13514 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

foot contour line to the point where the

contour intersects the north line of

Section 10. T6N, R5W, MDM,

immediately adjacent to Dry Creek on

the Rutherford, CA map;

(13) Then northwesterly along Dry

Creek approximately 6,500 feet to

BM503, then northeasterly

approximately 3,000 feet to the peak

denoted as 1478, then southeasterly

approximately 2,300 feet to the

beginning of the creek known locally as

Hopper Creek, then southeasterly along

Hopper Creek approximately 2,300 feet

to the point of beginning.

Signed: February 2, 1999.

John W. Magaw,

Director.

Approved: February 16, 1999.

Dennis M. O’Connell,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary

(Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).

[FR Doc. 99–6735 Filed 3–18–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD11–99–001]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Mokelumne River, CA–12 Highway

Bridge at Mile 3.0 at East Isleton,

Sacramento County, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation

from regulations.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. Coast Guard has issued a

temporary deviation to regulations

governing opening of the California

Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

swing bridge over the Mokelumne River

at East Isleton, CA (the Mokelumne

River Bridge). The deviation has two

parts. The first part specified the bridge

need not open for the passage of vessels

from 8 a.m. March 22, 1999 to 5 p.m.

March 24, 1999. The purpose of this

part of the deviation is to allow Caltrans

to repair the east-end bridge jack

turnbuckle. The bridge cannot be

opened during that work. The second

part specified the bridge would open

upon the following advance notice

during the period from 5 p.m. March 24,

1999, through 5 p.m. April 2, 1999:

During the hours between 9 a.m. and 5

p.m. daily, upon 30 minutes advance

notice; at all other times upon at least

4 hours advance notice given to the

drawtender at the Rio Vista Bridge over

the Sacramento River, mile 12.8. The

purpose of this part of the deviation is

to enable Caltrans to test and make final

adjustments and conduct other

maintenance that does not require

taking the bridge out of service.

However, during that period, workers

and equipment will be on the movable

span, and advance notice is needed to

clear the span for openings.

DATES: The deviation is effective from 8

a.m. March 22, 1999, through 5 p.m.

April 2, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jerry Olmes, Bridge Administrator,

Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building

50–6, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA

94501–5100, telephone (510) 437–3515.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 24, 1999, Caltrans requested to

close the bridge from 8 a.m. March 22,

1999 through 5 p.m. March 24, 1999,

and to operate the bridge on 30 minute

advance notice from 5 p.m. March 24,

1999 through 5 p.m. April 2, 1999.

When the bridge is closed to navigation,

the vertical clearance is 7.0 ft. (2.1 m)

above Mean High Water, and is 10.5 ft.

(3.2m) above Mean Lower Low Water,

and the clearances may be further

reduced due to high seasonal flows from

winter rains. Alternate routes are

available, and waterway traffic is

minimal during the winter months. The

Coast Guard has contacted the marinas

immediately upstream and downstream

of the bridge and commercial waterway

operators, none of whom have any

objection to the proposal. Delaying

repairs until later in the year would

impact a greater number of waterway

users.

This deviation from the normal

operating regulations in 33 CFR 117.175

is authorized in accordance with the

provisions of 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: March 12, 1999.

C.D. Wurster,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 99–6759 Filed 3–18–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 207–0136a FRL–6239–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Sacramento Metropolitan and South

Coast Air Quality Management

Districts and San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP). This action is an administrative

change which revises the definitions in

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management (SMAQMD) Rule 101, San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 1020,

and South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) Rule

1302. The intended effect of approving

this action is to incorporate changes to

the definitions for clarity and

consistency and to update the Exempt

Compound list in SMAQMD,

SJVUAPCD, and SCAQMD rules to be

consistent with the revised federal and

state VOC definitions.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 18,

1999 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse comments by April 19,

1999. If EPA receives such comment, it

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be

submitted to Andrew Steckel at the

Region IX office listed below. Copies of

the rule revisions and EPA’s evaluation

report for each rule are available for

public inspection at EPA’s Region IX

office during normal business hours.

Copies of the submitted rule revisions

are available for inspection at the

following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District, 8411 Jackson

Rd., Sacramento, CA 95826–3904
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 13515

1EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

2Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988).

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1990 E.

Gettysburg Ave., Fresno, CA 93726

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Dr.,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia G. Allen, Rulemaking Office,

AIR–4, Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rules being approved into the

California SIP include: SMAQMD Rule

101, General Provisions and Definitions;

SJVUAPCD Rule 1020, Definition; and

South Coast Rule 1302, Definitions

(New Source Review). These rules were

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board to EPA on October 27,

1998 (Sacramento); May 18, 1998 (San

Joaquin); and March 10, 1998 (South

Coast).

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 Act or

pre-amended Act), that included

SMAQMD, SJVUAPCD, and SCAQMD.

43 FR 8964, 49 CFR 81.305. In response

to Section 110(a) of the Act and other

requirements, the SMAQMD,

SJVUAPCD, and SCAQMD submitted

many rules which EPA approved into

the SIP.

On June 16, 1995 (60 FR 31633) EPA

published a final rule excluding acetone

from the definition of VOC. On February

7, 1996 (61 FR 4588) EPA published a

final rule excluding perchloroethylene

from the definition of VOC. On October

8, 1996 (61 FR 52848) EPA published a

final rule excluding HFC 43–10mee and

HCFC 225ca and cb from the definition

of VOC. On April 9, 1998 (63 FR 17331)

EPA published a final rule excluding

methyl acetate from the definition of

VOC. These compounds were

determined to have negligible

photochemical reactivity and thus, were

added to the Agency’s list of Exempt

Compounds.

This document addresses EPA’s

direct-final action for SMAQMD Rule

101, General Provisions and Definitions;

SJVUAPCD Rule 1020, Definitions; and

SCAQMD Rule 1302, Definitions (New

Source Review). These rules were

adopted by SMAQMD on September 3,

1998; by SJVUAPCD on December 18,

1997; and by SCAQMD on June 13,

1997. These rules were submitted by the

California Air Resources Board to EPA

on October 27, 1998 (Sacramento); May

18, 1998 (San Joaquin); and March 10,

1998 (South Coast). These submitted

rules were found to be complete on May

21, 1998 (South Coast); July 17, 1998

(Sacramento); and December 18, 1998

(San Joaquin), pursuant to EPA’s

completeness criteria that are set forth

in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V 1 and is

being finalized for approval into the SIP.

The following are EPA’s summary and

final action for these rules:

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a

rule, EPA must evaluate the rule for

consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110, and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for this action,

appears in various EPA policy guidance

documents.2

This administrative action is

necessary to make the VOC definition in

the SMAQMD, SJVUAPCD, and

SCAQMD rules consistent with federal

and state definitions of VOC. This

action will result in more accurate

assessment of ozone formation

potential, will remove unnecessary

control requirements and will assist

States in avoiding exceedences of the

ozone health standard by focusing

control efforts on compounds which are

actual ozone precursors.

SMAQMD Rule 101, General

Provisions and Definitions, has been

revised to update the definition of

‘‘Exempt Compounds’’. In addition, this

amendment adds and/or revise the

following definitions: Section 203,

Emission Unit, Section 205, On-Site,

and Section 209, Section.

SJVUAPCD Rule 1020, Definitions, is

a new rule for the SJVUAPCD but will

replace the SIP rules for Fresno, Kern,

Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin,

Stanislaus and Tulare Counties.

SJVUAPCD Rule, 1020 contains general

definitions for terms used or referenced

in various district rules. This new rule

exempts ethane and acetone as volatile

organic compounds because of recent

EPA and ARB action, revises the

definition of ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin’’ and ‘‘Central Kern County

Fields’’ based on the recent California

Air Resources Board realignment of air

basin boundaries, and delete the

definition of ‘‘Cyclic Well’’ to correct an

inconsistency with a conflicting

definition in Rule 4401 (Steam

Enhanced Crude Oil Production Well

Vents).

SCAQMD Rule 1302, Definitions

(New Source Review), was submitted

with amended South Coast Rule 102,

Definition of Terms. Perchloroethylene

is being added as a Group II Exempt

Compound. The other three compounds

are to be added to the list of Group I

Exempt Compounds. The amendments

will also allow the use of cyclic

branched, or linear, completely

methylated siloxanes (VMS) and

parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF),

currently listed as Group II Exempt

Compounds, and perchloroethylene in

operations regulated pursuant to Rules

1106.1, 1151, and 1171. In order to have

a consistent VOC definition, the VOC

definition in Rule 1302 is being

removed and now refers to Rule 102

which was approved on (February 23,

1999, Federal Register pending). Thus,

EPA is approving amended Rule 1302

into the SIP.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should adverse comments be filed. This

rule will be effective May 18, 1999

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

April 19, 1999.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this rule. Any parties interested in

commenting on this rule should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective on May 18, 1999

and no further action will be taken on

the proposed rule.
13516 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a

regulation that is not required by statute

and that creates a mandate upon a State,

local or tribal government, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments.

The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply

to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is

does not involve decisions intended to

mitigate environmental health or safety

risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 13517

appropriate circuit by May 18, 1999.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 5, 1999.

Laura Yoshii,

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(254)(i)(D)(3),

(255)(i)(C), and (260)(i)(A) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(254) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) South Coast Air Quality

Management District.

(3) Rule 1302, amended December 7,

1995.

* * * * *

(255) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 1020, amended December 18,

1997.

* * * * *

(260) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on October 27, 1998, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air

Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 101, amended on September

3, 1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99–6650 Filed 3–18–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[OK–18–1–7415a; FRL–6312–S]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: We are approving the section

111(d) Plan submitted by the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ) on December 18, 1998, to

implement and enforce the Emissions

Guidelines (EG) for existing Municipal

Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills . The EG

require States to develop plans to

reduce landfill gas emissions from all

MSWs.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on May 18, 1999, without further notice,

unless we receive adverse comments by

April 19, 1999. If we receive adverse

comments, we will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should address

comments on this action to Lt. Mick

Cote, EPA Region 6, Air Planning

Section (6PD–L), 1445 Ross Avenue,

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.

Copies of all materials considered in

this rulemaking may be examined

during normal business hours at the

following locations: EPA Region 6

offices, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202, and at the

Oklahoma Department of Environmental

Quality offices, 707 North Robinson

Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73101–

1677.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt.

Mick Cote at (214) 665–7219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is being taken by EPA today?

II Why do we need to regulate MSW landfills

emissions?

III. What is a State Plan?

IV. What does the Oklahoma State Plan

contain?

V. Is my MSW landfill subject to these

regulations?

VI. What steps do I need to take if my landfill

is subject to these regulations?

VII. Administrative Requirements.

I. What Action Is Being Taken by EPA

Today?

We are approving the Oklahoma State

Plan, as submitted on December 18,

1998, for the control of landfill gas

emissions from MSW landfills, except

for those located in Indian Country.

When we developed our New Source

Performance Standard (NSPS) for MSW

landfills, we also developed EG to

control emissions from older MSW

landfills. (See 61 FR 9905, March 12,

1996, and 63 FR 32743, June 16, 1998).

The ODEQ developed a State Plan, as

required by section 111(d) of the Clean

Air Act (the Act), to adopt the EG into

their body of regulations, and we are

acting today to approve it.

We are publishing this action without

prior proposal because we view this as

a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipate no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, we are

proposing to approve the revision

should significant, material, and adverse

comments be filed. This action is

effective May 18, 1999, unless by April

19, 1999, adverse or critical comments

are received. If we receive such

comments, this action will be

withdrawn before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent document that

will withdraw the final action. All

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. We will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, this

action is effective May 18, 1999.

II. Why Do We Need To Regulate MSW

Landfill Emissions?

Landfill gas contains a mixture of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs),

other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs),

and methane. VOC emissions can

contribute to ozone formation, which

can cause adverse health effects to

humans and vegetation. The health

effects of HAPs include cancer,

respiratory irritation, and damage to the

nervous system. Methane emissions

contribute to global climate change and

can result in fires or explosions when

they accumulate in structures on or off

the landfill site. We presented our

concerns with the health and welfare

effects of landfill gases in the preamble

to our proposed Federal regulations (56

FR 24468, May 30, 1991).

III. What Is a State Plan?

Section 111(d) of the Act requires that

‘‘designated’’ pollutants controlled