[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66672-66686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28415]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfd3decacd91d2d6dcd7dad3daffdacfde91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="204c4155520e4d494348454c45604550410e474f56">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#254408444b41085708414a464e4051654055440b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="543579353a30792679303b373f3120143124357a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>. 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<Register> 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

[[Page 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Examples of
                                                           potentially
           Category            NAICS  code    SIC code      regulated
                                                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry: Air and water             924110         9511  Solid waste
 resource and solid waste                                 landfills.
 management.
Industry: Refuse systems--          562212         4953  Solid waste
 solid waste landfills.                                   landfills.
State, local, and Tribal            562212         4953  Solid waste
 government agencies.               924110                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 
Secs. 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
m\3\--cubic meters
MACT--maximum achievable control technology
mg/dscm--milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
mg/m\3\--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

[[Page 66674]]

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 best-controlled 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

[[Page 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 (m<SUP>3</SUP>).
    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 m<SUP>3</SUP> 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 
organic-containing 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 m<SUP>3</SUP> 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 m<SUP>3</SUP> 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 (Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Secs. 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 
Sec. 63.6(e). (It should be noted that the EG/NSPS limits the duration 
of startup, shutdown or malfunction. See Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 66676]]

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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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-the-Floor 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 Sec. 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 m<SUP>3</SUP> 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 
m<SUP>3</SUP>, 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 m<SUP>3</SUP> 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 m<SUP>3</SUP>. 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

[[Page 66678]]

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.

[[Page 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 m<SUP>3</SUP> 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 m<SUP>3</SUP>, 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 case-by-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

[[Page 66680]]

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:
    <bullet> More rapid biodegradation and earlier stabilization of 
waste;
    <bullet> Extended use of current sites and reduced need for new 
sites;
    <bullet> Improved quality of leachate and reduced risk of 
groundwater contamination; and
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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 cost-

[[Page 66682]]

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 cost-effective, 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 least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome 
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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f4929586999186da87959a908db4918495da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef898e9d828a9dc19c8e818b96af8a9f8ec1888099">[email protected]</span></a> 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

[[Page 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


Sec. 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.


Sec. 63.1935  Am I subject to this subpart?

    Yes, if you own or operate a MSW landfill that is a major source, 
is co-located 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

[[Page 66684]]

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 m<SUP>3</SUP>.


Sec. 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 
Sec. 63.2.
    (c) An affected source is existing if it is not new.


Sec. 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].


Sec. 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 Sec. 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


Sec. 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 Sec. 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


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 63.1970  Are there any deviations that are not considered out of 
compliance?

    Yes, consistent with 40 CFR 60.755(e), Secs. 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 Sec. 63.6(e).


Sec. 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


Sec. 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, EPA-approved 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


Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1955. Where these standards reference another 
subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated according to the 
delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.

[[Page 66685]]

Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.  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          Affected sources are already subject to
                                         applicability of NESHAP in      the provisions of paragraphs (a)(10)-
                                         this part.                      (12) of this section through the same
                                                                         provisions under 40 CFR part 60,
                                                                         subpart A.
63.1(b)...............................  Applicability determination     Affected sources are already subject to
                                         for stationary sources.         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       Affected sources are already subject to
                                         circumvention.                  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,      Affected sources are already subject to
                                         newly constructed, and          the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of
                                         reconstructed sources.          this section through the same
                                                                         provisions under 40 CFR part 60,
                                                                         subpart A.
63.6(e)...............................  Operation and maintenance       Affected sources are already subject to
                                         requirements, SSM provisions.   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      Affected sources are already subject to
                                         emission standards.             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.

[[Page 66686]]

 
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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>