66672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Registration for both public meetings

can be completed through the Internet.

The CMIA webpage, found http://

www.fms.treas.giv/policymia, will

provide an online registration form,

allowing all interested parties to register

for either public meeting. Registration

can also be done by any of the following

means: via email by sending your

request to cmiasignup@fms.treas.gov; by

facsimile transmission to fax number

(202) 874–6965; by phone by calling

Martha Thomas Mitchell at (202) 874–

6757 or Oscar S. On ̃a at (202) 874–6799;

by written request sent to Martha

Thomas Mitchell-Public Meetings, Cash

Management Policy and Planning

Division, Financial Management

Service, U.S. Department of the

Treasury, Room 404F, 401 14th Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20227, or hand

delivered on business days between

9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Please be sure to include your name

and contact phone number, which

meeting you will attend, and the

organization or agency you represent.

Requests to present a prepared

statement at either meeting should be

made at the time of registration. The

online registration form will provide a

field to specify whether you would like

to participate. The topic to be addressed

in the testimony should be disclosed, as

well as a brief description of issues

which will be discussed. Requests to

present a statement should also be

disclosed in conjunction with

registration via email, fax, mail, or

telephone.

Please notify Oscar S. On ̃a, at (202)

874–6799 by November 22, 2000 if

auxiliary aids or services are needed,

including an interpreter or handicapped

access.

Dated: November 2, 2000.

Bettsy Lane,

Assistant Commissioner, Federal Finance

Financial Management Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28579 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–35–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6896–7]

RIN 2060–AH13

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal

Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for municipal

solid waste (MSW) landfills. The

proposed rule is applicable to both

major and area landfill sources, and

contains the same requirements as the

Emission Guidelines and New Source

Performance Standards (EG/NSPS) for

MSW landfills. The proposed rule adds

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

(SSM) requirements, adds operating

condition deviations for out-of-bounds

monitoring parameters, and changes the

reporting frequency for one type of

report.

The proposed rule fulfills the

requirements of section 112(d) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA), which requires the

Administrator to regulate emissions of

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed in

section 112(b), and helps implement the

Urban Air Toxics Strategy developed

under section 112(k) of the CAA. The

intent of the standards is to protect the

public health by requiring new and

existing sources to control emissions of

HAP to the level reflecting the

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT). The HAP emitted

by MSW landfills include, but are not

limited to, vinyl chloride, ethyl

benzene, toluene, and benzene. Each of

the HAP emitted from MSW landfills

can cause adverse health effects

provided sufficient exposure. For

example, vinyl chloride can adversely

affect the central nervous system and

has been shown to increase the risk of

liver cancer in humans, while benzene

is known to cause leukemia in humans.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on

or before January 8, 2001.

Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by November 27, 2000, a public

hearing will be held on December 7,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted (in

duplicate, if possible) to: Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention Docket No. A–

98–28, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA

requests a separate copy also be sent to

the contact person listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will begin at 10:00 a.m. and will

be held at EPA’s Office of

Administration Auditorium in Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina, or an

alternate site nearby.

Docket. Docket No. A–98–28 for this

proposal and associated Docket No. A–

88–09 contain supporting information

used in developing the standards. These

dockets are located at the U.S. EPA, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, in

Room M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground

floor, central mall), and may be

inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Michele Laur, Waste and Chemical

Processes Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–5256,

facsimile number (919) 541–0246,

electronic mail (e-mail) address

laur.michele@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments. Comments and data may be

submitted by e-mail to: a-and-rdocket@epa.gov. Electronic comments

must be submitted as an ASCII file to

avoid the use of special characters and

encryption problems and will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect

version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format.

All comments and data submitted in

electronic form must note the docket

number: Docket No. A–98–28. No

confidential business information (CBI)

should be submitted by e-mail.

Electronic comments may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration must clearly distinguish

such information from other comments

and clearly label it ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’. Send

submissions containing such

proprietary information directly to the

following address, and not to the public

docket, to ensure that proprietary

information is not inadvertently placed

in the docket: Attention: Ms. Michele

Laur, c/o OAQPS Document Control

Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W.

Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701.

Do not submit CBI electronically.

The EPA will disclose information

identified as ‘‘Confidential Business

Information’’ only to the extent allowed

and by the procedures set forth in 40

CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies a submission when it is

received by the EPA, the information

may be made available to the public

without further notice to the

commenter.

Public Hearing. Persons interested in

presenting oral testimony or inquiring

as to whether a hearing is to be held

should contact JoLynn Collins, Waste

and Chemical Processes Group,

Emission Standard Division (MD–13),

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66673

27711, telephone (919) 541–5671, at

least 2 days in advance of the public

hearing. The public hearing will provide

interested parties the opportunity to

present data, views, or arguments

concerning these proposed emission

standards.

Docket. The docket is an organized

and complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the

development of this action. The docket

is a dynamic file because material is

added throughout the rulemaking

process. The docketing system is

intended to allow members of the public

and industries involved to readily

identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

rulemaking process. Along with the

proposed and promulgated standards

and their preambles, the contents of the

docket will serve as the record in the

case of judicial review. (See section

307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory

text and other materials related to this

action are available for review in the

docket or copies may be mailed on

request from the Air Docket by calling

(202) 260–7548. A reasonable fee may

be charged for copying docket materials.

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition

to being available in the docket, an

electronic copy of this action is also

available on the WWW through the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN).

Following signature, a copy of this

action will be posted on the TTN’s

policy and guidance page for newly

proposed or promulgated rules http://

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

provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air

pollution control. If more information

regarding the TTN is needed, call the

TTN HELP line at (919) 541–5384.

Regulated Entities. Categories and

entities potentially regulated by this

action:

Category NAICS

code SIC code Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry: Air and water resource and solid waste management.924110 9511 Solid waste landfills.

Industry: Refuse systems—solid waste landfills ............... 562212 4953 Solid waste landfills.

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

924110

4953 Solid waste landfills; Air and water resource and solid

waste management.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. To determine

whether your facility is regulated by this

action, you should carefully examine

the applicability criteria in §§ 63.1935

and 63.1940 of proposed subpart

AAAA. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, contact the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Outline

The information presented in the

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Introduction and Background Information

A. What is the source of authority for

development of NESHAP?

B. What criteria are used in the

development of NESHAP?

C. What are the health effects associated

with municipal solid waste landfills?

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. What source categories are affected by

this proposed rule?

B. What are the primary sources of

emissions and what are the emissions?

C. What is the affected source?

D. What would the proposed rule require?

E. When would I have to begin complying

with the proposed rule?

F. Are new and existing sources defined

differently for purposes of the proposed

rule than for the EG/NSPS and what is

the effect of this difference?

G. How must I demonstrate compliance?

III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule

A. How did EPA select the affected source?

B. How did EPA determine the basis and

level of the proposed rule for existing

and new major sources?

C. How did EPA determine the standard for

area sources?

D. Why is NMOC used as a surrogate for

HAP?

E. How did EPA select the format of the

standard?

F. How did EPA determine the

requirements of the proposed rule?

G. What is the basis for the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction, and

monitoring and reporting requirements?

H. How did EPA determine compliance

dates?

I. What are some of the special issues

affecting MSW landfills?

IV. Summary of the Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Impacts

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Executive Order 13132—Federalism

C. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

D. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in

This Document

ASCII—American Standard Code for

Information Interchange

CAA—Clean Air Act

CBI—Confidential Business Information

CEMS—continuous emissions monitoring

systems

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

CMS—continuous monitoring system

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency

EG—emission guidelines

FR—Federal Register

GACT—generally available control

technology

HAP—hazardous air pollutants

ICR—Information Collection Request

kg/year—kilograms per year

m3—cubic meters

MACT—maximum achievable control

technology

mg/dscm—milligrams per dry standard cubic

meter

mg/m3—milligrams per cubic meter

Mg/year—megagrams per year

MSW—municipal solid waste

NAICS—North American Industrial

Classification System

NESHAP—national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants

ng/dscm—nanograms per dry standard cubic

meter

NMOC—nonmethane organic compounds

NSPS—new source performance standards

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

OAQPS—Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards

OMB—Office of Management and Budget

OP—Office of Policy

PCS—petroleum contaminated soils

PMACT—presumptive maximum achievable

control technology

ppmv—parts per million by volume

Pub. L.—Public Law

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

SIC—Standard Industrial Classification

SSM—startup, shutdown, and malfunction

TTN—Technology Transfer Network

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

U.S.C.—United States Code

VOC—volatile organic compounds

66674 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

I. Introduction and Background

Information

The proposed subpart AAAA is based

on the emission guidelines and new

source performance standards in 40 CFR

part 60, subparts Cc and WWW, with

some additional requirements, and

further ensures the reduction of HAP

emissions from MSW landfills. The

additional requirements above and

beyond the EG/NSPS are provisions for

a SSM plan with the associated records

and reports, reporting of operating

condition deviations for out-of-range

monitoring parameters, and one type of

annual report required by the EG/NSPS

is required to be submitted every 6

months instead of once a year.

A. What Is the Source of Authority for

Development of NESHAP?

Under section 112(d) of the CAA, we

are required to regulate major sources of

the 188 HAP listed in section 112(b). On

July 16, 1992, we published a list of

industrial source categories, which

included MSW landfills, that emit one

or more of these HAP. We must

promulgate standards for the control of

emissions of HAP from both new and

existing major source MSW landfills.

For ‘‘major’’ source MSW landfills

(those that emit 10 tons per year (tpy)

or more of a listed pollutant or 25 tpy

or more of a combination of pollutants),

the CAA requires us to develop

standards that require the application of

MACT.

Under section 112(k) of the CAA, EPA

developed a strategy to control

emissions of HAP from area sources in

urban areas, identifying 33 HAP that

present the greatest threat to public

health in the largest number of urban

areas as the result of emissions from

area sources. Municipal solid waste

landfills were listed as one of the 29

area source categories on July 19, 1999

because 13 of the listed HAP are emitted

from MSW landfills (64 FR 38706).

B. What Criteria Are Used in the

Development of NESHAP?

The CAA requires NESHAP to reflect

the maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of HAP that is achievable for

new and existing major sources. This

level of control is commonly referred to

as the MACT.

The MACT floor is the minimum

control level allowed for NESHAP and

is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the

CAA. In essence, the MACT floor

ensures that all major hazardous air

pollutant emission sources achieve the

level of control already achieved by the

better-controlled and lower-emitting

sources in each category. For new

sources, the MACT floor cannot be less

stringent than the emission control that

is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The standards

for existing sources can be less stringent

than standards for new sources, but they

cannot be less stringent than the average

emission limitation achieved by the

best-performing 12 percent of existing

sources (or the best-performing 5

sources for categories or subcategories

with fewer than 30 sources).

In developing MACT, we also

consider control options that are more

stringent than the floor. We may

establish standards more stringent than

the floor based on the consideration of

cost, nonair quality health and

environmental impacts, and energy

requirements.

Finally, the CAA allows NESHAP to

reflect an alternative standard for area

sources. The alternative standard

provides for the use of generally

available control technologies (GACT)

or management practices to reduce

emissions of HAP.

C. What Are the Health Effects

Associated With Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills?

The proposed rule ensures reductions

of emissions of nearly 30 HAP

including, but not limited to, vinyl

chloride, ethyl benzene, toluene, and

benzene. The degree of adverse effects

to human health from exposure to these

HAP can range from mild to severe. The

extent and degree to which the human

health effects may be experienced are

dependent upon the ambient

concentration observed in the area (as

influenced by emission rates,

meteorological conditions, and terrain);

the frequency of and duration of

exposures; characteristics of exposed

individuals (genetics, age, preexisting

health conditions, and lifestyle), which

vary significantly with the population;

and pollutant-specific characteristics

(toxicity, half-life in the environment,

bioaccumulation, and persistence).

Vinyl Chloride. Acute (short-term)

exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride

in air has resulted in central nervous

system (CNS) effects, such as dizziness,

drowsiness, and headaches in humans.

Chronic (long-term) exposure to vinyl

chloride through inhalation and oral

exposure in humans has resulted in

liver damage. There are human and

animal studies showing adverse effects

which raise a concern about potential

reproductive and developmental

hazards to humans from exposure to

vinyl chloride. Cancer is a major

concern from exposure to vinyl chloride

via inhalation. Vinyl chloride exposure

has been shown to increase the risk of

a rare form of liver cancer in humans.

The EPA has classified vinyl chloride as

a Group A, known human carcinogen.

Ethyl Benzene. Acute exposure to

ethyl benzene in humans results in

respiratory effects, such as throat

irritation and chest constriction,

irritation of the eyes, and neurological

effects such as dizziness. Chronic

exposure to ethyl benzene by inhalation

in humans has shown conflicting results

regarding its effects on the blood.

Animal studies have reported effects on

the blood, liver, and kidneys from

chronic inhalation exposure to ethyl

benzene. No information is available on

the developmental or reproductive

effects of ethyl benzene in humans, but

animal studies have reported

developmental effects, including birth

defects in animals exposed via

inhalation. The EPA has classified ethyl

benzene in Group D, not classifiable as

to human carcinogenicity.

Toluene. Acute inhalation of toluene

by humans may cause effects to the

CNS, such as fatigue, sleepiness,

headache, and nausea, as well as

irregular heartbeat. Repeated exposure

to high concentrations may induce loss

of coordination, tremors, decreased

brain size, involuntary eye movements,

and impaired speech, hearing, and

vision. Chronic inhalation exposure of

humans to lower levels of toluene also

causes irritation of the upper respiratory

tract, eye irritation, sore throat, nausea,

dizziness, headaches, and difficulty

with sleep. Studies of children of

pregnant women exposed by inhalation

to toluene or to mixed solvents have

reported CNS problems, facial and limb

abnormalities, and delayed

development. In addition, inhalation of

toluene during pregnancy may increase

the risk of spontaneous abortion. The

EPA has developed a reference

concentration of 0.4 milligrams per

cubic meter for toluene. Inhalation of

this concentration or less over a lifetime

would be unlikely to result in adverse

noncancer effects. No data exist that

suggest toluene is carcinogenic. The

EPA has classified toluene in Group D,

not classifiable as to human

carcinogenicity.

Benzene. Acute inhalation exposure

of humans to benzene may cause

drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as

well as eye, skin, and respiratory tract

irritation, and, at high levels,

unconsciousness. Chronic inhalation

exposure has caused various disorders

in the blood, including reduced

numbers of red blood cells and aplastic

anemia, in occupational settings.

Reproductive effects have been reported

for women exposed by inhalation to

high levels, and adverse effects on the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66675

developing fetus have been observed in

animal tests. Increased incidence of

leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form

white blood cells) has been observed in

humans occupationally exposed to

benzene. The EPA has classified

benzene as a Group A, known human

carcinogen.

The proposed rule reduces

nonhazardous air pollutant volatile

organic compound (VOC) emissions as

well. Emissions of VOC have been

associated with a variety of health and

welfare impacts. Volatile organic

compound emissions, together with

nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the

formation of tropospheric ozone, or

smog. Exposure to ambient ozone is

responsible for a series of public health

impacts, such as alterations in lung

capacity; eye, nose, and throat irritation;

nausea; and aggravation of existing

respiratory disease. Ozone exposure can

also damage forests and crops.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule contains the same

requirements as the EG/NSPS, plus SSM

definition and reporting of deviations

for out-of-range monitoring parameters.

Also, the proposed rule requires

compliance reporting every 6 months

while the EG/NSPS requires annual

reporting.

A. What Source Categories Are Affected

by This Proposed Rule?

The proposed rule applies to all MSW

landfills that are major sources or are

co-located with a major source, and

some landfills that are area sources.

However, most requirements are

proposed to take effect when landfills

emit equal to or greater than 50

megagrams per year (Mg/year)

nonmethane organic compounds

(NMOC) and have a design capacity

equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg

and 2.5 million cubic meters (m3).

We estimate that all MSW landfills

that are major sources of HAP have a

design capacity equal to or greater than

2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 and

emit or will emit 50 Mg/yr or greater of

NMOC. Therefore the requirements of

the proposed rule would apply to all

MSW landfill major sources. Several

MSW landfill area sources would also

be subject to the requirements of these

proposed standards.

B. What Are the Primary Sources of

Emissions and What Are the Emissions?

The majority of emissions of HAP at

MSW landfills come from the natural

anaerobic (without air) decomposition

of municipal solid waste. Typical

municipal solid waste contains

household and commercial rubbish,

paints, solvents, pesticides, and

adhesives, which contain numerous

organic compounds. During the

decomposition process, landfill gas is

generated. This gas is primarily

composed of methane and carbon

dioxide. The organic compounds in the

decomposing waste are stripped from

the waste by these gases and transported

to the surface, or the organic

compounds travel underground to other

locations prior to their release.

A second but significantly lesser

source of emissions of HAP comes from

the collection, storage and treatment of

landfill leachate. Landfill leachate is a

liquid generated during the waste

decomposition process. This liquid

contains a much smaller concentration

of the same HAP contained in landfill

gas. During collection, storage and

treatment, small amounts of HAP may

volatilize to the air or may come in

contact with groundwater.

Regardless of the emission pathway, it

is the decomposition of organiccontaining solid waste that is the source

of the HAP. Landfills have been

identified as the source of nearly 30

HAP, including but not limited to

toluene, ethyl benzene, vinyl chloride

and benzene. Estimated uncontrolled

emissions from all landfills can be as

high as 36,000 tpy.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

The affected source is the entire

municipal solid waste landfill in a

contiguous geographical space where

household waste is placed in or on the

land and consists of one or more cells

that are under common ownership or

control. The facility may receive

household waste as well as other types

of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) Subtitle D waste. The

affected source may also include

equipment for the collection and control

of landfill gas or leachate.

D. What Would the Proposed Rule

Require?

This proposed rule does not apply to

landfills with a design capacity less

than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3

or that emit less than 50 Mg/yr of

NMOC; these landfills continue to

remain subject to the provisions of the

EG/NSPS as applicable. Landfills with a

design capacity of greater than or equal

to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3

and that emit at least 50 Mg/yr NMOC

also would continue to be subject to the

EG/NSPS as applicable, but there are

additional requirements in this

proposed rule that would apply. Listed

below are the requirements of the

proposed rule that are beyond the EG/

NSPS requirements.

You would be required to meet the

SSM requirements that are listed in the

general provisions to 40 CFR part 63.

You would develop and implement a

written SSM plan that describes, in

detail, the procedures for operating and

maintaining the collection and control

system and the continuous monitoring

system (CMS) during periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction

(§ 63.6(e)(3)). There are also

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for SSM incidents.

The proposed rule would also require

you to operate the control device within

the operating parameter boundaries as

described in § 60.758(c)(1) and to

continuously monitor control device

operating parameters. Compliance with

the operating limits is demonstrated

when monitoring data show that the gas

control devices are operating within the

established operating parameter range.

Compliance also occurs when data

quality is sufficient to constitute a valid

hour of data in a 3-hour block period.

For the proposed rule, deviations

occur when a source’s 3-hour average

falls outside the established boundaries.

A deviation also occurs when more than

1 hour in a 3-hour average is considered

invalid. Monitoring data are insufficient

to calculate a valid hourly average if

measured values are unavailable for

more than one 15-minute period within

the hour. If such a deviation occurs,

then the source may be in violation of

operating conditions (that is, in

violation of proper operation and

maintenance of a control device).

However, consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and

63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during

a period of startup, shutdown, or

malfunction are not violations if you

demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that you were operating in

accordance with the SSM plan. The

Administrator will determine whether

deviations that occur during a period of

startup, shutdown, or malfunction are

violations, according to the provisions

in § 63.6(e). (It should be noted that the

EG/NSPS limits the duration of startup,

shutdown or malfunction. See

§ 60.755(e).)

With one exception, the proposed rule

will also require you to submit the

reports that are specified in 40 CFR part

60, subpart WWW, or in the Federal

plan, the EPA-approved State plan, or

the Tribal plan that implements 40 CFR

part 60 subpart Cc, whichever is

applicable. As an exception, the report

required in § 60.757(f) would be

submitted every 6 months rather than

annually. This report pertains to the

value and duration that control devices

were operating in out-of-bounds

conditions, the duration of periods

66676 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

when the landfill gas stream was

diverted from the control device(s), the

location of areas that exceed the 500

parts per million methane concentration

limit, and the dates of installation and

location of each added well or

collection system expansion.

E. When Would I Have To Begin

Complying With the Proposed Rule?

If your landfill is a new affected

source, you would need to comply with

the proposed rule by [the effective date

of the final rule] or at the time you begin

operating, whichever occurs last. If your

landfill is an existing affected source,

you would need to comply with the

proposed rule by 1 year after [the

effective date of the final rule]. The

compliance dates and time line for the

EG/NSPS are unaffected by this

proposed rule. It is important to note

that to be in compliance with the

proposed rule, you must follow the

requirements of the EG/NSPS, and you

must comply with the additional

requirements included in proposed

subpart AAAA.

F. Are New and Existing Sources

Defined Differently for Purposes of the

Proposed Rule Than for the EG/NSPS

and What Is the Effect of This

Difference?

Yes, there is a difference. For the

proposed rule, a new affected source is

one that commenced construction or

reconstruction (defined in 40 CFR part

63, subpart A) after November 7, 2000.

An existing affected source is any

affected source that is not a new source,

that is, any source that commenced

construction on or before November 7,

2000 and accepted waste at anytime

since November 8, 1987.

For purposes of the NSPS, a new

source is each MSW landfill for which

construction, modification, or

reconstruction commenced on or after

May 30, 1991. For purposes of the EG,

an existing source is any MSW landfill

that is not a new source and has

accepted waste since November 8, 1987.

Because regulatory impacts can vary

based on these different definitions, it is

important for sources to know how they

are defined and the regulatory

implications for each rule that applies to

them. The regulatory implications of

new versus existing source

determination for sources affected by

the EG/NSPS are well understood,

unaffected by this proposed rule, and,

thus, will not be discussed further here.

The regulatory implications of new

versus existing source determination for

sources affected by this proposed rule

are limited to compliance timing. While

new sources must comply with the

proposed subpart by the publication

date of the final rule or at the time they

begin operating, existing sources must

comply with the proposed subpart

within 1 year of the publication of the

final rule.

G. How Must I Demonstrate

Compliance?

You must demonstrate compliance by

meeting the requirements in the EG/

NSPS and by maintaining monitoring

parameters within acceptable ranges. In

addition, you must submit reports every

6 months which must include any

notifications of deviations from the

monitoring parameter values. You must

develop and implement a written SSM

plan according to the provisions in

§ 63.6(e)(3). If you take action during a

SSM event, you must keep records for

that SSM event which demonstrate that

you followed the procedures specified

in the SSM plan. You must submit a

report every 6 months if the action is

consistent with the SSM plan. However,

if the action is not consistent with the

SSM plan, you must notify EPA within

2 days of the SSM event and must

follow up with a letter within 7 days of

the event (§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii)).

III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule

A. How Did EPA Select the Affected

Source?

Selection of the affected source

defines the boundary of the unit to

which the proposed rule applies. This

definition is used in combination with

the term ‘‘reconstruction’’, defined in

§ 63.2, to determine when an ‘‘existing

source’’ becomes a ‘‘new source’’.

The affected source can be narrowly

or broadly defined. If narrowly defined,

identification as a new source may

occur sooner. By contrast, identification

may be delayed or never occur if the

affected source is broadly defined.

A change to new source status can

result in the application of more

stringent control requirements or a

shorter time to comply. Since the

reconstruction of an existing source may

result in greater emissions of HAP, it

may be desirable to require greater or

earlier control.

During the development of the

proposed rule, we considered the

impact of a narrow and broad affected

source definition. This evaluation took

into consideration the nature of the

source category, noting that landfills do

not reconstruct in the same sense as

defined in § 63.2. In addition, we noted

that this proposal requires the same

level of control for new and existing

sources. Based on this evaluation, we

decided to broadly define the affected

source.

B. How Did EPA Determine the Basis

and Level of the Proposed Rule for

Existing and New Major Sources?

To determine the basis and level of

control for existing and new major

sources, we gathered readily available

data on the physical, operational, and

emission characteristics of landfills. In

addition, we made site visits to 20

landfills in seven States to further

characterize the source and the control

technologies in use. From these data, we

developed a database for MSW landfills.

1. How Did EPA Determine the MACT

Floor?

To determine the MACT floor for

existing sources, we used collected data

to estimate emissions, determine major

and area source status, and identify

controls currently in use at landfills. We

determined the source status for 9,539

landfills based on maximum

uncontrolled emission estimates from

landfill gas. We estimated 1,140

facilities are, or will be, major sources

of HAP.

Similarly, we used maximum NMOC

emission estimates and landfill capacity

data to determine the number of

landfills subject to the landfill gas

collection and control requirements of

the EG/NSPS. We identified 1,312

facilities subject to the EG/NSPS level of

control. We determined that the 1,140

major sources are a subset of the EG/

NSPS facilities. Since substantially

greater than 12 percent of the existing

major sources apply this level of

control, we determined that the MACT

floor for existing sources is the EG/

NSPS level of control.

To determine the MACT floor for new

sources, we tried to locate information

identifying gas control technologies that

are more effective than the controls

required by the EG/NSPS. We were

unable to locate any information

identifying any landfill gas emissions

control technologies that are more

effective in reducing HAP emissions

than the controls required under the EG/

NSPS for MSW landfills. Because no

better controls are available, the EG/

NSPS is the emission control achieved

in practice by the best controlled similar

source and, therefore, is also the MACT

floor for new sources.

The EG/NSPS do not address

emissions from landfill wastewater.

Landfill wastewater emissions were

evaluated for the proposed rule because

emissions of HAP are possible at any

point in a landfill wastewater collection,

storage, and treatment system that is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66677

open to the atmosphere. However, we

have found no information on the

prevalence or effectiveness of any

practices that may reduce air emissions

from wastewater collection and

treatment at landfills. As a result, we

have been unable to identify a MACT

floor for landfill wastewater emission

points.

Limited data are available to

characterize the potential emissions of

HAP from landfill wastewater. However,

the available data indicate that volatile

concentrations of HAP in landfill

wastewater are low. We developed

emission estimates for HAP using

several worst case assumptions, such as

assuming that all HAP from landfill

wastewater would volatilize and be

released to the atmosphere, and using

median reported HAP concentrations

and maximum estimates of all

wastewater produced at landfills. Even

with these conservative assumptions,

we estimate that total nationwide

emissions from wastewater operations at

all of the landfills in the United States

are no more than 57 tpy of HAP. We

expect that this estimate is high for the

reasons stated. When considering that

there are more than 10,000 landfills in

the United States, the amount of HAP

released from any one landfill’s

wastewater operations would be very

small. We estimate that emissions from

landfill wastewater represent no more

than 0.4 percent of the combined

landfill gas-wastewater emissions.

Metal HAP, including mercury, may

be emitted from landfills and would not

be controlled by the EG/NSPS control

technologies. No controls for emissions

of metal HAP have been demonstrated

for landfill gas or landfill gas

combustion technologies. Therefore, the

MACT floor for metal HAP is no control.

2. How Did EPA Consider Beyond-theFloor Options?

The EG/NSPS requirements for

landfill gas collection and emissions

reductions are the best available control

for landfill gas. Therefore, there were no

options to consider that were more

stringent than the MACT floor for

landfill gas control. The gas collection

system required by the EG/NSPS

(described in § 60.753) is designed to

capture as much landfill gas as possible

and requires several parameters to be

monitored to ensure this, including

pressure, nitrogen or oxygen

concentration, temperature, and surface

methane concentration. There are no

data indicating that collection systems

are in use that are more effective than

those required by the EG/NSPS.

Similarly, there are no known

technologies that can regularly achieve

reduction efficiencies greater than those

specified in the EG/NSPS. The EG/NSPS

regulations require 98 percent reduction

efficiency for NMOC, or a maximum

outlet concentration of 20 parts per

million by volume (ppmv) if an

enclosed combustion device is used.

These reduction efficiencies can be

regularly achieved by several types of

control technologies with proper

operation.

Because there are no collection and

control technologies more stringent than

the EG/NSPS, MACT for both existing

and new sources is the same as the

MACT floor, that is the control level of

the EG/NSPS.

We have been unable to identify a

MACT floor for landfill wastewater

because we have not found information

on the prevalence of any practices that

may reduce air emissions from

wastewater collection and treatment.

Therefore, we were unable to consider

control options, and we propose that the

MACT not include any control

requirements or emission limits for

these operations. As previously stated,

emissions from landfill wastewater are

expected to be minimal, no more than

0.4 percent of all landfill emissions.

The EG/NSPS do not require control

of emissions of metal HAP, and no

capture devices or controls for metals

have been demonstrated for landfill gas

or for landfill gas combustion

technologies. For this reason, the MACT

floor and the MACT for control of metal

HAP at new and existing major source

landfills are no control, and no other

options were considered.

C. How Did EPA Determine the

Standard for Area Sources?

The CAA requires control of area

sources listed pursuant to section

112(c). Under section 112(k), we must

consider regulation of any listed area

source category and ultimately regulate

enough such categories to account for 90

percent of the aggregate emissions of the

identified HAP. We are proposing to

regulate some area source landfills, but

do not believe that all area source

landfills warrant regulation to meet the

requirements of section 112(k).

Area sources may be controlled using

MACT or GACT. To determine control

requirements for area sources, we

reviewed the area sources and their

emissions profile and are proposing to

apply GACT to these sources. For MSW

area source landfills that are 2.5 million

Mg and 2.5 million m3 or greater in

design capacity, and that emit 50 Mg per

year or more of NMOC (or

approximately 5.9 Mg of HAP per year),

EPA has selected GACT to be the same

as MACT. The EG/NSPS already cover

these sources, so requiring GACT does

not impose additional control burdens

on these sources. Additionally, as

discussed in the previous section, there

are no control options more stringent

than those required by the EG/NSPS.

For MSW landfills smaller than 2.5

million Mg or 2.5 million m3, or that

emit less than 50 Mg per year of NMOC,

this proposal requires no control for

area sources. These landfills are costly

to control, and they emit relatively little

HAP. During the development of the

EG/NSPS, we also made a decision not

to control these smaller landfills. As

discussed in the preamble to the EG/

NSPS (61 FR 9916), the design capacity

exemption of 2.5 million Mg or 2.5

million m3 excludes those landfills that

can least afford the cost of landfill gas

collection and control systems, for

example, small businesses and,

particularly, municipalities.

Furthermore, the analysis for the EG/

NSPS found that a more stringent design

capacity exemption level would

increase the number of landfills

required to apply control, while only

achieving an additional 25 percent

NMOC emissions reduction. The

emission rate cutoff of 50 Mg per year

of NMOC, in conjunction with the

design capacity exemption, required

control of less than 5 percent of all

landfills (at the time of EG/NSPS

promulgation), but reduced NMOC

emissions by approximately 53 percent.

Other reasons for exempting the

smaller area source landfills from

control requirements exist. For example,

many existing area source MSW

landfills are closed (82 percent were

closed as of January 1999). Landfill

emissions are at their highest level

within the year right after closure and

then begin to decrease steadily. Thus,

landfills are a unique emissions source,

because they have naturally diminishing

emissions over time. It makes little

sense to require expensive controls for

small, closed area source landfills when

their emissions are low and will

decrease over time. As emissions

decrease, there would be a dramatic

decrease in the average cost

effectiveness per Mg of NMOC

reduction achieved through control of

small, closed area source landfills.

Most new landfills will be much

larger than the design capacity cutoff of

2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3.

Economies-of-scale make it cheaper to

operate larger facilities, thus

encouraging companies and

municipalities to build ever larger

landfills that receive waste from larger

areas. Whereas waste was previously

moved not much farther than 15 miles

from point-of-origin to the landfill, it

66678 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

now moves an average of 45 miles, and

the trend is increasing. The effect of this

will be to ensure that future facilities

will be very large to be cost competitive.

D. Why Is NMOC Used As a Surrogate

for HAP?

The proposed rule would require the

collection and control of landfill gas,

which is the same pollutant regulated

by the EG/NSPS. By volume, landfill gas

is approximately 50 percent methane,

50 percent carbon dioxide, and less than

1 percent of many different NMOC.

Nonmethane organic compounds

include VOC, HAP, and odorous

compounds. Therefore, by collecting

and controlling landfill gas, HAP

emitted by landfills are collected and

controlled. To reduce the burden and

complexity of measuring and

monitoring the various HAP, NMOC is

specified as a surrogate in the proposed

rule for determining the applicability of

collection and control of HAP

emissions. Nonmethane organic

compounds are an appropriate surrogate

for HAP because all HAP are contained

in the NMOC portion of landfill gas.

Also, landfill owners and operators are

already required to estimate NMOC

under the EG/NSPS. It is not necessary

to increase the burden by requiring

specific HAP measurements.

E. How Did EPA Select the Format of the

Standard?

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires

that emission standards for control of

HAP be prescribed unless, in the

judgement of the Administrator, it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce emission

standards. Section 112(h) identifies two

conditions under which it is not

considered feasible to prescribe or

enforce emission standards: (1) If the

HAP cannot be emitted through a

conveyance designed and constructed to

emit or capture such pollutant, or (2) if

the application of measurement

methodology to a particular class of

sources is not practicable due to

technological and economic limitation.

If it is not feasible to prescribe or

enforce emission standards, then the

Administrator may instead promulgate

design, equipment, work practice, and

operational standards, or a combination

of these.

We concluded that the format used in

the EG/NSPS was appropriate for the

proposed rule for this source category

for the same reasons the format was

selected for the EG/NSPS. An emission

standard is not appropriate for gas

collection system design because it is

not feasible to measure gas generated

versus gas collected at a landfill, and

then to determine what performance a

collection system is achieving.

Monitoring of surface concentration

alone will not demonstrate the fraction

of gas that is collected, nor will it

determine whether the system is

designed and performing optimally.

However, monitoring surface

concentrations will indicate when cover

maintenance and well adjustments

should be made, as well as when

additional wells should be added to the

collection system. Surface monitoring

also provides a safeguard against

uncertainties in determining the area of

influence of the wells.

Because an emission standard is not

feasible for gas collection, a design and

operational standard was set under the

EG/NSPS for gas collection systems. The

specifications for active collection

systems do not give prescriptive design

specifications, but they do present

criteria on which to base a collection

system design plan. The EG/NSPS set an

emission standard for the control

devices because once gas is collected,

the destruction efficiency of a control

device can be established.

F. How Did EPA Determine the

Requirements of the Proposed Rule?

To determine the requirements of the

proposed rule, the EPA compared the

two statutory authorities that regulate

landfills. Landfills are already regulated

in the EG/NSPS under authority of

section 111 of the CAA. The proposed

rule would regulate landfills as required

under section 112. We compared the

requirements of section 112, which

requires regulations to control HAP, to

the requirements of section 111, which

regulates the emissions of landfill gas

pursuant to the EG/NSPS. We

determined that there are no better

controls than the collection and control

system required by the EG/NSPS.

Therefore, the proposed rule

incorporates the control requirements of

the EG/NSPS as MACT. The next step

was to determine if the rules

promulgated under section 111 met all

the section 112 rule requirements.

We compared the general provisions

developed for regulations under these

two CAA sections. The essential

differences between the section 111

general provisions and the section 112

general provisions are the SSM

provisions, continuous parameter

monitoring data being a measure of

compliance with the operating

conditions, and reporting of deviations

every 6 months as opposed to annual

reporting. Therefore, the proposed rule

contains the provisions of the EG/NSPS,

plus the provisions discussed above

from section 112.

G. What Is the Basis for the Startup,

Shutdown, and Malfunction and

Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements?

In the proposed rule, we have

included the recordkeeping

requirements in the 40 CFR part 63

general provisions (59 FR 12408, March

16, 1994) requiring operators to develop

a plan for how gas collection and

control systems would be operated

during SSM events, and how

malfunctioning gas collection and

control systems would be repaired. We

believe that it is appropriate to require

compliance on a continual basis for

sources that emit HAP. We require a

SSM plan because deviations occur

during SSM events, that is, air pollution

is emitted in quantities greater than

anticipated by the applicable standards.

The plan is a means to minimize the

emissions to the extent possible.

Deviations from the requirements of

the standards are typically direct

indications of noncompliance with the

emission standards, and, therefore, are

directly enforceable. Therefore, an

owner or operator must demonstrate

that the SSM plan was followed during

an SSM event that has caused the

deviation to certify compliance with the

emission standards.

You must keep records of all periods

of SSM events of gas collection and

control equipment and all

measurements taken during these

periods. This approach is consistent

with the requirement that control

systems be operated at all times, but it

allows special situations to occur, such

as unpredicted and reasonably

unavoidable failures of air pollution

control systems, when it is technically

impossible to properly operate these

systems.

Rules developed under section 112 of

the CAA typically include monitoring

strategies that incorporate the concepts

of enhanced monitoring that were

established in section 114(a)(3) of the

CAA. This approach is designed to

ensure that monitoring procedures

developed for section 112 standards

provide data that can be used to

determine compliance with applicable

standards, including emission

standards.

For the proposed rule, continuous

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS)

are not appropriate. We considered use

of CEM but found them to be infeasible

due to the lack of CEM technology for

landfill sources regulated by the

proposed rule. Therefore, we

established operating parameters that

must be continuously monitored to

determine a facility’s compliance status.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66679

To determine compliance status,

parameters must be monitored with a

frequency that will allow the source

owner or operator to certify whether

compliance is continuous or

intermittent for each recordkeeping

period associated with the applicable

emission limitation or standard. For the

proposed rule, control device operating

parameters will be directly enforceable

and will be used to determine a source’s

compliance status.

H. How Did EPA Determine Compliance

Dates?

The compliance date for existing

sources is required by section 112(i)(3)

of the CAA to be as ‘‘* * *

expeditiously as practicable, but in no

event later than 3 years after the

effective date * * *.’’ We are proposing

a compliance date of 1 year after

publication of the final rule for existing

sources. One year was chosen because

much of the effort required to comply

with the proposed rule is already taken

into account under compliance with the

EG/NSPS. The only additional

requirement under the proposed rule

will be for a source to prepare a SSM

plan and prepare to submit reports

every 6 months rather than annually

under the EG/NSPS. We consider 1 year

sufficient time to make these

adjustments. Also, the additional

requirements do not go into effect until

a landfill has met the collection control

applicability criteria of the EG/NSPS

(design capacity of equal to or greater

than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3

and emit equal to or greater than 50 Mg/

yr of NMOC). This may result in certain

sources having additional time to

prepare for compliance with the

proposed rule.

The compliance date for new sources

must be the effective date of the final

rule as required by section 112(i)(1) of

the CAA. Section 112(d)(10) provides

that regulations promulgated under

section 112(d) are effective upon

publication. However, although a new

source must be in compliance by the

effective date of the final rule, a majority

of the provisions of the proposed rule

will only apply to landfills with a

design capacity of equal to or greater

than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3,

and will not take effect until a source

emits equal to or greater than 50 Mg/

year of NMOC, and is required to install

controls under the EG/NSPS.

Because of the large number of

landfills, the nature of landfills history,

and the fact that emissions steadily

decrease after closure, we determined

that an applicability date was needed to

make the proposed rule manageable.

November 8, 1987 was chosen as that

date for the reasons outlined in the

preamble of the proposed EG/NSPS (56

FR 24468, May 30, 1991).

I. What Are Some of the Special Issues

Affecting MSW Landfills?

1. Petroleum Contaminated Soil

The majority of emissions of HAP at

MSW landfills come from the

biodegradation of the municipal solid

waste in the landfill in the form of

landfill gas emissions. However, some

landfills may also emit HAP from

volatilization of HAP contained in their

surface covers if they use petroleum

contaminated soils (PCS) as cover

material.

Available information indicates

several States allow the use of PCS as

daily cover, but we do not know how

many landfills actually use PCS. Also,

most States impose some level of

restriction on the use of PCS, such as

limiting concentration of total

petroleum hydrocarbons allowed in the

soil, but those restrictions appear to be

based on water quality concerns and

vary by State, or sometimes on a caseby-case basis within a State.

Additionally, it appears that PCS used

at landfills may be declining. It appears

that most PCS used at landfills are

obtained from the excavation and

remediation of underground storage

tanks. Available information indicates

that the number of underground storage

tanks that are being excavated for

removal is declining and that, in many

instances, States are simply allowing the

excavated soil to be returned to the

excavation site. Therefore, we believe

that the amount of PCS available for use

as cover material at landfills is

declining. Finally, little is known about

control of air emissions from PCS in use

at landfills, but available information

indicates that there is little or no

control. An important consideration in

this matter is one of overall emissions.

Again, evidence indicates that the

majority of air emissions from PCS may

occur during excavation, storage, and

transport prior to entering the

boundaries of a landfill for use as cover

material.

We are soliciting comment about the

use of PCS at MSW landfills.

Specifically, we are interested in any

information regarding the amount of

PCS used and the number of landfills

using them, as well as levels of

contamination (in terms of total

petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations

or total benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene,

and xylene). On the basis of our current

information on emissions and controls

for landfilling PCS, we do not consider

this a landfill issue. We plan to evaluate

PCS in the context of a future MACT

standard for site remediation activities.

2. Mercury Emissions From Landfills

We are also seeking information with

respect to mercury emissions from

landfills. Municipal solid waste

landfills receive refuse that contains

mercury in organic and inorganic forms.

Common wastes that contain mercury

that are routinely disposed of in

landfills include thermometers,

batteries, light switches, thermostats,

and fluorescent lights. Mercury has been

identified as one of the many HAP

present in landfill gas. Furthermore,

mercury has been identified in

emissions from the working face of

landfills, that is, it is emitted from waste

being deposited at the surface of the

landfill prior to burial. Mercury

emissions have also been measured in

trucks transporting waste to landfills

and in waste transfer containers, such as

dumpsters and curbside waste carts.

Thus, it is clear that mercury is emitted

from MSW prior to the waste entering

landfills.

Insufficient data are available to us to

adequately characterize the

concentrations of mercury in landfill

gas, the emissions of mercury in fugitive

landfill gas, and in residuals from

landfill gas combustion devices.

Although we have concluded that the

MACT floor for mercury control is no

control, we are interested in

characterizing mercury in landfill gas

because of its bioaccumulative capacity

and known health effects. We

specifically request comment or data on

mercury concentrations in landfill gas,

mercury emissions from fugitive landfill

gas, and from landfill gas control

devices.

3. Bioreactor Operation of Landfills

Conventional MSW landfills currently

practice ‘‘dry tomb’’ operations. Dry

tomb operations means the infiltration

of liquids into the solid waste stream is

minimized. This can be accomplished

by placement of bottom and side liners

and by placement of a low permeability

final cap over the waste. In addition,

some sites install and operate systems to

remove leachate produced during the

natural biodegradation process. The

rationale for using this method was

minimization of groundwater

contamination. The method also

resulted in a slower biodegradation

process and reduced landfill gas.

A newer concept, bioreactor

operation, is gaining interest in the solid

waste industry. In contrast to

conventional landfilling, bioreactor

operation attempts to maximize liquid

infiltration of the solid waste stream by

66680 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

leachate recirculation and in some cases

by the introduction of other liquids.

Bioreactor landfill operations can take

one of two forms, aerobic or anaerobic,

each with its own potential benefits and

risks. In general, the rationale for using

either or both of these methods is the

potential achievement of improved

environmental and economic benefits

such as:

• More rapid biodegradation and

earlier stabilization of waste;

• Extended use of current sites and

reduced need for new sites;

• Improved quality of leachate and

reduced risk of groundwater

contamination; and

• Earlier and more rapid generation of

landfill gas resulting in more

economical energy recovery.

While we agree that some

environmental benefits may result from

either or both forms of bioreactor

operation at landfills, we are concerned

about the potential impact on public

health and the environment.

The operation of a landfill as an

aerobic bioreactor requires the injection

of air along with the addition of liquids.

This operation may result in the rapid

decomposition of waste, the generation

of large quantities of gases such as

carbon dioxide, and increased internal

landfill temperature. During this type of

operation, there is potential for fugitive

emissions of VOC and HAP unless

aggressive steps are taken to collect and

control these emissions. In addition, the

combination of air in the waste stream

and increased internal landfill

temperature could increase the potential

for a landfill fire. Once started, landfill

fires are difficult to extinguish and

potentially lead to increased release of

dioxin/furan emissions from the

combustion of municipal solid waste.

Active prevention of landfill fires may

need to include frequent monitoring of

landfill temperatures, as well as the

development of a contingency plan

should a fire occur. If the potential for

a fire is great enough, it may be

inappropriate to allow aerobic

bioreactor operation.

The operation of a landfill as an

anaerobic bioreactor may result in

generation of landfill gas, including

methane, sooner after waste deposition

and at a more rapid rate than with

conventional landfilling. Current solid

waste Federal rules, 40 CFR part 60,

subparts Cc and WWW, do not require

the collection and control of landfill gas

unless the site is 2.5 million Mg in size

and has estimated NMOC emissions of

50 Mg per year or more. The NMOC

emissions estimate is based on a

methane generation rate, k, derived from

conventional landfilling data. The use of

this ‘‘k’’ value may not be appropriate

under bioreactor landfill operations

since the methane generation rate is

expected to be much greater under these

conditions. A value greater than the

current regulatory value, 0.05 per year,

may be more appropriate. In addition,

sites currently required to control

landfill gas need not control it until the

waste is 2 years old in closed cells or

cells at final grade, or 5 years old in

active cells. The timing of gas collection

and control was based on conventional

landfilling practices. This timing may

not be appropriate under anaerobic

bioreactor operations. To prevent

increased emissions, it may be more

appropriate to delay liquid addition

until a final cap is in place or until gas

collection and control has begun,

regardless of the age of the waste in

active or closed cells.

There are little data available on full

scale anaerobic bioreactor landfill

operations and even less data on aerobic

bioreactor landfill operations. In

addition, a great deal of uncertainty

exists regarding the health and

environmental impacts associated with

each form of bioreactor operation.

Current solid waste Federal rules may

not adequately address the health and

environmental impacts associated with

either form of bioreactor operation.

Therefore, EPA requests comment on

amending the NSPS to require the

application of collection and control

systems to aerobic bioreactor cells, and

require the use of a higher ‘‘k’’ value for

anaerobic bioreactor cells which could

result in the installation and operation

of collection and control systems sooner

after waste deposition in these cells.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Impacts

We foresee minimal economic

impacts to major sources because all of

these landfills are currently required to

comply with the EG/NSPS. The

proposed rule would only impose a

requirement to prepare a SSM plan, the

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for SSM events, and

semiannual reports instead of annual

reports. The expected annual cost to

affected major source landfills is only

$1,700 (1998 dollars), which represents

less than 0.001 percent of the tipping

fees collected by an average sized

landfill. For more information on the

economic impacts of the proposed

standards, refer to the economic impact

analysis in the docket.

We also foresee no environmental,

energy, or economic impacts for

collection and control of landfill gas to

area source landfills. As with major

source landfills, all area source landfills

subject to the proposed rule are already

required to implement the EG/NSPS.

Area source landfills that are too small

to trigger the EG/NSPS applicability are

not subject to control under the

proposed standards and, therefore, will

not incur impacts.

The additional requirements for the

SSM plan and the semiannual report are

projected to affect approximately 1,309

MSW landfills in the first year. The

estimated average annual burden for

industry for the first 3 years after

promulgation of the final rule would be

39,276 person-hours annually. There

will be $13,128 of operation and

maintenance costs associated with

monitoring or recordkeeping during the

first 3 years.

It is possible that a source exists that

is major but is not subject to the

collection and control requirements of

the EG/NSPS. This could occur if a

landfill does not meet the EG/NSPS

collection and control applicability

criteria, and the contribution of

emissions of HAP from collocated

operations causes the full source to emit

at major source levels. We do not have

any data to indicate that this situation

exists, and we believe that this situation

is unlikely to occur. Therefore, no

impacts were assessed for this category

of facilities.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’, and therefore, subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66681

that the proposed rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because

it will not have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more and it

does not impose any additional control

requirements above the 1996 EG/NSPS.

The EPA considered the 1996 EG/NSPS

to be ‘‘significant’’ because the 1996 EG/

NSPS were expected to have an annual

effect on the economy in excess of $100

million. The EPA submitted the 1996

EG/NSPS to OMB for review (61 FR

9905, March 12, 1996). However, the

proposed rule is projected to have no

significant impact above the 1996 EG/

NSPS. Consequently, the proposed rule

is not submitted to OMB for review

under Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (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’’ are 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’’. Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. The EPA also may not issue

a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the EPA consults with State

and local officials early in the process

of developing the proposed regulation.

If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

provide to the OMB, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a federalism summary impact

statement. The federalism summary

impact statement must include a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with State and local

officials, a summary of the nature of

their concerns and the EPA’s position

supporting the need to issue the

regulation, and a statement of the extent

to which the concerns of State and local

officials have been met. Also, when EPA

transmits a draft final rule with

federalism implications to OMB for

review pursuant to Executive Order

12866, EPA must include a certification

from its federalism official stating that

EPA has met the requirements of

Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful

and timely manner.

The proposed rule for MSW landfills

will 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

EPA has concluded that the proposed

rule may create a mandate on a number

of city and county governments, and the

Federal government would not provide

the funds necessary to pay the direct

costs incurred by these city and county

governments in complying with the

mandate. However, the proposed rule

does not impose any additional control

costs or result in any additional control

requirements above those considered

during promulgation of the 1996 EG/

NSPS. In developing the 1996 EG/NSPS,

EPA consulted extensively with State

and local governments to enable them to

provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of that rulemaking.

Because the control requirements of the

proposed rule are substantially the same

as those developed in 1996, these

previous consultations still apply. For a

discussion of EPA’s consultations with

State and local governments, the nature

of the governments’ concerns, and

EPA’s position supporting the need for

the specific control requirements

included in both the EG/NSPS and the

proposed rule, see the preamble to the

1996 EG/NSPS (60 FR 9918, March 12,

1996). Thus, the requirements of section

6 of the Executive Order do not apply

to the proposed rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, 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 OMB, 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’’.

The proposed rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

the proposed rule.

D. 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,

EPA 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 EPA.

The 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 rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866, and because it

is 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 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,

the EPA generally must prepare a

written statement, including a costVerDate 11<MAY>2000 09:33 Nov 06, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 07NOP1
66682 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

benefit analysis, for proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and tribal governments, in 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 the 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 the EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly, most cost-effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before the 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.

The EPA has determined that the

proposed rule does 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. The maximum total annual

cost of the proposed rule for any year

has been estimated to be less than $2.2

million. Thus, the proposed rule is not

subject to the requirements of section

202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition,

the EPA has determined that the

proposed rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments

because the burden is small and the

regulation does not unfairly apply to

small government. Therefore, the

proposed rule is not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of the

URMA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The 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 certified that the rule will not

have a significant impact or a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact

of the proposed rule, small entities are

defined as: (1) A small business that is

primarily engaged in the collection and

disposal of refuse in a landfill operation

as defined by SIC codes 4953 and 5911

with annual receipts less than 6 million

dollars; (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-for-profit

enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of the proposed rule for MSW

landfills on small entities, we certify

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. We

have determined that small entities will

experience little impact since this

proposed rule will rely on the

requirements specified in 40 CFR part

60, subparts Cc and WWW. Additional

requirements for the proposed rule are

limited to a slight increase in the

reporting frequency of some reports and

the development of a SSM plan. This

increase in requirements leads to an

increase in annual costs to each affected

landfill of only $1,700 (1998 dollars), an

increase of less than 0.001 percent of the

tipping fees taken in by a landfill of

average size nationally. Hence, the

estimated impacts to small

communities, organizations, and firms

from the proposed rule should be

insignificant. For more information on

the economic impacts of the proposed

rule, refer to the economic impact

analysis in the docket.

Although the proposed rule for MSW

landfills will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, EPA

nonetheless has tried to reduce the

impact of this proposed rule on small

entities. To that end, we have evaluated

the operational practices, collection

systems and control systems required by

40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW,

for co-control environmental benefits.

Since the requirements in 40 CFR part

60, subparts Cc and WWW, adequately

address the emissions of HAP while

controlling landfill gas, we are using

these same requirements with only a

slight increase in reporting activity/

frequency for this rulemaking. In

addition to the reduction effort, we have

performed a number of outreach

activities to interact with small entities

during the development of the proposed

rule. We have held formal stakeholder

meetings. We have presented rule

related information at national

conferences sponsored by the trade

organizations for these entities, and we

requested the establishment of an

electronic link between the

International City/County Management

Association website and our rule

development website. Through the

efforts discussed above, small entities

have been engaged in the development

of the proposed rule. We continue to be

interested in the potential impacts of the

proposed rule on small entities and

welcome comments or issues related to

such impacts.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

An Information Collection Request

(ICR) document has been prepared for

the proposed rule by EPA (ICR No.

1938.01) and submitted to OMB for

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. A

copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer by mail at the Office of

Environmental Information, Collection

Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (2822), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460, by e-mail at

farmer.sandy@epa.gov or by calling

(202) 260–2740. A copy may also be

downloaded off the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/icr.

Comments are requested on the EPA’s

need for this information, the accuracy

of the provided burden estimates, and

any suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques. Send comments on the ICR

to the Director, Office of Environmental

Information, Collection Strategies

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460,

and to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA (ICR Tracking No. 1938.01)’’.

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after November

7, 2000, a comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it by December 7, 2000. The

final rule will respond to any OMB or

public comments on the information

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66683

collection requirements contained in the

proposed rule.

The information would be used by the

EPA to ensure that the requirements for

the proposed rule are implemented

properly and are complied with on a

continuous basis. Records and reports

are necessary to enable EPA to identify

MSW landfills that may not be in

compliance with this standard. Based

on reported information, EPA would

decide which landfills should be

inspected and what records or processes

should be inspected. The records that

owners or operators of MSW landfills

maintain would indicate to EPA

whether personnel are operating and

maintaining control equipment

properly.

The proposed rule is projected to

affect approximately 1,309 MSW

landfills in the first year. The estimated

average annual burden for industry for

the first 3 years after promulgation of

the proposed rule would be 39,276

person-hours annually. There will be

$13,128 of operation and maintenance

costs associated with monitoring or

recordkeeping during the first 3 years.

The estimated average annual burden,

over the first 3 years, for the

implementing agency would be 21,105

hours with a cost of $843,150 (including

travel expenses) per year.

Burden means 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

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No.

104–113), all Federal agencies are

required to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS) in their regulatory and

procurement activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices) developed or

adopted by one or more voluntary

consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires

Federal agencies such as EPA to provide

Congress, through annual reports to the

OMB, with explanations when an

agency does not use available and

applicable VCS.

The proposed rule references 40 CFR

part 60, subpart WWW—Standards of

Performance for Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills. Since there are no new

standard requirements in the proposed

rule, and there are no new technical

standard requirements resulting from

specifying subpart WWW in this

proposal, EPA is not proposing/

adopting any VCS in the proposed rule.

The EPA takes comment on proposed

compliance demonstration requirements

in the proposed rule and specifically

invites the public to identify

potentially-applicable VCS.

Commenters should also explain why

the proposed rule should adopt these

VCS in lieu of EPA’s standards.

Emission test methods and performance

specifications submitted for evaluation

should be accompanied with a basis for

the recommendation, including method

validation data and the procedure used

to validate the candidate method (if

method other than Method 301, 40 CFR

part 63, appendix A was used).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons cited in the preamble,

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended

by adding a new subpart AAAA to read

as follows:

Subpart AAAA—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.1930 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?

63.1940 What parts of my facility does this

subpart cover?

63.1945 When do I have to comply with

this subpart?

63.1950 When am I no longer required to

comply with this subpart?

Standards

63.1955 What requirements must I meet?

General and Continuing Compliance

Requirements

63.1960 How is compliance determined?

63.1965 What is a deviation?

63.1970 Are there any deviations that are

not considered out of compliance?

63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour

block average used to demonstrate

compliance?

Notifications, Reports and Records

63.1980 What records and reports must I

keep and submit?

Other Requirements and Information

63.1985 Who enforces this subpart?

63.1990 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

Tables

Table 1 of subpart AAAA—Part 63

General Provisions

Applicable Paragraphs

What This Subpart Covers

§ 63.1930 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

This subpart establishes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for existing and

new municipal solid waste (MSW)

landfills. This subpart requires all

landfills to meet the requirements of 40

CFR part 60, subpart Cc or WWW. This

subpart also requires landfills to meet

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction

(SSM) requirements of the general

provisions of this part and provides that

compliance with the operating

conditions are demonstrated by

parameter monitoring results that are

within the specified ranges. It also

includes additional reporting

requirements.

§ 63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?

Yes, if you own or operate a MSW

landfill that is a major source, is colocated with a major source, or is an

area source that meets the design

capacity and control criteria specified in

the 40 CFR Part 60 new source

66684 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

performance standards (NSPS), you

must collect and control landfill gas

according to the requirements specified

in the NSPS. In addition, each area

source subject to this subpart is required

to obtain a title V permit. Finally, most

of the requirements of this subpart will

not take effect until your landfill emits

equal to or greater than 50 Mg/yr NMOC

and has a design capacity equal to or

greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5

million m3.

§ 63.1940 What parts of my facility does

this subpart cover?

(a) The affected source for this subpart

is each new or existing MSW landfill

that has accepted waste at anytime since

November 8, 1987, or has additional

design capacity available for future

waste deposition.

(b) An affected source is a new source

if you commenced construction or

reconstruction after November 7, 2000.

An affected source is reconstructed if

you meet the criteria as defined in

§ 63.2.

(c) An affected source is existing if it

is not new.

§ 63.1945 When do I have to comply with

this subpart?

(a) If your landfill is a new affected

source, you must comply with this

subpart by [DATE OF PUBLICATION

OF FINAL RULE] or at the time you

begin operating, whichever occurs last.

(b) If your landfill is an existing

affected source, you must comply with

the standards by [DATE ONE YEAR

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL

RULE].

§ 63.1950 When am I no longer required to

comply with this subpart?

You are no longer required to comply

with the requirements of this subpart

when you are no longer required to

apply controls as specified in

§ 60.752(b)(2)(v) of 40 CFR part 60,

subpart WWW, or the Federal plan or

EPA-approved and effective State plan

or Tribal plan that implements 40 CFR

part 60, subpart Cc, whichever is

applicable.

Standards

§ 63.1955 What requirements must I meet?

(a) You must fulfill one of the

requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or (2)

of this section, whichever is applicable:

(1) Comply with the requirements of

40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW.

(2) Comply with the requirements of

the Federal plan or EPA-approved and

effective State plan or Tribal plan that

implements 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

(b) If you are required by

§ 60.752(b)(2) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart

WWW, the Federal plan, EPA approved

State or Tribal plan, to install a

collection and control system, you must

comply with the general provisions

specified in Table 1 of this subpart.

General and Continuing Compliance

Requirements

§ 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, and continuous parameter

monitoring. In addition, continuous

parameter monitoring data, collected

under § 60.756(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d), of

40 CFR part 60, are used to demonstrate

compliance with the operating

conditions for control systems. If a

deviation occurs, you have failed to

meet the control device operating

conditions described in this subpart and

have deviated from the requirements of

this subpart. Finally, you must develop

and implement a written SSM plan

according to the provisions in

§ 63.6(e)(3). A copy of the SSM plan

must be maintained on site. Failure to

write, implement, or maintain a copy of

the SSM plan is a deviation from the

requirements of this subpart.

§ 63.1965 What is a deviation?

(a) A deviation occurs when the

control device operating parameter

boundaries described in 40 CFR

60.758(c)(1) are exceeded.

(b) A deviation occurs when 1 hour or

more of the hours during the 3-hour

block averaging period does not

constitute a valid hour of data due to

insufficient monitoring data. An hour of

monitoring data are insufficient if

measured values are unavailable for

more than one 15-minute period within

the hour.

(c) A deviation occurs when a SSM

plan is not developed, implemented, or

maintained on site.

§ 63.1970 Are there any deviations that are

not considered out of compliance?

Yes, consistent with 40 CFR 60.755(e),

§§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that

occur during a period of startup,

shutdown, or malfunction are not

violations if you demonstrate to the

Administrator’s satisfaction that you

were operating in accordance with the

SSM plan. The Administrator will

determine whether deviations that occur

during a period of startup, shutdown, or

malfunction are violations, according to

the provisions in § 63.6(e).

§ 63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour

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 the

data collected during the events listed

in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this

section are not to be included in any

average computed under this subpart:

(a) Monitoring system breakdowns,

repairs, calibration checks, and zero

(low-level) and high-level adjustments.

(b) Startups.

(c) Shutdowns.

(d) Malfunctions.

Notifications, Records, and Reports

§ 63.1980 What records and reports must

I keep and submit?

(a) Keep records and reports as

specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart

WWW, or in the Federal plan, EPAapproved State plan or Tribal plan that

implements 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc,

whichever is applicable with one

exception. You must submit the annual

report described in 40 CFR 60.757(f)

every 6 months.

(b) You must also keep records and

reports as specified in the general

provisions of 40 CFR part 60 and this

part as shown in Table 1 of this subpart.

Applicable records in the general

provisions include items such as SSM

plans and the SSM reports.

Other Requirements and Information

§ 63.1985 Who enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented

and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a

delegated authority such as the

applicable State, local, or tribal agency.

If the EPA Administrator has delegated

authority to a State, local, or tribal

agency, then that agency as well as the

U.S. EPA has the authority to

implement and enforce this subpart.

Contact the applicable EPA Regional

Office to find out if this subpart is

delegated to a State, local, or tribal

agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority of this subpart to

a State, local, or tribal agency under

subpart E of this part, the authorities

contained in paragraph (c) of this

section are retained by the EPA

Administrator and are not transferred to

the State, local, or tribal agency.

(c) The authorities that will not be

delegated to State, local, or tribal

agencies are as follows. Approval of

alternatives to the standards in

§ 63.1955. Where these standards

reference another subpart, the cited

provisions will be delegated according

to the delegation provisions of the

referenced subpart.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66685

§ 63.1990 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are

defined in the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR

part 60, subparts A, Cc, and WWW; 40

CFR part 62, subpart GGG, and subpart

A of this part, and this section as

follows:

Deviation means any instance in

which an affected source subject to this

subpart, or an owner or operator of such

a source:

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or

obligation established by this subpart

including, but not limited to, any

emission limitation (including any

operating limit) or work practice

standard;

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition

that is adopted to implement an

applicable requirement in this subpart

and that is included in the operating

permit for any affected source required

to obtain such a permit; or

(3) Fails to meet any emission

limitation (including any operating

limit), or work practice standard in this

subpart during startup, shutdown, or

malfunction, regardless of whether or

not such failure is permitted by this

subpart.

Emission limitation means any

emission limit, opacity limit, operating

limit, or visible emission limit.

EPA-approved State plan means a

State plan that EPA has approved based

on the requirements in 40 CFR part 60,

subpart B, to implement and enforce 40

CFR part 60, subpart Cc. An approved

State plan becomes effective on the date

specified in the notice published in the

Federal Register announcing EPA’s

approval.

Federal plan means the EPA plan to

implement 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc,

for existing municipal solid waste

landfills located in States and Indian

country where State plans or Tribal

plans are not currently in effect. On the

effective date of an EPA-approved State

or Tribal plan, the Federal plan no

longer applies. The Federal plan is

found at 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG.

Modification means as increase in the

permitted volume design capacity of the

landfill by either horizontal or vertical

expansion based on its permitted design

capacity as of May 30, 1991.

Modification does not occur until the

owner or operator commences

construction on the horizontal or

vertical expansion.

Municipal solid waste landfill means

an entire disposal facility in a

contiguous geographical space where

household waste is placed in or on land.

A municipal solid waste landfill may

also receive other types of RCRA

Subtitle D wastes (see § 257.2 of this

chapter) such as commercial solid

waste, nonhazardous sludge,

conditionally exempt small quantity

generator waste, and industrial solid

waste. Portions of a municipal solid

waste landfill may be separated by

access roads. A municipal solid waste

landfill may be publicly or privately

owned. A municipal solid waste landfill

may be a new municipal solid waste

landfill, an existing municipal solid

waste landfill, or a lateral expansion.

Tribal plan means a plan submitted

by a tribal authority pursuant to 40 CFR

parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81 to implement

and enforce 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

Work practice standard means any

design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standard, or combination

thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to

section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART AAAA—PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE PARAGRAPHS

[As stated in § 63.1955(b), you must comply with the General Provisions requirements according to the following table]

Part 63 citation Description Explanation

63.1(a) except (a)(7) ..... Applicability: general applicability of NESHAP

in this part.

Affected sources are already subject to the provisions of paragraphs

(a)(10)–(12) of this section through the same provisions under 40

CFR part 60, subpart A.

63.1(b) ........................... Applicability determination for stationary

sources.

Affected sources are already subject to the provisions of paragraph

(b)(2) of this section through the same provisions under 40 CFR

part 60, subpart A.

63.1(e) ........................... Applicability of permit program before a relevant standard has been set under this part.

63.2 ............................... Definitions ........................................................

63.4 ............................... Prohibited activities and circumvention ........... Affected sources are already subject to the provisions of paragraph

(b) of this section through the same provisions under 40 CFR part

60, subpart A.

63.5(b) ........................... Requirements for existing, newly constructed,

and reconstructed sources.

Affected sources are already subject to the provisions of paragraph

(b)(2) of this section through the same provisions under 40 CFR

part 60, subpart A.

63.6(e) ........................... Operation and maintenance requirements,

SSM provisions.

Affected sources are already subject to the provisions of paragraph

(e)(2) of this section through the same provisions under 40 CFR

part 60, subpart A.

63.6(f) ............................ Compliance with nonopacity emission standards.Affected sources are already subject to the provisions of paragraphs

(f)(1) and (2)(i) of this section through the same provisions under

40 CFR part 60, subpart A.

63.10(b)(2)(i)–(v) ........... General recordkeeping requirements ..............

63.10(d)(5) ..................... If actions taken during a SSM are consistent

with the procedures in the SSM plan, this

information shall be included in a semiannual SSM report. Any time an action

taken during a SSM is not consistent with

the SSM plan, the source shall report actions taken within 2 working days after commencing such actions, followed by a letter 7

days after the event.

66686 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART AAAA—PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE PARAGRAPHS—Continued

[As stated in § 63.1955(b), you must comply with the General Provisions requirements according to the following table]

Part 63 citation Description Explanation

63.12(a) ......................... These provisions do not preclude the State

from adopting and enforcing any standard,

limitation, etc., requiring permits, or requiring emissions reductions in excess of those

specified.

63.15 ............................. Availability of information and confidentiality ...

[FR Doc. 00–28415 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P