrated technology.’’ On 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53274 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

1The Landfills NSPS define the affected sources 

subject to the NSPS and the requirements to which 

these affected sources are subject. However, a single 

source is defined by the program in question, e.g., 

title V, new source review, and in many cases, 

requires the aggregation of emissions units, 

including affected sources. 

2Common control is a key element in defining 

whether and how activities at a site are to be 

aggregated in determining whether they constitute 

a single source. See, for example, Alabama Power 

v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (District of Columbia Circuit, 

1979), section 112(a)(1) of the CAA, 40 CFR 70.2, 

and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(5) and (6). 

November 8, 1999 (64 FR 60689), we 

promulgated the landfills Federal plan 

requirements for the purpose of 

implementing the landfills emission 

guidelines in States without approved 

State plans. 

The control of landfill gas based on 

the requirements of the Landfills NSPS, 

emission guidelines, and Federal plan 

results in emissions reductions of over 

30 volatile organic compounds and air 

toxics such as toluene, benzene, and 

vinyl chloride. The reduction of these 

emissions has direct and indirect health 

benefits as well as environmental 

benefits. In addition, the control of 

landfill gas results in reductions of 

methane gas emissions, which reduces 

the potential for fires and explosions 

near landfills. Control of landfill gas 

reduces odor problems, which reduces 

the potential for local property devaluation and poorer quality of life for 

local residents. Some landfills control 

landfill gas by combusting it in a boiler, 

engine, or turbine to produce steam or 

electricity, taking advantage of landfill 

gas as a renewable energy source. 

The landfills emission guidelines, as 

implemented through an approved State 

plan or the landfills Federal plan, and 

the Landfills NSPS require large 

landfills (at least 2.5 million megagrams 

(Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters in 

size) with estimated nonmethane 

organic compound (NMOC) emissions 

of at least 50 megagrams per year (Mg/ 

yr) to collect and control or treat landfill 

gas. The Landfills NSPS and emission 

guidelines provide landfill owners or 

operators with some degree of flexibility 

to achieve compliance, allowing them to 

incorporate site-specific factors into the 

design of the collection and control or 

treatment systems, as long as the 

systems meet specific performance 

standards. On January 16, 2003 (68 FR 

2227), we promulgated the Landfills 

NESHAP under authority of section 112 

of the CAA. The Landfills NESHAP 

apply to both major and area sources 

and contain the same requirements as 

the landfills emission guidelines and 

Landfills NSPS, but add requirements 

for startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM), add operating condition 

deviations for out-of-bounds monitoring 

parameters, require timely control of 

bioreactor landfills, and change the 

reporting frequency for one type of 

report. 

On May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36476), we 

proposed amendments to the Landfills 

NSPS because implementation activity 

showed a need for clarification of some 

issues. Consideration of the public 

comments received and additional 

implementation activity has shown the 

need for even further clarification on 

implementing the Landfills NSPS, 

emission guidelines, and Landfills 

NESHAP. 

B. What is the purpose of the proposed 

amendments? 

We are proposing supplemental 

amendments to the May 23, 2002 

proposed amendments to the Landfills 

NSPS. While today’s proposed 

supplemental amendments would, for 

the most part, specifically amend the 

Landfills NSPS, they would also serve 

to amend the landfills emission 

guidelines for existing MSW landfills 

because the emission guidelines 

incorporate many of the provisions of 

the Landfills NSPS. In addition, today’s 

proposed supplemental amendments 

include conforming changes to certain 

provisions of the landfills emission 

guidelines that do not directly 

incorporate the provisions of the 

Landfills NSPS; make conforming 

changes to the landfills Federal plan for 

existing MSW landfills; and would 

affect changes to the Landfills NESHAP 

for MSW landfills. The supplemental 

proposed amendments would, in 

conjunction with the previously 

proposed amendments, further clarify 

the definition of landfill owners/ 

operators; clarify compliance 

responsibilities in situations where 

multiple entities own/operate a landfill 

and the gas collection, control, or 

treatment systems (either at the landfill 

or off site); and clarify the definition of 

treated landfill gas. Today’s proposed 

supplemental amendments do not 

change how you determine whether a 

landfill is ‘‘new’’ or ‘‘existing,’’ and 

accordingly subject to the Landfills 

NSPS or emission guidelines. The 

determination of whether an affected 

facility is new or existing is still based 

on the date of construction or 

modification of the landfill itself and 

not the date of installation of the gas 

collection, control, or treatment system. 

In allocating certain responsibilities to 

the landfill owners/operators and others 

to the gas collection, control, and/or 

treatment system owners/operators, it is 

not our intent to establish a precedent 

for any other NSPS or NESHAP. We are 

proposing this compliance approach 

specifically for landfills because of the 

unique nature of landfill operations and 

to encourage energy recovery. Landfill 

gas is commonly collected and 

combusted to produce electricity, steam, 

or other useful energy; combustion for 

energy recovery often occurs miles away 

from the landfill itself at a separate 

industrial, commercial, or institutional 

facility. Combusting landfill gas for 

energy recovery is a reasonable 

approach to meeting the control 

requirements of the Landfills NSPS and 

also makes use of a renewable energy 

resource and reduces combustion of 

scarce fossil fuels and emissions 

produced during their combustion. This 

unique situation raises unique issues on 

the respective responsibilities of landfill 

owners/operators and gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment system 

owners/operators for complying with 

the Landfills NSPS. 

Although today’s proposed 

supplemental amendments allocate 

responsibility for complying with 

certain specified requirements to the 

owners/operators of the MSW landfill 

and responsibility for complying with 

other specified requirements to the 

owners/operators of gas collection, 

control and/or treatment systems used 

to comply with the Landfills NSPS, they 

do not alter compliance responsibilities 

where affected sources 1 are under 

common control.2 (Today’s proposed 

supplemental amendments also 

continue to recognize that the owner/ 

operator of the MSW landfill may also 

be the owner/operator of the gas 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

system.) The question of whether 

affected sources are under common 

control may be determined as part of 

permitting activities. In a common 

control determination, various affected 

sources are aggregated together, and the 

owner/operator of the resulting single 

source is ultimately responsible for 

ensuring compliance with all applicable 

requirements (including requirements 

applicable to each of the affected 

sources/emissions units that make up 

the single source). To ensure that the 

proposed amendments to the Landfills 

NSPS allocating various compliance 

responsibilities among the owners/ 

operators of affected sources do not 

conflict with determining compliance 

responsibilities when the affected 

sources are under common control, 40 

CFR 60.750(a) of the Landfills NSPS, 

related sections of the landfills emission 

guidelines, the landfills Federal plan, 

and the Landfills NESHAP specify that 

responsibility for compliance cannot be 

allocated where landfills and associated 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53275 

gas collection, control, and/or treatment 

systems are under common control. 

It is important to note that in cases of 

common control, although the owner/ 

operator of the single source (e.g., the 

owner/operator of the landfill and/or 

gas collection, control, and/or treatment 

system) is ultimately responsible for 

ensuring compliance at the source, 

enforcement action could be taken by 

EPA or a State against the owners/ 

operators of individual affected sources/ 

emissions units in addition to the 

owner/operator of the single source. 

This is because enforcement action is 

not limited by the determination of who 

is ultimately in control of a single 

source, but rather can be taken against 

the owners/operators of each individual 

affected source/emissions unit 

comprising that source. 

Additionally, regardless of the various 

regulatory approaches that are discussed 

in today’s package, all landfills that are 

at least 2.5 Mg and 2.5 million cubic 

meters in size, and all stationary 

equipment that is required by the 

Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, 

Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP to 

collect, control, and/or treat landfill gas 

from MSW landfills of this size, 

continue to be subject to the 

requirement to apply for and obtain a 

title V permit. This is because section 

502(a) of the CAA requires any source, 

including an area source, subject to 

standards or regulations under section 

111 or 112 of the CAA to operate in 

compliance with a title V permit after 

the effective date of a title V permits 

program. Thus, regardless of the number 

of affected sources or owner/operators 

that are relevant in a particular MSW 

landfill situation, all affected sources 

are required to be covered by a title V 

operating permit. The final regulatory 

language will provide additional 

clarification on this point after a 

regulatory approach is selected. 

We are proposing further 

clarifications to the landfill gas 

treatment compliance option, including 

more specific definitions of ‘‘treated 

landfill gas’’ and ‘‘treatment system’’ in 

the Landfills NSPS. 

We are proposing clarifications that 

would amend the time allowed for 

malfunction events in the Landfills 

NSPS. The amendments would also 

clarify the SSM plan requirements and 

reports and the incorporation of 

maintenance activities in those plans in 

the Landfills NESHAP. 

The proposed supplemental 

amendments would correct a test 

method citation in the Landfills NSPS; 

clarify Landfills NSPS temperature 

monitoring for enclosed combustors; 

clarify that bioreactor moisture content 

should be determined on a wet weight 

basis for the Landfills NESHAP; and 

correct a compliance date in the 

Landfills NESHAP. 

As stated earlier, the proposed 

supplemental amendments to the 

Landfills NSPS would also serve to 

amend the landfills emission guidelines 

and Federal plan for MSW landfills 

where these rules specifically 

incorporate the provisions of the 

Landfills NSPS. We are also proposing 

direct changes to the landfills emission 

guidelines to maintain consistency with 

the proposed changes to the Landfills 

NSPS where the emission guidelines 

did not directly incorporate the 

provisions of the Landfills NSPS. 

Changes to the landfills Federal plan 

implementing the landfills emission 

guidelines are being proposed to ensure 

the plan remains consistent with the 

landfills emission guidelines. 

II. Summary of the Proposed 

Amendments 

A. What changes did we propose to the 

Landfills NSPS on May 23, 2002? 

On May 23, 2002, EPA proposed 

amendments to the Landfills NSPS to 

clarify who is responsible for 

compliance activities where multiple 

entities are involved in the ownership/ 

operation of a landfill and the 

associated landfill gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment systems; 

clarify what constitutes treated landfill 

gas; and correct the omission of an 

exemption for specific boilers and 

process heaters from the initial 

performance test. 

To be specific, we proposed to amend 

40 CFR 60.751 of subpart WWW by 

adding a landfill-specific definition for 

MSW landfill owners/operators. This 

landfill-specific definition would 

identify MSW landfill owners/operators 

as entities that own or operate the 

landfill or any stationary equipment 

located on the landfill property that is 

used in the collection, control, and/or 

treatment of landfill gas. We also 

proposed to amend 40 CFR 60.752 of 

subpart WWW to allow landfill owners/ 

operators to transfer untreated landfill 

gas off site for control or treatment, 

provided the transferee certifies to us 

(and provides a copy to the landfill 

owner/operator) that it will control or 

treat the landfill gas in accordance with 

the Landfills NSPS provisions. 

We further proposed to amend 40 CFR 

60.751 of subpart WWW by adding a 

definition for treatment system. The 

May 23, 2002 proposed definition for 

treatment system specified that the 

system must filter, de-water, and 

compress landfill gas. 

We proposed to amend 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C) of subpart WWW to 

specify that to achieve compliance with 

this section, landfill gas must be 

processed in a system that meets the 

treatment system definition in the 

proposed amendment. We also 

proposed to amend this section to 

clarify that venting of treated landfill 

gas to the ambient air is not permitted. 

We proposed to amend 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B) of subpart WWW to 

exempt owners/operators of boilers and 

process heaters with design input 

capacities of 44 megawatts (MW) or 

greater from the requirement to conduct 

an initial performance test. 

B. What supplemental amendments are 

we proposing to the Landfills NSPS, 

emission guidelines, and Federal plan? 

Public comments on the May 23, 2002 

proposed amendments raised new 

questions and caused us to reconsider 

the approach we had taken on several 

proposed amendments. Based on further 

analysis, we are proposing 

supplemental amendments that we 

expect to help owners/operators to 

comply with the Landfills NSPS. As 

mentioned previously, the proposed 

supplemental amendments clarify: The 

definition of landfill owner/operator; 

compliance responsibilities when 

multiple entities own/operate a landfill 

and the associated landfill gas 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

systems; and what constitutes treated 

landfill gas. Additional proposed 

amendments, including SSM 

provisions, and other corrections are 

discussed later in this section of this 

preamble. 

To address compliance 

responsibilities at landfills where 

multiple entities own/operate the 

landfill and the associated landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment 

systems, we are proposing to add a 

specific definition of ‘‘landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator’’ and to revise the May 

2002 proposed definition of ‘‘landfill 

owner/operator’’ by removing references 

to stationary gas collection, control, or 

treatment systems. We are also 

proposing to revise the applicability 

section to clarify compliance 

responsibilities. We are proposing that 

the landfill owners/operators would be 

responsible for complying with the 

requirements of the Landfills NSPS that 

apply to the landfills and any portion of 

the collection, control, or treatment 

system that they own or operate. The 

owners/operators of the landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment systems 

would be responsible for complying 

with the requirements of the Landfills 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53276 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

NSPS that apply to the portion of the 

landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment system that they own or 

operate. To maintain consistency 

between the Landfills NSPS, emission 

guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills 

NESHAP with regard to owner/operator 

responsibilities, we are also proposing 

similar revisions to the landfills 

emission guidelines, Federal plan, and 

Landfills NESHAP. As discussed later in 

this preamble, we are requesting 

comment on this approach, as well as an 

alternative approach regarding 

compliance responsibilities. 

To clarify what constitutes landfill gas 

treatment, we propose to refine the May 

23, 2002 proposed definitions of 

‘‘treated landfill gas’’ and ‘‘treatment 

system’’ in the Landfills NSPS. For 

filtration and de-watering, the refined 

proposed definitions contain specific 

numerical values that would provide 

long-term protection of the combustion 

equipment, which would support good 

combustion. For particulate matter 

filtration, a filter system would be 

required to have an absolute rating no 

greater than 10 microns. For dewatering, the system would be required 

to reduce the dew point by at least 20 

degrees Fahrenheit. 

We are also clarifying the monitoring 

requirements for treatment systems. To 

ensure that treatment systems are 

operating properly to achieve the 

filtration and de-watering levels 

specified in the revised proposed 

treatment system definition, we are 

proposing more specific monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements for treatment systems used 

to comply with the Landfills NSPS. We 

are proposing that owners/operators of 

treatment systems monitor pressure 

drop across the filtration system and 

temperature or dew point for dewatering systems, depending on the 

type of de-watering system. However, 

we are proposing to allow owners/ 

operators to use other monitoring 

parameters if they demonstrate that 

such parameters would effectively 

monitor filtration or de-watering system 

performance. We are clarifying that 

owners/operators must develop 

operating ranges for each monitored 

operating parameter based on 

manufacturer’s recommendations or 

engineering analysis and submit those 

ranges, along with justification, for 

approval in the design plan required by 

40 CFR 60.752(b)(2) of subpart WWW. 

Then, owners/operators would be 

required to monitor the required 

parameters and keep them within the 

ranges specified in their approved 

design plan. For recordkeeping and 

reporting purposes, we are clarifying 

that owners/operators would 

continuously monitor treatment system 

operating parameters and calculate 24- 

hour block averages. The 24-hour block 

averages would be compared with the 

operating ranges justified in the design 

plan to determine compliance. The 

specific recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for treatment systems 

would be similar to those for control 

device temperature monitoring 

requirements already detailed in the 

Landfills NSPS. Owners/operators of 

treatment systems installed prior to 

today’s proposed supplemental 

amendments would be required to 

comply with the revised treatment 

system requirements as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 1 year after 

the date the final amendments are 

promulgated. We are also proposing 

clarifications to various sections of the 

Landfills NESHAP that cross-reference 

the Landfills NSPS treatment system 

and monitoring requirements to 

maintain consistency. 

We are not altering the May 23, 2002 

proposal to amend 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B) of subpart WWW to 

exempt owners/operators of boilers and 

process heaters with design capacities of 

44 MW or greater from the requirement 

to conduct an initial performance test. 

C. What changes are we proposing to the 

Landfills NSPS and Landfills NESHAP 

regarding startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction? 

The current Landfills NSPS limit the 

duration of SSM events to 5 days for the 

landfill gas collection system and 1 hour 

for treatment or control devices. Since 

promulgation of the Landfills NSPS, we 

have become aware that some 

malfunctions cannot be corrected within 

these time frames. Therefore, we 

propose to revise 40 CFR 60.755(e) of 

subpart WWW to remove the 5 day and 

1 hour time limitations. The proposed 

revisions would clarify that the NSPS 

General Provisions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) 

of subpart A continue to apply during 

malfunctions, and that routine 

maintenance activities must be 

completed and malfunctions must be 

corrected as soon as practicable after 

their occurrence in order to minimize 

emissions. To prevent free venting of 

landfill gas to the atmosphere during 

control device malfunctions or 

maintenance, we would retain the 

requirement in 40 CFR 60.753(e) of 

subpart WWW which states that in the 

event the collection or control system is 

inoperable, the gas mover system shall 

be shut down and all valves in the 

collection and control system 

contributing to venting of gas to the 

atmosphere shall be closed within 1 

hour. 

The Landfills NESHAP have no 

allowance for shutdown of control 

devices for routine maintenance. 

Furthermore, after the Landfills 

NESHAP were promulgated, there were 

revisions to the SSM requirements in 

the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart A. The revised 

General Provisions contain some 

changes that are not relevant or can be 

difficult to interpret for landfills. We 

are, therefore, proposing revisions to the 

Landfills NESHAP that require routine 

maintenance of landfill gas collection, 

control, and treatment systems to be 

included in the SSM plan. We are also 

clarifying SSM reporting requirements 

for landfills and the applicability of 

SSM sections of the General Provisions 

to the Landfills NESHAP. 

D. What other corrections and 

clarifications are we proposing? 

We propose to amend 40 CFR 

60.758(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 

60.758(c)(1)(i) of subpart WWW by 

removing the term ‘‘combustion’’ from 

the requirement to monitor temperature 

of enclosed combustors. Temperature 

monitoring is required for enclosed 

combustors, including enclosed flares, 

turbines, reciprocating engines, and 

boilers less than 44 MW. For some 

enclosed combustors, it is not possible 

to monitor temperature inside the 

combustion chamber to determine 

combustion temperature. The proposed 

amendment clarifies that the 

‘‘combustion’’ temperature does not 

have to be monitored. Temperature 

could be monitored at another location, 

as long as the monitored temperature 

relates to proper operation of the 

enclosed combustor. 

We propose to correct a test method 

cross-reference in 40 CFR 60.755(c)(3) of 

subpart WWW necessitated by the 

reorganization of Method 21 in 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. 

In the Landfills NESHAP, we propose 

to correct 40 CFR 63.1990 of subpart 

AAAA to clarify that the 40 percent 

moisture content in the definition of 

‘‘bioreactor’’ is determined on a wet 

weight basis. 

The proposed supplemental 

amendments would also correct a 

Landfills NESHAP compliance date for 

existing major sources to read January 

16, 2004 instead of January 13, 2004 in 

40 CFR 63.1945(d) of subpart AAAA. 

We propose to amend the definition 

of ‘‘household waste’’ and add a 

definition of ‘‘segregated yard waste’’ in 

40 CFR 60.751 of subpart WWW to 

clarify our intent regarding the 

applicability of the Landfills NSPS, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53277 

emission guidelines, Federal plan, and 

Landfills NESHAP to landfills that do 

not accept household waste, but accept 

segregated yard waste. We intended the 

rules to apply to municipal solid waste 

landfills that accept general household 

waste (including garbage, trash, sanitary 

waste), as indicated in the definitions 

sections of these rules. Our regulatory 

analyses for the Landfills NSPS, 

emission guidelines, and Landfills 

NESHAP were based on landfills 

containing mixed household waste 

steams. A question has recently arisen 

on whether a landfill that accepts only 

construction and demolition waste and 

segregated yard waste would be subject 

to the municipal solid waste Landfills 

NSPS. We did not intend these rules to 

apply to landfills that accept only 

segregated yard waste or that accept a 

combination of segregated yard waste 

and non-household waste (such as 

construction and demolition waste or 

industrial waste). The proposed 

definition changes in the Landfills 

NSPS would also affect the emission 

guideline, Federal plan, and Landfills 

NESHAP because they reference the 

definitions in the Landfills NSPS. 

E. Are we requesting public comment on 

any other issues? 

We are requesting public comment on 

alternative approaches for addressing 

three issues the landfill industry and 

regulatory agencies face in 

implementing the Landfills NSPS, 

emission guideline, Federal plan, and 

Landfills NESHAP. 

The first issue deals with closed areas 

of landfills and when they are allowed 

to remove controls. The current 

Landfills NSPS define an MSW landfill 

as: ‘‘* * * an entire disposal facility in 

a contiguous geographical space where 

household waste is placed in or on land 

* * *.’’ We have clearly stated in 

previous documents that the entire 

contiguous area, including both closed 

landfill sections and new landfill 

sections, is considered a single landfill, 

even if the landfill is bisected by a road, 

right of way, golf course, etc. Our intent 

has always been to consider the entire 

contiguous area in determining whether 

a landfill meets the design capacity and 

emission rate criteria for applying 

controls. Similarly, to remove controls, 

the entire area would need to meet the 

control removal criteria in the Landfills 

NSPS (e.g., the entire landfill must emit 

less than 50 Mg NMOC per year, must 

be closed, and the control system must 

have been in operation for at least 15 

years). Also, 40 CFR 60.759(a)(3)(ii) 

allows landfill owners/operators to stop 

collecting gas from ‘‘nonproductive’’

areas of the landfill if they demonstrate 

that the excluded areas emit less than 1 

percent of total NMOC emissions from 

the landfill. 

It has come to our attention that in 

many cases, a contiguous area will 

contain unconnected landfill sections 

that were developed sequentially over 

time. An initial landfill is constructed, 

filled, closed, and capped. Then a new 

one with a separate liner opens on 

contiguous property. Under the 

Landfills NSPS, these are part of the 

same landfill and controls cannot be 

removed from the closed and capped 

area until it emits less than 1 percent of 

the total NMOC, or until the entire 

contiguous landfill is closed and meets 

the control system removal criteria. In 

some cases, gas production from the 

separate section that closed many years 

ago has declined, and the gas 

composition has changed to the point 

where it is difficult to continuously 

collect and combust the gas. However, 

the closed area may not meet the 1 

percent NMOC criteria that would allow 

removal of the control system from that 

section of the landfill. We request 

comments on any approaches for 

dealing with such a situation, and the 

specific criteria that could be applied to 

determine which areas warrant control 

and which may remove control. 

The second issue deals with approval 

of collection and control system design 

plans. The Landfills NSPS and emission 

guidelines require landfill owners/ 

operators to submit a gas collection and 

control system design plan within 1 

year of when their calculated 

uncontrolled NMOC emissions reach 50 

Mg/yr. The plan may include requests 

for alternative designs, alternative 

operational standards, and alternative 

monitoring and recordkeeping. The plan 

is submitted to the regulatory authority 

that implements the Landfills NSPS or 

emission guidelines (usually a State 

agency) for approval. The Landfills 

NSPS and emission guidelines require 

that landfill gas collection and control 

systems must be installed and begin 

operation within 30 months of the 

report that calculated NMOC emissions 

have reached 50 Mg/yr, which is 18 

months after the design plan is 

submitted. In the 1999 document 

‘‘Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 

Volume 1: Summary of Requirements 

for New Source Performance Standards 

and Emission Guidelines for Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills’’ (EPA–453R/96–

004), we stated that EPA expected that 

implementing agency review and 

approval of the design plan would take 

approximately 6 months, leaving 

approximately 12 months for the 

landfill to install the gas collection and 

control system. It has come to our 

attention that some design plans have 

been submitted but have not been 

approved or disapproved for a year or 

even 2 years. As a result, some landfills 

may be faced with the prospect of 

installing a gas collection and control 

system that they are not sure will be 

approved or may be implementing 

monitoring approaches that might later 

be disapproved. 

While there must always be an 

opportunity for the implementing 

agency to review and approve or 

disapprove each design plan, one 

approach would be that if the 

implementing agency chooses not to 

review or act on a design plan within a 

specified amount of time, then the 

design plan would have de facto 

approval. This would be one way to 

allow the landfill to move ahead to meet 

the gas collection and control provisions 

within the time allowed by the Landfills 

NSPS and emission guidelines. Note 

that all design plans must be certified by 

a registered Professional Engineer (P.E.). 

Also, after the collection and control 

system is installed, quarterly monitoring 

of the landfill surface methane 

concentration is required to verify that 

the collection system is working 

properly, and testing and monitoring of 

control devices is also required. Thus, 

even if a design plan was not reviewed 

and approved, the system will be 

professionally designed and there will 

still be proof that the collection and 

control system is achieving the level of 

control required by the Landfills NSPS 

and emission guidelines. We request 

comment on this approach or other 

alternative approaches to address the 

issues surrounding timeliness of design 

plan approvals. We also request 

comment on what period of time would 

be appropriate for review and approval 

of initial design plans, and whether the 

time period should be different for 

review and approval of amendments or 

updates to design plans. 

The third issue deals with surface 

monitoring locations. The intent of the 

rule is to maintain a tight cover that 

minimizes any emissions of landfill gas 

through the surface. The Landfills NSPS 

and emission guidelines require 

quarterly surface monitoring to 

demonstrate that the cover and gas 

collection system are working properly. 

The operational requirements in 40 CFR 

60.753(d) of the Landfills NSPS specify 

that the landfill must ‘‘* * * operate 

the collection system so that the 

methane concentration is less than 500 

parts per million above background at 

the surface of the landfills. To 

determine if this level is exceeded, the 

owner or operator shall conduct surface 

testing around the perimeter of the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53278 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

collection area and along a pattern that 

traverses the landfill at 30 meter 

intervals and where visual observations 

indicate elevated concentrations of 

landfill gas, such as distressed 

vegetation and cracks or seeps in the 

cover.’’ The issue has arisen as to 

whether the quarterly monitoring path 

should include monitoring of every 

cover penetration. Cover penetrations 

can be observed visually and are clearly 

a place where gas would be escaping 

from the cover, so monitoring of them 

would be required by the regulatory 

language. The regulatory language gives 

distressed vegetation and cracks as an 

example of a visual indication that gas 

may be escaping, but this example does 

not limit the places that should be 

monitored by landfill staff or by 

enforcement agency inspectors. Thus, 

under the current language, the landfill 

should monitor any openings that are 

within an area of the landfill where 

waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required. However, 

monitoring of every cover penetration 

every quarter could substantially 

increase monitoring time relative to 

monitoring only along a path at 30 

meter intervals and may not be 

necessary every quarter. We request 

comment on this rule interpretation and 

alternatives for monitoring cover 

penetrations that do not show distressed 

vegetation, cracks, or similar indications 

of high landfill gas levels. 

III. Rationale for the Proposed 

Supplemental Amendments 

A. Definition of Landfill Owner/ 

Operator and Allowance for Off-Site 

Control or Treatment Option 

Amendments were proposed in 2002 

to clarify which entities are considered 

landfill owners/operators and are 

subject to the Landfills NSPS, and to 

clarify compliance responsibilities 

when landfill gas is sent off site for 

treatment or control. The May 2002 

proposed amendments and today’s 

proposed supplemental amendments 

recognize the unique natures of the 

landfills source category and landfill 

gas. Because landfill gas contains 

methane and can be used as a renewable 

resource to produce useful energy, it is 

common for landfill gas to be sold to 

entities, other than the landfill, that 

combust the gas for energy recovery. 

These entities often own and/or operate 

portions of the gas collection system 

and the control or treatment systems 

required by the Landfills NSPS, 

emission guidelines, Federal plan, and 

Landfills NESHAP. Control or treatment 

systems may be located on or adjacent 

to the landfill, or they may be located 

miles away at a business, institution, or 

industrial plant that is using landfill gas 

to fuel a boiler or other combustion 

device. This situation is different from 

most source categories where the same 

entity that generates emissions typically 

controls the emissions within their 

facility. We recognize and encourage 

beneficial use of landfill gas, but we also 

want to clarify that entities collecting, 

controlling, or treating the gas are 

responsible for complying with the 

Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, 

Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP. 

Based on a review of the comments 

that we received on our May 23, 2002 

proposed amendments to clarify the 

owner/operator definition and 

responsibilities, we have determined 

that a new approach and further 

revisions are needed to effectively 

address compliance responsibilities in 

situations where multiple entities own/ 

operate the landfill and associated gas 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

systems. In May 2002, we proposed to 

define ‘‘landfill owner/operator’’ as 

‘‘* * * any entity that owns or operates 

a MSW landfill or any stationary 

equipment located on the same property 

as the MSW landfill facility that is used 

to collect, control, or treat landfill gas.’’

We also proposed an allowance for offsite control or treatment by another 

entity if that entity accepted compliance 

responsibility through a certification 

process. The certification process would 

have allowed transfer of control or 

treatment responsibility in specified 

circumstances without holding the 

landfill owners/operators responsible 

for the actions of the off-site entity. 

However, many commenters stated 

that the revised definition of ‘‘landfill 

owner/operator’’ was too broad. Some 

argued that the inclusion of ‘‘* * * any 

stationary equipment located on the 

same property as a MSW facility that is 

used to collect, control, or treat landfill 

gas * * *’’ would result in ‘‘confusion’’

as to who is responsible for compliance 

at a landfill where one or more entities 

operate on the landfill site or in 

conjunction with the landfill owner/ 

operator. The commenters explained 

that the proposed definition was so 

broad that it potentially included 

entities that act in a supportive role on 

a landfill site. Some commenters also 

objected to the ‘‘joint and several 

liability’’ they believe is inherent in this 

definition. Some commenters cited an 

example where a developer who may 

own only a portion of the landfill gas 

collection system and has no rights to 

gas from other sections of the landfill 

could be considered responsible for all 

NSPS compliance issues at the landfill 

under the proposed definition. Another 

example cited was a gas collection 

system operator who has a contract with 

a landfill to perform specific activities, 

such as monitoring and adjusting the 

gas collection system to maintain 

compliance with the temperature, 

nitrogen, and oxygen requirements of 

the Landfills NSPS could now be 

considered a landfill owner/operator 

and held liable for compliance with 

NSPS requirements beyond their 

contract authority and control. 

Similarly, a company that owned/ 

operated only the gas control device 

could be held responsible for landfill 

and collection system operation 

activities over which they have no 

control. 

Several of the commenters suggested 

that compliance responsibility at a 

landfill that operates with multiple onsite entities be established, on a 

voluntary basis, through a certification 

process similar to the off-site 

certification process proposed in the 

May 2002 Landfills NSPS amendments. 

Ownership and operation of on-site 

landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment systems by another entity is a 

common practice, and the commenters 

wanted the owner/operator of the 

landfill and the on-site entity to have 

the flexibility to determine any division 

of compliance responsibility. The 

commenters suggested that the landfill 

owner/operator and the additional 

entity provide EPA with a written 

certification and an outline of 

compliance responsibilities for the 

various compliance assurance activities. 

Other commenters noted that limiting 

the compliance certification option to 

off-site entities would unnecessarily 

inhibit the flexibility EPA seeks to 

create and would impose an artificial 

distinction between on-site and off-site 

recipients of untreated landfill gas. 

Based on further consideration, we 

are proposing supplemental 

amendments that would replace the 

May 23, 2002 proposed definition of 

‘‘landfill owner/operator’’ and the 

proposed off-site certification approach. 

We recognize that many landfills 

accomplish control of their untreated 

landfill gas by providing the gas to a 

business, industry, or institutional 

facility that combusts the untreated gas 

in a reciprocating engine or gas turbine 

to produce electricity or in a boiler, 

process heater, or furnace to produce 

steam or heat for a useful purpose. This 

may occur at the landfill or at another 

location. The beneficial use of landfill 

gas, a renewable energy source, offsets 

the use of fossil fuels that can generate 

greater emissions. To facilitate the 

beneficial use of landfill gas, we 

propose to clarify compliance 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53279 

responsibilities in cases where multiple 

entities are involved in a way that will 

ensure Landfills NSPS compliance and 

enforceability, but will not discourage 

beneficial use of the gas. 

We are now proposing that 

compliance responsibility at landfills 

that operate with multiple entities be 

divided based on which entity owns/ 

operates each specific collection, 

control, or treatment system, or a 

portion thereof. To retain consistency 

between the Landfills NSPS, emission 

guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills 

NESHAP, the same approach is 

proposed for all four rules. The 

proposed supplemental amendments 

state that the landfill owners/operators 

are responsible for complying with the 

requirements of the NSPS for the 

landfill and any portion of the landfill 

gas collection, control, or treatment 

system that they own/operate. The 

owners/operators of the gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment system(s) 

would be responsible for complying 

with the requirements for the portion of 

the landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment system that they own/operate. 

We are proposing to accomplish this 

division of responsibility through the 

addition of a definition of ‘‘landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator,’’ and by revising the 

May 2002 proposed definition of 

‘‘landfill owner/operator’’ to remove any 

reference to landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment systems. We are 

placing responsibility for compliance 

with the Landfills NSPS with the 

owner/operator of the various 

equipment used to achieve compliance 

by making landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment systems (as well as 

the landfill itself) affected sources under 

the Landfills NSPS and assigning 

responsibility for compliance with 

requirements applicable to such systems 

to the owners/operators of the landfill 

gas collection, control, and/or treatment 

system located on or off the landfill 

property. In the proposed supplemental 

amendments, we are revising the 

applicability requirements of the 

Landfills NSPS to indicate that 

responsibility for compliance with the 

provisions of the Landfills NSPS is 

based on which portions of the landfill 

gas collection, control, and/or treatment 

system each entity owns or operates. 

The owner/operator of the landfill itself 

is responsible for determining when 

control is required, ensuring that the 

equipment necessary to comply with the 

Landfills NSPS is properly installed, 

and complying with other regulatory 

requirements that apply to the landfill 

itself and to any portions of the gas 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

system that the landfill itself owns/ 

operates. Furthermore, we are proposing 

a default compliance provision in the 

applicability section of the Landfills 

NSPS that would automatically shift all 

future responsibilities, including 

compliance responsibilities, to the 

landfill owner/operator if another entity 

that owns/operates the gas collection, 

control, or treatment system ceases to 

accept the landfill gas for any reason 

(e.g., bankruptcy, abandonment of 

operation). 

We believe that this is a reasonable 

approach to addressing compliance 

issues at landfills where multiple 

entities are involved in the emission 

control infrastructure (regardless of 

whether treatment or control of the 

landfill gas is accomplished at the 

landfill or at another location). This 

approach enables direct enforcement of 

the Landfills NSPS on the responsible 

entity in all cases and is consistent with 

the original intent of the Landfills 

NSPS. In many cases, landfill gas 

control system owners/operators (for 

example) are different entities from the 

landfill owners/operators, and the 

landfill owners/operators have no direct 

control over the operation of the control 

system. Because they are distinct 

entities, it may be impractical and may 

not be good policy to require the landfill 

owners/operators to retain 

responsibility for all aspects of the 

Landfills NSPS compliance. Landfill 

owners/operators may not have 

unrestricted access to the location 

where the treatment or control of the 

landfill gas is occurring (e.g., an 

industrial plant using the gas in a boiler 

several miles away from the landfill) 

and often do not have direct control of 

the daily operation of the treatment or 

control system. Furthermore, 

clarification of the division of 

responsibilities is a practical means to 

encourage the use of landfill gas for 

energy recovery and is consistent with 

EPA policy to foster the use of landfill 

gas as a renewable energy resource, 

thereby reducing the use of scarce fossil 

fuels and associated emissions. 

We are also proposing that all entities 

keep a list documenting which aspects 

of the Landfills NSPS requirements (by 

paragraph and section number) each 

entity will comply with. The list would 

have to include all requirements of the 

Landfills NSPS, and would be required 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than 1 year after the final rule 

amendments are promulgated. The list 

would help assure that all required 

compliance activities are considered 

and will be performed by the 

responsible entity. The Landfills NSPS 

would require that the list be kept upto-date and that all owners/operators 

maintain a copy of the list onsite and 

comply with the responsibilities in the 

list that are assigned to them. The 

compliance responsibilities of each 

entity will be incorporated in title V 

permits if the entities are subject to title 

V. 

Because the landfills emission 

guidelines and Federal plan crossreference the Landfills NSPS, the 

changes to the Landfills NSPS would 

automatically affect the landfills 

emission guidelines and Federal plan. 

However, to be consistent and clear, we 

are proposing similar language on the 

responsibilities of the landfill owners/ 

operators and the owners/operators of 

the gas collection, control, or treatment 

system to 40 CFR 60.32c of subpart Cc 

and to 40 CFR 62.14352 of subpart GGG. 

Because the landfills emission 

guidelines are implemented through 

CAA section 111(d) State plans, the 

States would be required to adopt 

revisions to their landfills State plans 

and submit them to EPA for approval 

within 9 months after the final 

amendments to the emission guidelines 

are promulgated. The 9-month time 

frame is consistent with 40 CFR part 60 

subpart B, which establishes procedures 

for State plans to implement section 

111(d) emission guidelines. Similarly, 

EPA is proposing to amend the landfills 

Federal plan that implements the 

landfills emission guidelines in areas 

where there is no approved State plan. 

In addition, we are proposing similar 

amendments to the Landfills NESHAP. 

The proposed amendments include 

revising the sections of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart AAAA, that define affected 

sources and describe who is subject to 

the Landfills NESHAP, to include 

owners/operators of gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment systems. The 

proposed revisions to the Landfills 

NESHAP contain similar language on 

responsibilities and the requirement for 

all entities to keep a list documenting 

which aspects of Landfills NESHAP 

compliance each entity will comply 

with. 

Given the proposed revisions to the 

definitions and the rule applicability 

sections describing responsibilities, we 

believe that compliance responsibilities 

would be clearly delineated among the 

entities involved, and EPA would retain 

clear enforcement ability for all entities 

subject to compliance with the Landfills 

NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal 

plan, and Landfills NESHAP. The 

entities that own/operate the collection, 

control, and/or treatment equipment 

needed to comply with the Landfills 

NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal 

plan, and Landfills NESHAP, and are 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53280 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

performing the activities needed to 

comply with them, would be held 

directly responsible for compliance. 

The proposed approach previously 

discussed contains a provision that 

immediately shifts all future compliance 

responsibilities to the landfill owners/ 

operators if another entity that owns/ 

operates the gas collection, control, or 

treatment system ceases to accept the 

landfill gas (e.g., due to bankruptcy, 

abandonment of operation). We are 

considering an alternative approach 

(called alternative approach #1) that 

would retain this provision and would 

further require the landfill owners/ 

operators to assume responsibility for 

future compliance in some situations 

where the owners/operators of a gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

fail to comply with the Landfills NSPS 

requirements for which they are 

responsible. The intent of this approach 

would be to address situations where 

the owners/operators of the gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

do not achieve the required levels of 

collection, control, or treatment, or 

repeatedly violate other requirements of 

the Landfills NSPS, and do not correct 

these violations and come into 

compliance in a timely manner. In such 

circumstances, responsibility for future 

compliance would automatically shift to 

the landfill owners/operators. As a 

result, the landfill owners/operators 

would need to find a way to 

immediately start meeting all Landfill 

NSPS requirements. Such a provision 

would ensure that the landfill owners/ 

operators could not knowingly send 

landfill gas to entities that flagrantly 

violate the Landfill NSPS, thereby 

inflicting potential harm on the 

environment, and still avoid 

responsibility for fully complying with 

the Landfills NSPS. It is not our intent 

for this approach to shift responsibility 

to the landfill owners/operators for 

isolated or minor violations that the 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owners/operators timely corrects. We 

solicit comments on this alternative 

approach and suggestions for how to 

make clear within what time frame and 

under what circumstances 

responsibility shifts to the landfill 

owners/operators. 

We are also considering a different 

alternative approach to compliance 

responsibility (called alternative 

approach #2) that would add the same 

definitions of ‘‘landfill owner/operator’’

and ‘‘landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment system owner/operator’’ as 

the proposed approach. Both entities 

would be subject to the Landfills NSPS. 

This approach would differ in that the 

alternative approach would make the 

landfill owner/operator responsible for 

compliance with all aspects of the 

Landfills NSPS. Like the proposed 

approach, the alternative approach 

would make the landfill gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment system 

owners/operators responsible for 

complying with only the Landfills NSPS 

requirements applicable to the portion 

of the landfill gas collection, control, 

and/or treatment system they own/ 

operate. Thus, a violation of gas 

collection, control or treatment 

requirements could be enforced against 

both the landfill owners/operators and 

the collection, control, or treatment 

system owners/operators. This approach 

would also include the requirement to 

document which aspects of the Landfills 

NSPS requirements (by paragraph and 

section number) each entity will accept 

compliance responsibility. 

The regulatory language for the 

alternative approach would be very 

similar to the regulatory language 

shown for the proposed approach, 

except that 40 CFR 60.750(a)(1) of 

subpart WWW, 40 CFR 60.32c of 

subpart Cc, 40 CFR 62.14352 of subpart 

GGG, and 40 CFR 63.1935(d)(1) of 

subpart AAAA might read as follows: 

‘‘Municipal solid waste landfill owners/ 

operators are responsible for complying 

with all requirements of this subpart.’’

Alternative approach #2 would be 

consistent with the division of 

responsibilities in many single source 

(i.e., common control) determinations 

for landfills and associated gas 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

systems. It would also encourage 

landfill owners/operators who contract 

with other companies to collect, control, 

or treat the landfill gas to be sure to do 

business only with reliable companies 

that will meet the Landfills NSPS 

requirements. 

There are some concerns that this 

alternative approach could inhibit the 

beneficial use of landfill gas. Landfill 

owners/operators may choose to flare 

the gas themselves rather than enter into 

agreements that allow other entities to 

combust the untreated landfill gas for 

energy recovery purposes if the landfill 

owners/operators are held legally and 

financially liable for the actions of a 

separate entity over which they have no 

control. Landfill owners/operators may 

be particularly reluctant to enter into 

such agreements in cases where the 

landfill gas is used at a separate 

industrial or commercial facility located 

several miles away from the landfill and 

the landfill owners/operators do not 

have access to the facility or control 

over its operation. 

We specifically request comment on 

the alternative approach. Based on the 

public comments, the final Landfills 

NSPS may incorporate the proposed 

approach, one of the two alternative 

approaches, or another similar approach 

that is a logical outgrowth of the public 

comments. If, after consideration of 

comments, we select an alternative 

approach for the Landfills NSPS, we 

would use a consistent approach for the 

emission guidelines, Federal plan, and 

Landfills NESHAP. 

B. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas 

and Treatment System and Clarification 

to the Treatment Option 

In the May 23, 2002 proposed 

amendments, we proposed a definition 

for ‘‘treatment system’’ that would be 

used to determine if a facility qualifies 

for the treatment option provided in 40 

CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C) of subpart 

WWW. The purpose of this definition 

was to provide consistency as to what 

would qualify as a treatment system and 

to reduce the burden on State and local 

agencies and EPA Regions currently 

performing case-by-case determinations 

related to the adequacy of treatment 

options being employed across the 

Nation. The proposed definition of 

treatment system was ‘‘a system that 

filters, de-waters, and compresses 

landfill gas.’’

Following proposal of the treatment 

system definition, several commenters 

requested further clarification as to what 

levels of filtration and de-watering 

would be considered acceptable to meet 

the definition of treatment. Some 

commenters noted that given the 

different specifications for landfill gasderived fuels and the different levels of 

treatment currently practiced, any lack 

of clarity may result in inconsistent 

case-by-case determinations by local 

permitting authorities. Some 

commenters requested that EPA allow 

owners/operators to treat their gas such 

that it would meet the end-use 

combustion equipment ‘‘manufacturer’s 

requirements’’ for fuel quality as the 

benchmark for what qualifies as a 

treatment system. Commenters 

requested that we link the phrase ‘‘refer 

to manufacturer requirements’’ to the 

combustion device’s specific level of gas 

treatment to ensure complete 

combustion. Other commenters 

requested that EPA develop specific 

particulate, moisture, and compression 

targets that demonstrate ‘‘treated landfill 

gas.’’

We agree with commenters that the 

definition of treatment system needs 

additional detail. We contacted 

manufacturers of combustion devices 

that are used to recover energy from 

landfill gas, and we obtained their 

written specifications and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53281 

recommendations for fuel quality. As 

suggested by the commenters, we 

reviewed the available manufacturers’

specifications for acceptable moisture 

and particulate levels. Because different 

manufacturers have different 

specifications, our proposed definition 

of ‘‘treatment system’’ does not refer 

directly to the manufacturers’

requirements. Instead, we developed 

specific filtration and de-watering 

targets based on those requirements. 

The selected levels of de-watering and 

filtration are consistent with most 

manufacturers’ specifications for 

landfill gas burned in energy recovery 

devices such as reciprocating engines, 

gas turbines, and boilers; they are 

protective of the combustion equipment 

and promote good combustion. The 

supplemental proposed definition of 

treatment system is: 

* * * a system that has an absolute 

filtration rating of 10 microns or less, lowers 

the water dew point of the landfill gas by at 

least 20 degrees Fahrenheit with a dewatering process, and compresses the landfill 

gas. 

The term ‘‘absolute filtration rating’’

used in the above definition means the 

diameter of the largest hard spherical 

particle that would pass through the 

filter. The supplemental proposed 

definition would specify treatment 

levels that will minimize degradation of 

the combustion device and promote 

proper destruction of NMOC. 

To ensure continuous compliance 

with the treatment option, we are 

clarifying monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements for 

treatment systems that are used to 

comply with the Landfills NSPS. 

Owners/operators of treatment systems 

used to comply with the Landfills NSPS 

would be required to establish, monitor, 

and record operating parameters that 

indicate proper operation of the various 

treatment system components, 

consistent with the proposed revised 

definition of treatment system. These 

requirements would ensure that the 

treatment system is continuously 

operating in the manner in which it was 

designed to operate to achieve the 

specific filtration, de-watering, and 

compression targets that define a 

treatment system for the purposes of the 

Landfills NSPS. Owners/operators who 

installed treatment systems prior to 

today’s proposed amendments would be 

required to comply with the amended 

treatment system requirements as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than 1 year after the date the final 

amendments are promulgated. This 

provides time needed to upgrade the 

treatment system (if necessary), submit 

design information, install monitoring 

equipment, and establish operating 

parameter levels. 

The proposed amendments would 

require that owners/operators of 

treatment systems monitor and maintain 

specified operating parameters or apply 

to monitor alternative parameters. For 

filtration systems, the pressure drop (24- 

hour average) across the filter would be 

continuously monitored and maintained 

above the minimum pressure drop 

established by engineering analysis or 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

Alternatively, the owners/operators 

could get approval to monitor another 

parameter that indicates proper 

performance of the filtration system. 

Pressure drop was selected as a 

monitoring parameter because it is a 

good indicator of proper filter operation. 

A noticeable reduction in pressure drop 

across the filter indicates a breach of the 

filter material. 

Continuous monitoring of 

temperature reduction for a chillerbased de-watering system, dew point 

from a de-watering system that is not 

chiller-based, or another approved 

parameter that is indicative of proper 

performance of the de-watering system, 

would also be required. The monitored 

parameter (24-hour average) would have 

to be kept within the operating range 

established by engineering analysis or 

manufacturer’s specifications. The 

owners/operators would submit the 

treatment system design and 

justification for the operating parameter 

ranges for approval in the design plan 

required by 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2) of 

subpart WWW. 

For chiller-based de-watering systems, 

temperature was selected as a 

monitoring parameter because it 

indicates that the chiller is operating 

properly and the desired reduction in 

dew point is occurring. Untreated 

landfill gas is saturated with moisture as 

it comes out of the landfill (i.e., the 

relative humidity is 100 percent, and 

the dew point temperature equals the 

landfill gas temperature). Therefore, if 

the gas is chilled by at least 20 degrees, 

the dew point has been correspondingly 

reduced, and moisture removal has 

occurred through condensation. 

Continuous measurement of the gas 

temperature at the treatment system 

inlet and the chiller outlet would be 

required unless the owners/operators 

demonstrate that monitoring the 

temperature at a single location (e.g., the 

chiller outlet) is sufficient to indicate 

that the temperature of the gas, and 

thus, the dew point, has been reduced 

by at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The 

owners/operators would be required to 

submit, as part of the design plan, 

treatment system design specifications 

that demonstrate the treatment system 

meets the definition (including the 20 

degree dew point reduction) and a 

justification that their proposed 

temperature monitoring location(s) are 

adequate to demonstrate that the gas 

temperature, and thus, the dew point, 

has been reduced by at least 20 degrees. 

For example, owners/operators might 

submit information demonstrating that 

the lowest landfill gas temperature at 

their treatment system inlet during the 

coldest month of the year is 85 degrees 

Fahrenheit. They might elect to operate 

their chiller to reduce the gas 

temperature to, for example, 60 degrees 

Fahrenheit, and apply to continuously 

monitor only chiller outlet temperature 

and maintain it at or below 60 degrees. 

Because the design and operation of this 

system results in a minimum 

temperature reduction of at least 25 

degrees below the site-specific coldest 

treatment system inlet temperature, the 

regulatory authority might approve the 

continuous monitoring of chiller outlet 

temperature in this case, rather than 

requiring continuous monitoring at both 

the treatment system inlet and the 

chiller outlet. Temperature monitors are 

readily available, commonly used, 

reliable, and less expensive than 

alternative monitoring systems. 

If a de-watering system that is not 

based on chilling, for example, a 

desiccant system, is used, then 

temperature would not be an 

appropriate parameter to monitor. In 

such cases, monitoring of the dew point 

would indicate whether the system is 

operating properly to reduce the dew 

point by 20 degrees. As with 

temperature, the dew point would be 

monitored at the inlet and outlet of the 

treatment system, unless the owner/ 

operator demonstrates that monitoring 

at a single location (e.g., the treatment 

system outlet) is sufficient to indicate 

that the dew point has been reduced by 

at least 20 degrees. Dew point monitors 

are available and suitable for landfill gas 

applications. 

We are proposing continuous 

monitoring with a 24-hour averaging 

period for treatment system monitoring 

parameters for several reasons. 

Monitoring is needed to assure 

continuous compliance. Continuous 

monitoring systems are available for the 

selected treatment system operating 

parameters. Data collection would be 

required at 15-minute intervals, 

consistent with current Landfills NSPS 

requirements for flare pilot flame 

monitoring and enclosed combustor 

temperature monitoring that apply to 

landfills that opt to comply with the 

control options rather than the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53282 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

treatment option. A 24-hour block 

average for determining compliance 

with the treatment system operating 

parameter limits is sufficient to indicate 

any significant change in treatment 

system operation and would be less 

burdensome than more frequent 

averaging. Owners/operators of 

treatment systems would be required to 

report periods when the 24-hour block 

average for a monitored parameter (e.g., 

pressure drop, temperature, dew point) 

is outside the operating range 

established in the approved design plan. 

IV. Rationale for Proposed Landfills 

NSPS and Landfills NESHAP 

Amendments Regarding Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction 

A. Proposed Landfills NSPS Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions 

The Landfills NSPS specify in 40 CFR 

60.755(e) of subpart WWW, that the 

emission standards do not apply during 

SSM events, but they limit the duration 

of SSM events to 5 days for the landfill 

gas collection system and 1 hour for 

treatment or control devices. At the time 

we developed this provision, we 

believed that malfunctions could be 

corrected within these time frames. 

Since promulgation of the Landfills 

NSPS, we have learned that many 

malfunctions cannot be corrected within 

these time limits. This causes landfills 

that do not have back-up control devices 

to have unavoidable violations of the 

Landfills NSPS. Most landfills use flares 

to control landfill gas emissions and do 

not have back-up control devices. In 

developing NSPS, EPA is required by 

CAA section 111 to consider cost and 

other impacts. In developing the 

Landfills NSPS, we did not consider any 

costs for requiring back-up controls for 

flares in our determination that the 

selected requirements were reasonable. 

We did not intend for the Landfills 

NSPS to require back-up control devices 

for flares. For these reasons, we 

conclude that the 1-hour and 5-day time 

limitations are not feasible and should 

be changed. Furthermore, most NSPS do 

not set specific limits on the duration of 

SSM events. Most NSPS rely on the 

NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 

60, subpart A), which require owners/ 

operators, to the extent practicable, to 

operate in a manner that minimizes 

emissions during SSM events. 

The Landfills NSPS also has no 

allowance for shutdown of collection, 

control, or treatment systems for routine 

preventive maintenance. Periodic 

maintenance is needed to provide 

continued good operation of the gas 

collection and control systems and to 

avoid malfunctions, but shutdowns for 

maintenance could result in a violation. 

This issue arises because of the unique 

nature of landfills. Most NSPS regulate 

manufacturing processes that can be 

stopped when a control device needs to 

be maintained or repaired. For example, 

chemical plants typically shut down 

their processes on a regular schedule 

(e.g., for 1 week each year) and maintain 

their control devices at the same time, 

when no emissions are being generated 

from the production process. Landfills 

are a biological process, and once waste 

is deposited in the landfill, gas is 

continuously generated and cannot be 

stopped. Routine control device 

maintenance procedures often cannot be 

completed in 1 hour, and some types of 

maintenance take days. 

Therefore, we propose to amend 40 

CFR 60.755(e) of subpart WWW to 

remove the 1-hour and 5-day time limits 

on SSM events, and to allow routine 

maintenance of collection, control, and 

treatment systems. The proposed 

amendments also clarify that the NSPS 

General Provisions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) 

of subpart A continue to apply during 

maintenance and malfunctions, and that 

routine maintenance activities must be 

completed and malfunctions must be 

corrected as soon as practicable after 

their occurrence in order to minimize 

emissions. To prevent free venting of 

landfill gas to the atmosphere during 

control device malfunctions or 

maintenance, we propose to retain the 

current requirement in 40 CFR 60.753(e) 

of subpart WWW. This section requires 

that in the event the collection or 

control system is inoperable, the gas 

mover system must be shut down and 

all valves in the collection and control 

system contributing to venting of gas to 

the atmosphere must be closed within 1 

hour. 

B. Proposed Landfills NESHAP Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions 

The Landfills NESHAP has no 

allowance for shutdown of control 

devices for routine maintenance. 

Periodic maintenance is needed to 

provide continued good operation of the 

gas collection and control systems and 

to avoid malfunctions, but shutdowns 

for maintenance could result in a 

violation. As explained previously, this 

issue arises because of the unique 

nature of landfills. Most NESHAP 

regulate manufacturing processes that 

can be stopped when a control device 

needs to be maintained or repaired. 

Landfills are a biological process, and 

once waste is deposited in the landfill, 

gas is continuously generated and 

cannot be stopped. To allow for routine 

maintenance of gas collection, control, 

and treatment systems, while ensuring 

that emissions are minimized during 

routine maintenance events, we propose 

to amend the Landfills NESHAP to 

require owners/operators to include 

routine maintenance in their SSM plans. 

The Landfills NESHAP already require 

owners/operators to develop an SSM 

plan. The plan must describe, in detail, 

procedures for operating and 

maintaining the source during SSM 

events and a program of corrective 

action for malfunctioning air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment used 

to comply with the Landfills NESHAP. 

The purpose of the SSM plan is to 

ensure that owners/operators have fully 

considered how best to comply with the 

general duty to minimize emissions 

during SSM events. While the 

requirements of the SSM plan are not 

themselves applicable requirements, the 

SSM plan is a useful tool for sources to 

demonstrate, and for permitting 

authorities to confirm that the general 

duty to minimize emissions is met. We 

propose to add a requirement that the 

SSM plan must include a plan for 

conducting routine maintenance on the 

landfill gas collection, control, and 

treatment systems. The routine 

maintenance plan must include 

maintenance procedures and actions 

that will be taken to minimize emissions 

during maintenance, shutdown 

frequency, shutdown duration, and 

procedures for minimizing emissions 

during startup and shutdown of the 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

systems for routine maintenance. A 

copy of the SSM plan would be 

maintained on site. Failure to prepare or 

maintain a copy of the SSM plan on site 

would be a deviation from the 

requirements of the Landfills NESHAP. 

We are also proposing changes to the 

periodic reporting and immediate 

reporting requirements for SSM events. 

After the Landfills NESHAP were 

promulgated, there were revisions to the 

SSM reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A. Because of the 

unique nature of landfills, some sections 

of the revised General Provisions are not 

relevant to landfills or can be difficult 

to interpret for landfills. We propose to 

revise the Landfills NESHAP to clarify 

the SSM reporting requirements for 

landfills. We propose to remove the 

Landfills NESHAP cross-reference in 

table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

AAAA to the periodic and immediate 

SSM reporting requirements in 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5) of subpart A (the General 

Provisions), and to instead include 

similar SSM reporting provisions that 

apply specifically to landfills in 40 CFR 

63.1980 of subpart AAAA. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53283 

The Landfills NESHAP and the 

General Provisions require periodic 

(semiannual) reporting when actions 

taken during a startup or shutdown 

causing an exceedance of an applicable 

emission limit or a malfunction are 

consistent with the procedures specified 

in the SSM plan. Because we are 

proposing that the landfills SSM plan 

must include routine maintenance of 

landfill gas collection, control, and 

treatment systems, we are proposing to 

add a requirement in 40 CFR 63.1980 of 

subpart AAAA that the semiannual SSM 

report include a description of routine 

maintenance activities that were 

conducted during the period. We 

propose that the landfills periodic SSM 

report include the date, duration, and 

identification of each SSM event 

(including shutdowns of the landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

for routine maintenance) that occurred 

during the reporting period. For 

landfills, the duration of such events is 

particularly important, because, unlike 

traditional industrial sources, there is 

no way to stop the biological processes 

that result in landfill emissions. While 

collection system blowers can be turned 

off and vents to the atmosphere closed 

for a period of hours to a couple of days 

to retain most gas within the landfill, 

eventually the pressure in the landfill 

will build up and the gas will be 

released uncontrolled through vents or 

as fugitive emissions. We expect that 

there will be few malfunction or 

maintenance events during a 6-month 

period, and all such events must already 

be recorded under the Landfills 

NESHAP and the General Provisions (40 

CFR 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A), so 

including the date and duration of each 

event in the periodic report is not a 

burden. If the owners/operators follow 

their SSM plan during all SSM and 

routine maintenance events, then no 

further information is required in the 

periodic report. This will minimize the 

reporting burden for owners/operators 

who follow their SSM plans. 

The Landfills NESHAP periodic 

report would also require a brief 

description of any actions taken during 

a malfunction or routine maintenance 

event that are inconsistent with the SSM 

plan. This was a requirement of the 

NESHAP General Provisions at the time 

the Landfills NESHAP were developed. 

The General Provisions have since been 

changed to require sources to ‘‘identify’’

any instance where an action was taken 

that was inconsistent with the SSM plan 

but the source did not exceed any 

applicable emissions limitations. A 

‘‘description’’ is required only if an 

emissions limitation was exceeded. For 

landfills, it is unclear how to determine 

if any emissions limitation was 

exceeded because the Landfills 

NESHAP do not require continuous 

emissions monitoring. They require 

continuous parametric monitoring of 

control devices, quarterly monitoring of 

surface methane concentrations, and 

monthly monitoring of collection 

system well head parameters. If there is 

a malfunction or shutdown of a control 

device for routine maintenance, the 

collection system blowers must be 

turned off and vents to the atmosphere 

must be closed. However, despite these 

precautions, landfill gas continues to be 

generated and can escape the landfill as 

fugitive emissions, potentially 

increasing landfill NMOC emissions 

above the level achieved when the 

control device is operating and 

increasing surface methane 

concentrations. To avoid having to make 

subjective judgments on whether 

emissions limitations were exceeded, 

we propose that landfills provide a brief 

description of any malfunction or 

maintenance event where actions are 

taken that are inconsistent with the SSM 

plan. This is consistent with the intent 

during development of the Landfills 

NESHAP, and was already accounted 

for in the estimates of the recordkeeping 

and reporting burden for the final rule. 

Events where the SSM plan is not 

followed should be infrequent and 

would not occur during most 

semiannual reporting periods. 

We are proposing revisions in 40 CFR 

63.1980 of subpart AAAA to clarify 

immediate SSM reporting requirements 

for landfills. We propose that immediate 

reports be required if actions taken 

during a startup or shutdown (including 

shutdown of the collection, control, or 

treatment system for routine 

maintenance) that caused an exceedance 

of an applicable emission limit, or 

during a malfunction are inconsistent 

with the SSM plan. Such events would 

be reported by telephone or fax within 

2 days, followed by a letter within 7 

days of the end of the event. This is the 

same timing and method of submission 

contained in the NESHAP General 

Provisions requirements for immediate 

SSM reports. We also propose 

immediate reports if the duration of a 

shutdown or malfunction (including 

shutdown of the landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment system for routine 

maintenance) exceeds 5 days. The 

Landfills NESHAP compliance 

provisions have always referred to the 

Landfills NSPS, which require that 

control system malfunctions not exceed 

1 hour and collection systems 

malfunctions not exceed 5 days. For the 

reasons described earlier in this 

preamble, we are proposing to remove 

these time limits from the Landfills 

NSPS, so the Landfills NESHAP would 

no longer include these time limits by 

reference. Instead of limiting the 

duration of malfunction and routine 

maintenance events to no more than 5 

days, we propose to require landfills to 

report, as part of their Landfills 

NESHAP immediate SSM reports, any 

events that last longer than 5 days. This 

will allow the enforcement agency and 

the landfill to discuss the specific 

situation, the reason that more than 5 

days is needed, and any actions that can 

be taken to minimize emissions during 

the event and complete repairs or 

maintenance as expeditiously as 

practicable in the given situation. It 

should be noted that the Landfills 

NESHAP already refer to the SSM plan 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e) of 

subpart A, which require sources to 

correct malfunctions as soon as 

practicable after their occurrence. 

Finally, we propose a minor 

amendment in the calculation of 3-hour 

block averages for control device 

operating parameters that are 

continuously monitored. The proposed 

amendment would reduce burden, 

improve consistency with other rules, 

and ensure that all the necessary 

information is available for compliance 

determination. In particular, 40 CFR 

63.1975 of subpart AAAA specifies that 

3-hour averages are calculated in the 

same way as the Landfills NSPS except 

that periods of SSM should not be 

included. We have received comments 

that this difference in the calculations 

requires landfills to keep two sets of 

records that are similar, but not 

identical, creating an unnecessary 

burden. Furthermore, other NESHAP 

require all operating parameter 

deviations to be recorded, regardless of 

whether they occur during an SSM 

event. For these reasons, we propose to 

amend the Landfills NESHAP 

calculations to be more similar to the 

Landfills NSPS, and no longer exclude 

periods of SSM. This amendment in the 

calculations will not change the way in 

which compliance is determined or the 

NESHAP are enforced. The enforcement 

agency still determines whether a 

deviation is a violation. For example, if 

a parameter deviation occurred because 

of a malfunction, and the source took 

appropriate actions to minimize 

emissions during the malfunction and to 

correct the malfunction as soon as 

practicable, then the enforcement 

agency may determine that the 

deviation is not a violation. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53284 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

V. Rationale for Other Proposed 

Corrections and Clarifications 

A. Clarification for Temperature 

Monitoring for Enclosed Combustors 

Currently, the language in 40 CFR 

60.758(b)(2)(i) and (c)(1)(i) of subpart 

WWW (the Landfills NSPS) requires 

sources to keep records of the 

combustion temperature in an enclosed 

combustion device that is used to meet 

the NMOC destruction requirements in 

40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii) of subpart 

WWW. The definition of ‘‘enclosed 

combustor’’ includes enclosed flares, 

boilers, reciprocating engines, and 

turbines. The literal meaning of this 

requirement is that a temperature 

monitor would be installed in the 

combustion zone of an enclosed 

combustor. However, we realize that 

installing a temperature monitor in the 

combustion zone of a reciprocating 

engine or turbine is not feasible, and we 

did not intend for the Landfills NSPS to 

specifically require monitoring of 

combustion chamber temperature. The 

purpose of the temperature monitoring 

requirement is to ensure that the 

enclosed combustor is operating in a 

manner similar to the conditions at 

which it was operating during the most 

recent performance test, thereby 

demonstrating continuous compliance 

with the NMOC reduction requirements 

of the Landfills NSPS. Therefore, the 

temperature monitor should be located 

in a place that provides a reasonable 

indication of the operation of the 

enclosed combustor. For example, 

monitoring the temperature at the 

cylinder exhaust port or in the exhaust 

manifold before the turbocharger are 

acceptable temperature monitoring 

locations for reciprocating engines. To 

minimize further confusion on this 

issue, we are revising the language in 40 

CFR 60.758(b)(2)(i) and (c)(1)(i) of 

subpart WWW to remove the word 

‘‘combustion’’ prior to ‘‘temperature.’’

The Landfills NSPS will continue to 

require that at least one temperature 

measurement must be recorded every 15 

minutes as specified in 40 CFR 

60.758(b)(2)(i) of subpart WWW, and 

any measurement frequency that is 

longer than 15 minutes is not acceptable 

for compliance under the Landfills 

NSPS. The Landfills NSPS also continue 

to allow landfill owners/operators to 

propose site-specific alternatives to the 

monitoring requirements, subject to 

Administrator approval, as specified in 

40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(i) of subpart WWW. 

B. Correction of Cross-Reference in the 

Landfills NSPS 

We are proposing an amendment to a 

cross-reference in 40 CFR 60.755(c)(3) of 

subpart WWW (the Landfills NSPS) as 

a result of the reorganization of EPA 

Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 60. The Landfills NSPS reference 

section 4.3.1 of EPA Method 21. In 

2001, the wording that used to be in 

section 4.3.1 was moved to section 

8.3.1, so the Landfills NSPS need to be 

corrected to refer to section 8.3.1 of EPA 

Method 21. 

C. Clarification of Bioreactor Moisture 

Content Determination for the Landfills 

NESHAP 

The Landfills NESHAP definition of 

bioreactors in 40 CFR 63.1990 of subpart 

AAAA include a provision that the 

average moisture content of the waste in 

the area into which liquid is added must 

be at least 40 percent (by weight) for the 

landfill or portion of the landfill to be 

considered a bioreactor. It was not 

explicit that the 40 percent moisture 

content should be determined on a wet 

weight basis. The information EPA 

originally used to establish the 40 

percent moisture criteria was on a wet 

weight basis. To clarify this, we are 

amending the bioreactor definition in 40 

CFR 63.1990 of subpart AAAA by 

adding the words ‘‘wet weight basis.’’

D. Correction of Date in the Landfills 

NESHAP 

We are proposing to amend a 

typographical error that appears in 40 

CFR 63.1945(d) of subpart AAAA. The 

compliance date for existing major 

sources should read January 16, 2004, 

instead of January 13, 2004. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Information Collection Requests (ICR) 

were prepared for the Landfills NSPS, 

the Landfills NESHAP, and the Federal 

plan that implements the landfills 

emission guidelines, and all three ICR 

were approved by OMB. A copy of the 

Landfills NSPS ICR (ICR No. 1557.04), 

landfills Federal plan ICR (ICR No. 

1893.01), and the Landfills NESHAP 

ICR (ICR No. 1938.02) may be obtained 

from Susan Auby by mail at U.S. EPA, 

Office of Environmental Information, 

Collection Strategies Division (2822T), 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 

566–1672. A copy may also be 

downloaded off the Internet at http:// 

www.epa.gov/icr. 

The proposed amendments to the 

Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, 

Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP 

will have no impact on the information 

collection burden estimates made 

previously. The proposed treatment 

monitoring system requirements are 

within the burden estimated in the 

previous ICR for the Landfills NSPS, 

Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP. In 

the previous ICR burden estimates, we 

assumed that all landfills meeting the 

NSPS and emission guidelines criteria 

would install combustion control 

devices and would continuously 

monitor control device operating 

parameters (e.g., presence of flare pilot 

flame or temperature of an enclosed 

combustion device). Thus, the cost of 

continuous monitoring systems and 

associated recordkeeping and reporting 

were included for every landfill. 

Landfills that choose to comply with the 

Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, 

Federal plan, or Landfills NESHAP by 

using a treatment system instead of a 

control device typically make that 

choice because it is a less expensive 

compliance alternative. Therefore, the 

previous cost analysis and ICR provide 

a conservatively high estimate of the 

costs of compliance, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting, and the 

proposed treatment system monitoring 

requirements would not result in a 

change to the ICR burden estimates. The 

proposed amendments to clarify the 

inclusion of control device shutdowns 

for maintenance in the SSM plan are 

consistent with the original estimate of 

costs to prepare an SSM plan in the 

Landfills NESHAP ICR, No. 1938.02. 

Consequently, the ICR have not been 

revised. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53285 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any 

other statute 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 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of the proposed amendments, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is primarily engaged in the 

collection and disposal of refuse in a 

landfill operation as defined by NAICS 

codes 562212 and 924110 with annual 

receipts less than $10 million; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000, and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the proposed amendments on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

the proposed amendments. The 

proposed amendments clarify the 

applicability of control requirements in 

the Landfills NSPS, emission 

guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills 

NESHAP and do not include provisions 

that create a new burden for regulated 

entities. 

The proposed amendments do not 

increase the stringency of the Landfills 

NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal 

plan, or Landfills NESHAP, nor do the 

proposed amendments add additional 

control requirements. The proposed 

amendments do not increase the 

control, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of the 

promulgated Landfills NSPS, emission 

guidelines, Federal plan, or Landfills 

NESHAP, and may decrease these 

requirements under specific conditions 

for some entities. We have therefore 

concluded that today’s proposed rule 

will relieve regulatory burden for all 

affected small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 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 by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by 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 costeffective, 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 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publish 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. 

EPA has determined that the 

proposed amendments do not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any 1 year. Thus, the proposed 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. In addition, we have 

determined that the proposed 

amendments contain no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because they consist of new definitions 

and clarifications and do not impose 

new costs on government entities or the 

private sector. Therefore, the proposed 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (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.’’

The proposed amendments do not 

have federalism implications. They do 

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. 

The proposed amendments do not 

impose additional costs or result in 

additional control requirements above 

those considered at promulgation of the 

1996 Landfills NSPS and emission 

guidelines and the 2003 Landfills 

NESHAP. In developing the 1996 

Landfills NSPS and emission 

guidelines, we consulted extensively 

with State and local governments to 

enable them to provide meaningful and 

timely input in the development of 

those rulemakings. Because the control 

requirements of the proposed 

amendments are the same as those 

developed in 1996, these previous 

consultations still apply. In addition, 

State and local government agencies 

participated in a conference call on the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53286 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Landfills NESHAP, and provided 

comments on the 2000 Landfills 

NESHAP proposal and a 2002 

supplemental proposal, which we 

considered. For a discussion of our 

consultations with State and local 

governments, the nature of the 

governments’ concerns, and our 

position supporting the need for the 

specific control requirements included 

in the Landfills NSPS, emission 

guidelines, and Landfills NESHAP, see 

the preamble to the 1996 Landfills NSPS 

(61 FR 9905, March 12, 1996). Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to the proposed amendments. 

On May 23, 2002, in the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, we specifically 

solicited comments on the proposed 

amendments from State and local 

officials (67 FR 36479). We are again 

soliciting comments on today’s 

supplemental proposed amendments. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’

The proposed amendments do not 

have tribal implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. They will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to the proposed amendments. 

On May 23, 2002, we specifically 

solicited comment from tribal officials 

on the proposed amendments (67 FR 

36479). None were received. 

Information received from EPA Regional 

Offices during development of the 

landfills Federal plan showed no 

landfills on tribal land large enough to 

require control under the landfills 

emission guidelines/Landfills NSPS. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13175 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and tribal governments, we specifically 

solicit comment on the proposed 

amendments from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

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 Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. 

The proposed amendments are not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because they are not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866 and because they are based 

on technology performance and not on 

health and safety risks. Furthermore, as 

no alternative technologies exist that 

would provide greater stringency at a 

reasonable cost, the results of any 

children’s health analysis would have 

no impact on the stringency decision. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The proposed amendments are not 

subject to Executive Order 13211 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, 

(May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104–

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., material 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted VCS bodies. 

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

The proposed amendments do not 

involve new technical standards; thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

NTTAA do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60, 62, 

and 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 31, 2006. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 60, 

62, and 63 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are proposed to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7601. 

Subpart Cc—[Amended] 

2. Section 60.31c is amended by 

adding the definitions of ‘‘Municipal 

solid waste landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment system owner/ 

operator’’ and ‘‘Municipal solid waste 

landfill owner/operator,’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 60.31c Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator means any entity that 

owns or operates any stationary 

equipment that is used, as specified in 

§ 60.33c, to collect, control, or treat 

landfill gas from an MSW landfill that 

is a designated facility under § 60.32c of 

this subpart, regardless of the location of 

the control or treatment system. 

Municipal solid waste landfill owner/ 

operator means any entity that owns or 

operates a municipal solid waste 

landfill that is a designated facility 

under § 60.32c(a). 

3. Section 60.32c is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a); and 

b. Adding paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.32c Designated facilities. 

(a) The designated facilities to which 

the guidelines apply are each existing 

MSW landfill for which construction, 

reconstruction, or modification was 

commenced before May 30, 1991 and/or 

the stationary equipment used to 

collect, control, or treat the landfill gas 

from such MSW landfills as required by 

§ 60.33c(c). 

* * * * * 

(e) For approval, a State plan shall 

require each MSW landfill owner/ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53287 

operator and each MSW landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator, as defined in § 60.31c, 

to be responsible for compliance as 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 

this section; provided, however, that if 

the MSW landfill and the associated gas 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

system are under common control, the 

entity exercising such control shall be 

responsible for complying with the 

requirements in both paragraphs (e)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Municipal solid waste landfill 

owners/operators are responsible for 

complying with the requirements of this 

subpart for the landfill and any portion 

of the landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment system they own/operate. In 

addition, if another entity owns/ 

operates the gas collection, control, or 

treatment system used to comply with 

the applicable requirements of this 

subpart and for any reason (e.g., 

bankruptcy, abandonment of operation) 

that entity ceases to accept the landfill 

gas, responsibility for complying with 

all applicable requirements to which 

that entity was subject under this 

subpart shall immediately apply to, and 

be binding on, the landfill owner/ 

operator. The title V permits for landfill 

owner/operator must be written to 

require that the requirements applicable 

to the owner/operator of the landfill gas 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

system immediately become applicable 

requirements of the landfill owners/ 

operators whenever the owners/ 

operators of the landfill gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment system cease 

to accept the landfill gas. 

(2) Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owners/operators are responsible for 

complying with the requirements of this 

subpart for the portion of the landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

they own/operate. 

4. Section 60.33c is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 60.33c Emission guidelines for municipal 

solid waste landfill emissions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) A control system designed and 

operated to reduce nonmethane organic 

compounds (NMOC) by 98 weight 

percent, or, when an enclosed 

combustion device is used for control, 

to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight 

percent or to reduce the outlet to less 

than 20 parts per million by volume, dry 

basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen. The 

reduction efficiency or parts per million 

by volume shall be established by an 

initial performance test to be completed 

no later than the applicable compliance 

date specified in § 60.36c. The 

performance test is not required for 

boilers and process heaters with design 

heat input capacities equal to or greater 

than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas 

for compliance with this subpart. 

(3) Route the collected gas to a 

treatment system that processes the 

collected gas for subsequent sale as fuel 

for combustion or use as a fuel for 

combustion. Landfill gas sold as fuel for 

combustion or used as a fuel for 

combustion shall be treated in a 

treatment system as defined in § 60.751 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(D) and the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements listed in §§ 60.756, 60.757, 

and 60.758 that apply to treatment 

systems. All emissions from any 

atmospheric vent from the gas treatment 

system shall be subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of 

this section. For purposes of this 

subpart, atmospheric vents located on 

the condensate storage tank are not part 

of the treatment system and are exempt 

from the requirements of paragraph 

(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section. The 

owners/operators of the landfill gas 

treatment system must ensure 

compliance with these requirements. 

The owner/operators of a combustion 

device who use treated landfill gas as 

fuel in a combustion device or purchase 

treated landfill gas for fuel in a 

combustion device shall be exempt from 

further compliance with this subpart. 

The treated gas must be used as a fuel, 

and venting of treated landfill gas to the 

ambient air or combustion in a flare is 

not allowed under this option. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 60.36c is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 60.36c Compliance Times. 

* * * * * 

(c) Within nine months after [DATE 

THE FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS ARE 

PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], 

each State shall adopt and submit to the 

Administrator, revisions to their State 

plan that implement the emission 

guidelines and compliance times in this 

subpart, as amended. Except as 

provided under § 60.24, the revised 

State plan shall include the revised 

definitions in § 60.31c; the designated 

facilities provisions in § 60.32c(a) 

through (e) and the associated 

recordkeeping requirement in 

§ 60.758(g); the control and treatment 

system requirements in § 60.33c(2) and 

(3); the associated treatment system 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in §§ 60.756 

through 60.758 that are cross-referenced 

in §§ 60.34c and 60.35c; and a 

supplemental revised compliance 

schedule. 

Subpart WWW—[Amended] 

6. Section 60.750 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 60.750 Applicability, designation of 

affected facility, and delegation of authority. 

(a) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to each municipal solid waste 

(MSW) landfill that commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification on or after May 30, 1991 

and the stationary equipment used to 

collect, control, or treat the landfill gas 

from such MSW landfills required by 

§ 60.752(b)(2). Physical or operational 

changes made to an existing MSW 

landfill solely to comply with an 

applicable State plan or the Federal plan 

implementing the requirements of 

subpart Cc (Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills) of this part are not 

considered construction, reconstruction, 

or modification for the purposes of this 

subpart. Each MSW landfill owner/ 

operator and each MSW landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator, as defined in § .751, is 

responsible for compliance with this 

subpart as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (2) of this section; provided, 

however, that if the MSW landfill and 

the associated gas collection, control, 

and/or treatment system are under 

common control, the entity exercising 

such control shall be responsible for 

complying with the requirements in 

both paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) MSW landfill owners/operators are 

responsible for complying with the 

requirements of this subpart for the 

landfill and any portion of the landfill 

gas collection, control, or treatment 

system they own/operate. In addition, if 

another entity owns/operates the gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

used to comply with the applicable 

requirements of this subpart and for any 

reason (e.g., bankruptcy, abandonment 

of operation) that entity ceases to accept 

the landfill gas, responsibility for 

complying with all applicable 

requirements to which that entity was 

subject under this subpart shall 

immediately apply to, and be binding 

on, the landfill owner/operator. The title 

V permits for landfill owners/operators 

must be written to require that the 

requirements applicable to the owners/ 

operators of the landfill gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment system 

immediately become applicable 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53288 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

requirements of the landfill owner/ 

operator, whenever the owners/ 

operators of the landfill gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment system cease 

to accept the landfill gas. 

(2) Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owners/operators are responsible for 

complying with the requirements of this 

subpart for the portion of the landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

they own/operate. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 60.751 is amended by: 

a. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Household waste’’; and 

b. Adding the definitions of ‘‘Absolute 

filtration rating,’’ ‘‘Municipal solid 

waste landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment system owner/operator,’’

‘‘Municipal solid waste landfill owner/ 

operator,’’ ‘‘Segregated yard waste,’’

‘‘Treated landfill gas,’’ ‘‘Treatment 

system,’’ and ‘‘Untreated landfill gas’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 60.751 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Absolute filtration rating means the 

diameter of the largest hard spherical 

particle that would pass through a filter. 

* * * * * 

Household waste means any solid 

waste (including garbage, trash, and 

sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived 

from households (including, but not 

limited to, single and multiple 

residences, hotels and motels, 

bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew 

quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, 

and day-use recreation areas). 

Household waste does not include fully 

segregated yard waste. 

* * * * * 

Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator means any entity that 

owns or operates any stationary 

equipment required by § 60.752(b)(2) of 

this subpart that is used to collect, 

control, or treat landfill gas from an 

MSW landfill that is subject, regardless 

of the location of the control or 

treatment system. 

Municipal solid waste landfill owner/ 

operator means any entity that owns or 

operates a municipal solid waste 

landfill. 

* * * * * 

Segregated yard waste means 

vegetative matter resulting exclusively 

from the cutting of grass, the pruning 

and/or removal of bushes, shrubs, and 

trees, the weeding of gardens, and other 

landscaping maintenance activities. 

* * * * * 

Treated landfill gas means landfill gas 

processed in a treatment system 

according to this subpart. 

Treatment system means a system that 

has an absolute filtration rating of 10 

microns or less, lowers the water dew 

point of the landfill gas by at least 20 

degrees Fahrenheit with a de-watering 

process, and compresses the landfill gas. 

Untreated landfill gas means any 

landfill gas that is not treated landfill 

gas. 

8. Section 60.752 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D), 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) introductory text, 

and paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C); and 

b. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(i)(E) and 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(D) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.752 Standards for air emissions from 

municipal solid waste landfills. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) If the owner or operator chooses 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission control requirements of this 

subpart using a treatment system as 

defined in this subpart and according to 

the requirements of paragraph (b)(iii)(C) 

of this section, then the collection and 

control system design plan must 

include: 

(1) Design specifications for the 

filtration, de-watering, and compression 

systems that demonstrate conformance 

with the treatment system definition 

contained in § 60.751. 

(2) The minimum pressure drop 

across the filtration system, or other 

monitoring parameter(s) and operating 

ranges that indicate proper performance 

of the filtration system. The collection 

and control plan must include 

information, such as manufacturer’s 

recommendations or engineering 

analyses, to justify the minimum 

pressure drop or operating ranges for 

other monitoring parameters. 

(3) The minimum landfill gas 

temperature reduction across a chillerbased de-watering system, the minimum 

landfill gas dew point reduction for a 

non-chiller-based de-watering system, 

or other operating parameters and 

operating ranges that indicate proper 

performance of the de-watering system. 

If the owner/operator requests approval 

to monitor temperature or dew point at 

a single location, such as the outlet of 

the chiller or de-watering system, rather 

than at both the inlet and outlet, the 

design plan must demonstrate that the 

proposed monitoring location and sitespecific maximum temperature or 

maximum dew point are sufficient to 

indicate that the dew point has been 

reduced by at least 20 degrees 

Fahrenheit, according to the treatment 

system definition. The collection and 

control plan must include information, 

such as manufacturer’s 

recommendations or engineering 

analyses, to justify the operating ranges 

for temperature, dew point, or other 

monitoring parameters. 

(E) The Administrator shall review 

the information submitted under 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A), (B), (C), and (D) 

of this section and either approve, 

disapprove, or request that additional 

information be submitted. Because of 

the many site-specific factors involved 

with landfill gas system design, 

alternative systems may be necessary. A 

wide variety of system designs are 

possible, such as vertical wells, 

combination horizontal and vertical 

collection systems, or horizontal 

trenches only, leachate collection 

components, and passive systems. 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) A control system designed and 

operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weight 

percent, or, when an enclosed 

combustion device is used for control, 

to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight 

percent or to reduce the outlet to less 

than 20 parts per million by volume, dry 

basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen. The 

reduction efficiency or parts per million 

by volume shall be established by an 

initial performance test to be completed 

no later than 180 days after the initial 

startup of the approved control system 

using the test methods specified in 

§ 60.754(d). The performance test is not 

required for boilers and process heaters 

with design heat input capacities equal 

to or greater than 44 megawatts that 

burn landfill gas for compliance with 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(C) Route the collected gas to a 

treatment system that processes the 

collected gas for subsequent sale as a 

fuel for combustion or use as a fuel for 

combustion. Landfill gas sold as a fuel 

for combustion or used as a fuel for 

combustion shall be treated in a 

treatment system as defined in § 60.751 

that meets the requirements of 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(D) and the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of this subpart that apply 

to treatment systems. All emissions 

from any atmospheric vent from the gas 

treatment system shall be subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) 

or paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. 

For purposes of this rule, atmospheric 

vents located on the condensate storage 

tank are not part of the treatment system 

and are exempt from the requirements 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53289 

of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (b)(2)(iii)(B) 

of this section. The owner/operator of 

the landfill gas treatment system must 

ensure compliance with the treatment 

requirements. The owner/operator of a 

combustion device who uses treated 

landfill gas as a fuel in a combustion 

device or purchases treated landfill gas 

for fuel in a combustion device shall be 

exempt from further compliance with 

this subpart. The treated gas must be 

used as a fuel, and venting of treated 

landfill gas to the ambient air or 

combustion in a flare is not allowed 

under this option. 

(D) If an owner/operator complied 

with the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii) of this section by installing 

and operating a gas treatment system on 

or before September 8, 2006, the owner/ 

operator must ensure that the treatment 

system meets the treatment system 

definition in § 60.751, submit a design 

plan update including the information 

specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this 

section, meet the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) of this section, 

and implement all treatment system 

operating, compliance, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of this subpart as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE FINAL 

RULE AMENDMENTS ARE 

PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register]. 

Alternatively, the owner/operator may 

elect to comply with the control 

requirements in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) 

or paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section; 

submit a design plan update for the 

control system; and comply with all 

control system operational, testing, 

compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements of this 

subpart as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER 

THE FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS ARE 

PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register]. 

* * * * * 

9. Section 60.755 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(3) and paragraph 

(e) to read as follows: 

§ 60.755 Compliance provisions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Surface emission monitoring shall 

be performed in accordance with 

section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix 

A of this part, except that the probe inlet 

shall be placed within 5 to 10 

centimeters of the ground. Monitoring 

shall be performed during typical 

meteorological conditions. 

* * * * * 

(e) The provisions of the subpart 

apply at all times, except during periods 

of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

and periods of routine maintenance of 

the landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment systems. The provisions of 

§ 60.11(d) continue to apply during 

periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine maintenance 

of the landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment systems. Routine maintenance 

activities must be completed and 

malfunctions must be corrected as soon 

as practicable after their occurrence in 

order to minimize emissions. 

10. Section 60.756 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 60.756 Monitoring of operations. 

* * * * * 

(g) Each owner or operator seeking to 

demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(iii) using a landfill gas 

treatment system shall calibrate, 

maintain, and operate according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications, the 

following equipment. 

(1) A device that monitors pressure 

drop across, or other approved 

parameter(s) for, the filtration system 

that is equipped with a continuous 

recorder that shall record such 

parameters at least once every 15 

minutes. Records of hourly and 24-hour 

block averages computed from the 

continuous monitoring data must also 

be retained. 

(2) A device that monitors the landfill 

gas temperature for a chiller-based dewatering system, the landfill gas dew 

point for a non-chiller-based dewatering system, or the approved 

operating parameter(s) for the dewatering system at the monitoring 

locations specified in the approved 

design plan required under 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(D). Each monitoring 

device must be equipped with a 

continuous recorder that shall record 

such parameters at least once every 15 

minutes. Records of hourly and 24-hour 

block averages computed from the 

continuous monitoring data must also 

be retained. 

(3) A device that records flow to or 

bypass of the treatment system. The 

owner or operator shall either: 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

gas flow rate measuring device that shall 

record the flow to the control device at 

least every 15 minutes; or 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the 

closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism shall be performed at least 

once every month to ensure that the 

valve is maintained in the closed 

position and that the gas flow is not 

diverted through the bypass line. 

11. Section 60.757 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (f) introductory text 

and (f)(1) through (f)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.757 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) The owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.752(b)(2) using an 

active collection system designed in 

accordance with § 60.752(b)(2)(ii) shall 

submit to the Administrator annual 

reports of the recorded information in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this 

section. The initial annual report shall 

be submitted within 180 days of 

installation and start-up of the 

collection, control, or treatment system, 

and shall include the initial 

performance test report required under 

§ 60.8, as applicable. For enclosed 

combustion devices, treatment systems, 

and flares, reportable exceedances are 

defined under § 60.758(c). 

(1) Value and length of time for 

exceedance of applicable parameters 

monitored under § 60.756(a), (b), (c), (d), 

and (g). 

(2) Description and duration of all 

periods when the gas stream is diverted 

from the control device or treatment 

system through a bypass line or the 

indication of a bypass flow as specified 

under § 60.756. 

(3) Description and duration of all 

periods when the control device or 

treatment system was not operating for 

a period exceeding 1 hour and length of 

time the control device or treatment 

system was not operating. 

* * * * * 

12. Section 60.758 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text, paragraph (b)(2)(i), paragraph (c) 

introductory text; and paragraph 

(c)(1)(i); and 

b. Adding paragraph (b)(5), paragraph 

(c)(1)(iii); and paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.758 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except as provided in 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(B), for controlled 

landfills, the owner or operator shall 

keep up-to-date, readily accessible 

records for the life of the control 

equipment or treatment system of the 

data listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section as measured during 

the initial performance test or 

compliance demonstration, or as 

submitted and approved under 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(D). Records of 

subsequent tests or monitoring shall be 

maintained for a minimum of 5 years. 

Records of the control device or 

treatment system vendor specifications 

shall be maintained until removal. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53290 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

(i) The average temperature measured 

at least every 15 minutes and averaged 

over the same time period of the 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(5) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(iii) through the use of a 

treatment system: 

(i) The approved minimum pressure 

drop across the filtration system, or the 

approved operating ranges for other 

monitoring parameter(s) that indicate 

proper performance of the filtration 

system, as specified in the approved 

design plan required by 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(D). 

(ii) The approved minimum 

temperature reduction or approved 

maximum outlet temperature of a 

chiller-based de-watering system, the 

approved minimum dew point 

reduction or maximum outlet dew point 

of a non-chiller-based de-watering 

system, or the approved operating 

ranges for other monitoring parameter(s) 

that indicate proper performance of the 

de-watering system, as specified in the 

approved design plan required by 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(D). 

(c) Except as provided in 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(B), for a controlled 

landfill subject to the provisions of this 

subpart, the owner or operator shall 

keep for 5 years up-to-date, readily 

accessible continuous records of the 

equipment operating parameters 

specified to be monitored under 

§ 60.756 as well as up-to-date, readily 

accessible records for periods of 

operation during which the parameter 

boundaries measured during the most 

recent performance test or submitted 

and approved under § 60.752(b)(2)(i)(D) 

are exceeded. 

(1) * * * 

(i) For enclosed combustors, except 

for boilers and process heaters with 

design heat input capacity of 44 

megawatts (150 million British thermal 

units (Btu) per hour) or greater, all 3- 

hour periods of operation during which 

the average temperature was more than 

28 °C below the average temperature 

during the most recent performance test 

at which compliance with 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(iii) was determined. 

* * * * * 

(iii) For treatment systems used to 

demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(iii), all 24-hour periods of 

operation during which the average 

operating parameter values are outside 

of the approved ranges identified in 

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(D) as those that indicate 

proper performance of the treatment 

system. 

* * * * * 

(g) Where multiple entities exist 

under the definitions of ‘‘Municipal 

solid waste landfill owner/operator’’

and ‘‘Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator’’ for an individual MSW 

landfill and its required gas collection, 

control, or treatment systems, all 

entities must keep a list that shows 

regulatory section and paragraph 

numbers, documenting which aspects of 

the requirements of §§ 60.752 through 

60.759 each party will comply with. The 

list must include all requirements of 

this subpart that apply to the MSW 

landfill and all required gas collection, 

control, or treatment systems. If the list 

does not correctly identify all applicable 

provisions, all entities involved are 

responsible for compliance with the 

missing items. All entities must keep an 

identical copy of the list on site and 

must comply with those provisions on 

the applicable list that are assigned to 

them until such time as the list may be 

modified. The list must be kept up-todate. The current list and all previously 

modified lists must be maintained on 

site for 5 years after the date each list 

was modified. If a gas collection, 

control, or treatment system was 

installed to comply with this subpart on 

or before September 8, 2006, the list 

showing the requirements that each 

party will comply with must be 

completed as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than [DATE 1 

YEAR AFTER THE FINAL RULE 

AMENDMENTS ARE PUBLISHED IN 

THE Federal Register]. Entities meeting 

the definition of ‘‘Municipal solid waste 

landfill owner/operator’’ or ‘‘Municipal 

solid waste landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment system owner/ 

operator’’ may be held responsible for 

compliance with this subpart as 

specified in § 60.750(a)(1) and (2). 

PART 62—[AMENDED] 

13. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart GGG—[Amended] 

14. Section 62.14351 is amended by 

adding the definitions of ‘‘Municipal 

solid waste landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment system owner/ 

operator’’ and ‘‘Municipal solid waste 

landfill owner/operator’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 62.14351 Definitions 

* * * * * 

Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator means any entity that 

owns or operates any stationary 

equipment required by § 62.14353 that 

is used to collect, control, or treat 

landfill gas from an MSW landfill that 

is a designated facility under 

§ 62.14352(a), regardless of the location 

of the control or treatment system. 

Municipal solid waste landfill owner/ 

operator means any entity that owns or 

operates a municipal solid waste 

landfill that is a designated facility 

under § 62.14352(a). 

* * * * * 

15. Section 62.14352 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; and 

b. Adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 62.14352 Designated facilities. 

(a) The designated facility to which 

this subpart applies is each existing 

MSW landfill, and the stationary 

equipment used to collect, control, or 

treat the landfill gas from such MSW 

landfills as required by § 62.14353 of 

this subpart, in all States, protectorates, 

and Indian Country that meets the 

conditions of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section, except for landfills 

exempted by paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) Each MSW landfill owner/operator 

and each MSW landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment system owner/ 

operator, as defined in § 62.14351, is 

responsible for compliance as specified 

in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this 

section; provided, however, that if the 

MSW landfill and the associated gas 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

system are under common control, the 

entity exercising such control shall be 

responsible for complying with the 

requirements in both paragraphs (g)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Municipal solid waste landfill 

owners/operators are responsible for 

complying with the requirements of this 

subpart for the landfill and any portion 

of the landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment system they own/operate. In 

addition, if another entity owns/ 

operates the gas collection, control, or 

treatment system and for any reason 

(e.g., bankruptcy, abandonment of 

operation) that entity ceases to accept 

the landfill gas, responsibility for 

complying with all applicable 

requirements to which that entity was 

subject under this subpart shall 

immediately apply to, and be binding 

on, the landfill owner/operator. The title 

V permits for landfill owners/operators 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53291 

must be written to require that the 

requirements applicable to the owners/ 

operators of the landfill gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment system 

immediately become applicable 

requirements of the landfill owner/ 

operator whenever the owners/operators 

of the landfill gas collection, control, 

and/or treatment system cease to accept 

the landfill gas. 

(2) Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owners/operator are responsible for 

complying with the requirements of this 

subpart for the portion of the landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

they own/operate. 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

16. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart AAAA—[Amended] 

17. Section 63.1935 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate stationary 

equipment required by § 63.1947 or 

§ 63.1955 that is used to collect, control, 

or treat landfill gas from a municipal 

solid waste landfill that is subject to this 

subpart (regardless of the location of the 

control or treatment system). 

(d) Each municipal solid waste 

landfill owner/operator and each 

municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator, as defined in § 63.1990, 

is responsible for compliance with this 

subpart as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) 

and (2) of this section; provided, 

however, that if the municipal solid 

waste landfill and the associated gas 

collection, control, and/or treatment 

system are under common control, the 

entity exercising such control shall be 

responsible for complying with the 

requirements in both paragraphs (d)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Municipal solid waste landfill 

owners/operators are responsible for 

complying with the requirements of this 

subpart for the landfill and any portion 

of the landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment system they own/operate. In 

addition, if another entity owns/ 

operates the gas collection, control, or 

treatment system and for any reason 

(e.g., bankruptcy, abandonment of 

operation) that entity ceases to accept 

the landfill gas, responsibility for 

complying with all applicable 

requirements to which that entity was 

subject under this subpart shall 

immediately apply to, and be binding 

on, the landfill owner/operator. The title 

V permits for landfill owners/operators 

must be written to require that the 

requirements applicable to the owners/ 

operators of the landfill gas collection, 

control, and/or treatment system 

immediately become applicable 

requirements of the landfill owner/ 

operator whenever the owners/operators 

of the landfill gas collection, control, 

and/or treatment system cease to accept 

the landfill gas. 

(2) Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owners/operators are responsible for 

complying with the requirements of this 

subpart for the portion of the landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

they own/operate. 

18. Section § 63.1940 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1940 What is the affected source of 

this subpart? 

(a) An affected source of this subpart 

is a MSW landfill, as defined in 

§ 63.1990, that meets the criteria in 

§ 63.1935(a) or § 63.1935 (b). The 

affected source includes the entire 

disposal facility in a contiguous 

geographic space where household 

waste is placed in or on land, including 

any portion of the MSW landfill 

operated as a bioreactor. The affected 

source also includes stationary 

equipment required by § 63.1947 or 

§ 63.1955 that is used to collect, control, 

or treat landfill gas from a MSW landfill 

that is subject to this subpart (regardless 

of the location of the control or 

treatment system). 

* * * * * 

19. Section 63.1945 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1945 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(d) If your landfill is an existing 

affected source and is a major source or 

is collocated with a major source, you 

must comply with the requirements in 

§ 63.1955(b) and §§ 63.1960 through 

63.1980 by the date your landfill is 

required to install a collection and 

control system by 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2) of 

subpart WWW, the Federal plan, or EPA 

approved and effective State or tribal 

plan that applies to your landfill or by 

January 16, 2004, whichever occurs 

later. 

* * * * * 

20. Section 63.1955 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1955 What requirements must I meet? 

* * * * * 

(c) For approval of collection and 

control systems that include any 

alternatives to the operational 

standards, test methods, procedures, 

compliance measures, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, or reporting provisions, 

you must follow the procedures in 40 

CFR 60.752(b)(2) of subpart WWW. If 

alternatives have already been approved 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, 

or the Federal plan, or EPA-approved 

and effective State or tribal plan, those 

alternatives can be used to comply with 

this subpart, except that all affected 

sources must comply with the startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction 

requirements in subpart A of this part as 

specified in Table 1 of this subpart; and 

all affected sources must submit 

compliance reports every 6 months as 

specified in § 63.1980(a) and (b), 

including information on all deviations 

that occurred during the 6-month 

reporting period. Deviations for 

continuous emission monitors or 

numerical continuous parameter 

monitors must be determined using a 3- 

hour monitoring block average for 

control systems used to demonstrate 

compliance with 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(iii)(B) of subpart WWW, or a 

24-hour monitoring block average for 

treatment systems used to demonstrate 

compliance with 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(iii)(C) of subpart WWW. 

* * * * * 

21. Section 63.1960 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1960 How is compliance determined? 

Compliance is determined in the same 

way it is determined for 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW, including performance 

testing, monitoring of the collection 

system, continuous parameter 

monitoring, and other credible 

evidence. In addition, continuous 

parameter monitoring data, collected 

under 40 CFR 60.756(b)(1), (c)(1), (d) 

and (g) of subpart WWW, are used to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

operating conditions for control systems 

or treatment systems. If a deviation 

occurs, you have failed to meet the 

control device or treatment system 

operating conditions described in this 

subpart and have deviated from the 

requirements of this subpart. Finally, 

you must develop a written SSM plan 

according to the provisions in 

§ 63.6(e)(3). Your SSM plan must 

include a plan for conducting routine 

maintenance on the landfill gas 

collection, control, and treatment 

systems. The routine maintenance plan 

must include maintenance procedures, 

actions that will be taken to minimize 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
53292 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

emissions during maintenance, 

shutdown frequency, shutdown 

duration, and procedures for 

minimizing emissions during startup 

and shutdown of the collection, control, 

and/or treatment systems for routine 

maintenance. A copy of the SSM plan 

must be maintained on site. Failure to 

write or maintain a copy of the SSM 

plan is a deviation from the 

requirements of this subpart. 

22. Section 63.1965 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1965 What is a deviation? 

* * * * * 

(a) A deviation occurs when the 

control device or treatment system 

operating parameter boundaries 

described in 40 CFR 60.758(c)(1) of 

subpart WWW are exceeded. 

(b) A deviation occurs when 1 hour or 

more of the hours during the applicable 

3-hour, or 24-hour, block averaging 

period specified in 40 CFR 60.758(c)(1) 

of subpart WWW does not constitute a 

valid hour of data. A valid hour of data 

must have measured values for at least 

three 15-minute monitoring periods 

within the hour. 

* * * * * 

23. Section 63.1975 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1975 How do I calculate the block 

average used to demonstrate compliance? 

Averages are calculated in the same 

way as they are calculated in 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart WWW, except that 

averages computed under this subpart 

shall not include periods of monitoring 

system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks, and zero (low-level) and highlevel adjustments. 

24. Section 63.1980 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1980 What records and reports must 

I keep and submit? 

* * * * * 

(i) In lieu of meeting the requirements 

of § 63.10(d)(5)(i) and (ii) of subpart A 

for periodic and immediate startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction reports, you 

must comply with the requirements of 

paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Periodic startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction reports. The owner or 

operator shall report each startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (including 

startups and shutdowns of the landfill 

gas collection, control, or treatment 

system for routine maintenance) that 

occurred during the semiannual 

compliance reporting period. Such 

report shall include the date, duration, 

and identification of each startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction event 

(including startups and shutdowns of 

the landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment system for routine 

maintenance) and any actions taken that 

were inconsistent with the SSM plan. In 

any instance where any action taken by 

an owner or operator during a startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction 

and actions taken during startup or 

shutdown of the landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment system for routine 

maintenance) is not consistent with the 

affected source’s SSM plan, the report 

also shall include a brief description of 

the startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

event. Reports shall be required only if 

a startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

(including startups or shutdowns of the 

landfill gas collection, control, or 

treatment system for routine 

maintenance) occurred during the 

reporting period. The startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction report shall 

consist of a letter, containing the name, 

title, and signature of the owner or 

operator or other responsible official 

who is certifying its accuracy, that shall 

be submitted to the Administrator every 

6 months with the reports described in 

paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) through 

(f) of this section. 

(2) Immediate startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction reports. Any time an action 

taken by an owner or operator during a 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

(including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction and actions taken during 

startup or shutdown of the landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

for routine maintenance) is not 

consistent with the procedures specified 

in the affected source’s SSM plan, the 

owner or operator shall report the 

actions taken for that event within 2 

working days after commencing actions 

inconsistent with the plan followed by 

a letter within 7 working days after the 

end of the event. If the duration of any 

shutdown or malfunction event 

(including any shutdown of the landfill 

gas collection, control, or treatment 

system for routine maintenance) 

exceeds 5 days, the owner or operator 

shall report the event within 2 working 

days of the date the duration of the 

event exceeds 5 days, followed up by a 

letter within 7 working days after the 

end of the event. The immediate reports 

required under this paragraph (i)(2) 

shall consist of a telephone call (or 

facsimile (fax) transmission) to the 

Administrator within 2 working days, 

and it shall be followed by a letter, 

delivered or postmarked within 7 

working days after the end of the event, 

that contains the name, title, and 

signature of the owner or operator or 

other responsible official who is 

certifying its accuracy, explaining the 

circumstances of the event and the 

reasons for not following the SSM plan. 

If the duration of any shutdown or 

malfunction event (including any 

shutdown of the landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment system for routine 

maintenance) exceeds 5 days, the 

immediate report shall also include the 

reasons that the duration of the event 

exceeded 5 days and actions taken to 

minimize the duration of the event. 

Notwithstanding the requirements of the 

previous sentences in this paragraph 

(i)(2), after the effective date of an 

approved permit program in the State in 

which an affected source is located, the 

owner or operator may make alternative 

reporting arrangements, in advance, 

with the permitting authority in that 

State. Procedures governing the 

arrangement of alternative reporting 

requirements under this paragraph (i)(2) 

are specified in § 63.9(i) of subpart A. 

(j) Where multiple entities exist under 

the definitions of ‘‘Municipal solid 

waste landfill owner/operator’’ and 

‘‘Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator’’ for an individual MSW 

landfill and its required gas collection, 

control, or treatment systems, all 

entities must keep a list that shows 

regulatory section and paragraph 

numbers, documenting which aspects of 

the requirements of §§ 63.1945 through 

63.1980 each entity will comply with. 

The list must include all requirements 

of this subpart that apply to the MSW 

landfill and all required gas collection, 

control, or treatment systems. If the list 

does not correctly identify all applicable 

provisions, all entities involved are 

responsible for compliance with the 

missing requirements. All entities must 

keep an identical copy of the list on site 

and must comply with those provisions 

on the applicable list that are assigned 

to them until such time as the list may 

be modified. The list must be kept upto-date. The current list and all 

previously modified lists must be 

maintained on site for 5 years after the 

date each list was modified. If a gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

was installed to comply with this 

subpart on or before September 8, 2006, 

the list showing the requirements that 

each party will comply with must be 

completed no later than [DATE 1 YEAR 

AFTER THE FINAL RULE 

AMENDMENTS ARE PUBLISHED IN 

THE Federal Register]. Entities meeting 

the definition of ‘‘Municipal solid waste 

landfill owner/operator’’ or ‘‘Municipal 

solid waste landfill gas collection, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules 53293 

control, or treatment system owner/ 

operator’’ may be held responsible for 

compliance with this subpart as 

specified in § 63.1935(d)(1) and (2). 

25. Section 63.1990 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Bioreactor’’

and adding a definition of ‘‘Municipal 

solid waste landfill gas collection, 

control, or treatment system owner/ 

operator’’ in alphabetical order to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1990 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Bioreactor means an MSW landfill or 

portion of a municipal solid waste 

landfill where any liquid other than 

leachate (leachate includes landfill gas 

condensate) is added in a controlled 

fashion into the waste mass (often in 

combination with recirculating leachate) 

to reach a minimum average moisture 

content of at least 40 percent by weight, 

calculated on a wet weight basis, to 

accelerate or enhance the anaerobic 

(without oxygen) biodegradation of the 

waste. 

* * * * * 

Municipal solid waste landfill gas 

collection, control, or treatment system 

owner/operator means any entity that 

owns or operates any stationary 

equipment required by 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2) of subpart WWW or 

§ 63.1947 or § 63.1955 that is used to 

collect, control, or treat landfill gas from 

a municipal solid waste landfill that is 

subject to this subpart (regardless of the 

location of the control or treatment 

system). 

* * * * * 

26. Table 1 to subpart AAAA of part 

63 is amended by: 

a. Revising the entry for § 63.6(e). 

b. Adding a new entry in numerical 

order for § 63.9(i). 

c. Removing the entry for § 63.10(d)(5) 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAA OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF NESHAP GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAA 

Part 63 citation Description Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.6(e), except § 63.6(e)(3)(iv) ....................... Operation and maintenance requirements, 

SSM plan provisions.

Affected sources are subject to the provisions 

in § 63.1980(i)(2) instead of § 63.6(e)(3)(iv). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.9(i) ............................................................. Provisions to adjust the time periods for postmark deadlines for submitting required reports.Allows adjustment of timing of reports. 

[FR Doc. 06–7493 Filed 9–7–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3