Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32743

transiting the ICW once the last tall ship

in the parade clears the Savannah River

and Fields Cut junction.

(3) From 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. EDT on

July 3, 1998, and from 8 a.m. until 11

a.m. EDT on July 6, 1998, all waters

bounded by the south bank of the

Savannah River to the center of the

Savannah River Channel, from the

Talmadge Bridge to position 32–04.45,

081–04.45W. During these times no

vessel shall be allowed to enter these

safety zones unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port.

(4) From 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EDT on

July 4, 1998, a 300 foot radius around

a fireworks staging area in approximate

position 32–05N, 081–05W. During this

time no vessel shall be allowed to enter

this safety zone unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port.

(5) From 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. EDT on July

6, 1998, the center 300 feet of the

Savannah River channel from the

Talmadge Bridge to the entrance of

Bloody Point Range. Vessels that cannot

safely navigate outside of this safety

zone and desire to depart the port of

Savannah on July 6, 1998, would be

required to begin the outbound transit

in sufficient time to clear the Savannah

Riverfront area prior to 8 a.m. Vessels

that cannot safely navigate outside of

this safety zone and desire to enter the

port of Savannah on July 6, 1998, would

be required to clear the Savannah

Riverfront area prior to 8 a.m. If unable

to clear the Savannah Riverfront area by

8 a.m., these vessels would be required

to start the inbound transit after 2 p.m.

The Captain of the Port will allow vessel

traffic to resume outbound transits

utilizing the entire navigational channel

when the last tall ship in the parade

clears longitude 080–51W. Vessels using

the ICW will not be allowed to cross the

Savannah River at the junction of the

Fields Cut once the parade approaches

within one (1) nautical mile of this area.

Vessels will be allowed to resume

transiting the ICW once the last tall ship

in the parade clears the Savannah River

and Fields Cut junction.

(6) From 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. EDT on

July 6, 1998, an area bounded by 32–

00.19N, 080–44.07W, 31–59.35N, 080–

43.08W, 32–00.59N, 080–41.32W, and

32–01.43N, 080–42.28W. During this

time no vessel shall be allowed to enter

this safety zone unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port.

Note: The regulations specified in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(6) apply only within

the navigable waters of the United States. In

the waters within the offshore staging area

and pre-race staging area that are outside the

navigable waters of the United States, the

following nonobligatory guidelines apply.

(i) All unaffiliated Americas’ Sail

vessels should remain clear of the

staging area and pre-race staging area

and avoid interfering with any

Americas’ Sail participant or Coast

Guard vessel. Interference with

anchoring or race activities may

constitute a safety hazard warranting

cancellation or termination of all or part

of the Americas’ Sail activities by the

Captain of the Port.

(ii) Any unauthorized entry into these

zones by unaffiliated vessels constitutes

a risk to the safety of marine traffic.

Such entry will constitute a factor to be

considered in determining whether a

person has operated a vessel in a

negligent manner in violation of 46

U.S.C. 2302.

(b) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in § 165.23 of

this part, entry into these safety zones

is subject to the following requirements:

(1) These safety zones are closed to all

non-participating vessels, except as may

be permitted by the Captain of the Port

or a representative of the Captain of the

Port.

(2) The ‘‘representative of the Captain

of the Port’’ is any Coast Guard

commissioned, warrant or petty officer

who has been designated by the Captain

of the Port, Savannah, GA, to act on his

behalf. The representative of the Captain

of the Port will be aboard either a Coast

Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.

(3) Non-participating vessel operators

desiring to enter or operate within the

safety zone shall contact the Captain of

the Port or his representative to obtain

permission to do so. Vessel operators

given permission to enter or operate in

the safety zone shall comply with all

directions given them by the Captain of

the Port or his representative.

(4) The Captain of the Port may be

contacted by telephone via the

Command Duty Officer at (912) 652–

4353. Vessels assisting in the

enforcement of the safety zone may be

contacted on VHF–FM channel 16.

Vessel operators may determine the

restrictions in effect for the safety zone

by coming alongside a Coast Guard

vessel patrolling the perimeter of the

safety zone.

(5) The Captain of the Port Savannah

will issue a Marine Safety Information

Broadcast Notice to Mariners to notify

the maritime community of the safety

zones and restrictions imposed.

(c) Dates. This section becomes

effective at 9 a.m., Eastern Daylight

Time (EDT) on July 2, 1998, and

terminates at 2 p.m., EDT on July 6,

1998.

Dated: June 3, 1998.

R.E. Seebald,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of

the Port, Savannah, Georgia.

[FR Doc. 98–15965 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[AD–FRL–6106–8]

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources and Guidelines for

Control of Existing Sources: Municipal

Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends, corrects

errors, and clarifies regulatory text of

the ‘‘Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources and Guidelines for

Control of Existing Sources: Municipal

Solid Waste Landfills,’’ which was

issued as a final rule and guideline on

March 12, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become

effective August 17, 1998 without

further notice unless the Agency

receives relevant adverse comment by

July 16, 1998. Should the Agency

receive such comments, it will publish

a timely document withdrawing this

rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (MC–6102), Attn:

Docket No. A–88–09/Category V–D, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

The EPA request that a separate copy

also be sent to the contact person listed

below. Refer to SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for information regarding

electronic submittal of comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning this notice and

analyses performed in developing this

rule, contact Ms. Michele Laur, Waste

and Chemical Processes Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5256. For implementation issues,

contact Mary Ann Warner, Program

Review Group, Information Transfer and

Program Integration Division (MD–12),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

1192. For information on the Landfill
32744 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Model, contact Susan Thorneloe

through the internet at:

thorneloe.susan@epamail.epa.gov. For

information concerning applicability

and rule determinations, contact the

appropriate regional representative:

Region I

Greg Roscoe, Air Programs Compliance

Branch Chief, U.S. EPA/ASO, Region

I, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA

02203, (617) 565–3221

Region II

Christine DeRosa, U.S. EPA, Region II,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

NY 10007–1866, (212) 637–4022

Region III

James Topsale, U.S. EPA/3AP22, Region

III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA 10107, (215) 566–

2190

Region IV

R. Douglas Neeley, Chief, Air and

Radiation Technology Branch, U.S.

EPA, Region IV, 61 Forsyth St., SW.,

Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562–9105

Region V

George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement

Branch Chief, U.S. EPA/5AE–26,

Region V, 77 West Jackson Street,

Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–2088

Region VI

John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch

Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VI, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX

75202–2733, (214) 655–7220

Region VII

Ward Burns, U.S. EPA/RME, Region VII,

726 Minnesota Avenue/ARTDAPCO,

Kansas City, KS 66101–2728, (913)

551–7960

Region VIII

Vicki Stamper, U.S. EPA, Region VIII,

999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO

80202–2466, (303) 312–6445

Region IX

Patricia Bowlin, U.S. EPA/RM HAN/

17211, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street/AIR–4, San Francisco, CA,

(415) 744–1188

Region X

Catherine Woo, U.S. EPA, Region X,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–1814

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

companion proposal to this final rule is

being published in the proposed rules

section of today’s Federal Register and

is identical to this direct final rule. Any

comments on this direct final rule

should address the companion proposal.

The proposal provides information on

addresses for submittal of comments. If

relevant adverse comments are timely

received, such comments will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. A document

informing the public that the direct final

rule did not take effect will be

published. If no relevant adverse

comments are timely filed on any

provision of this direct final rule, then

the entire direct final rule will become

effective 60 days from today’s Federal

Register document and no further action

will be taken on the companion

proposal published today.

Background

On March 12, 1996 (60 FR 9918), the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) promulgated in the Federal

Register standards of performance for

new sources (NSPS) for municipal solid

waste landfills and emission guidelines

for existing municipal solid waste

landfills. These regulations and

guidelines were promulgated as

subparts WWW and Cc of 40 CFR part

60.

This document revises the wording of

the applicability sections of subparts

WWW and Cc and related definitions to

clarify the intent regarding which

landfills are subject to subpart WWW

versus subpart Cc. This notice also

corrects typographical and cross

referencing errors. A few editorial

modifications are also being made to

clarify the intent of certain provisions

and correct inconsistencies between

different sections of subpart WWW.

These changes do not significantly

modify the requirements of the

regulation.

I. Description of Changes

A. Definitions

The NSPS applies to landfills that

commence construction, modification,

or reconstruction on or after May 30,

1991. A definition of ‘‘modification’’ is

being added. The definition is specific

to landfills but is consistent with the

intent of section 60.14 of the NSPS

General Provisions. Application of the

NSPS General Provisions to landfills is

problematic due to the fact that a

landfill is not a typical production or

manufacturing facility for which the

General Provisions originally were

written. The following discussion

demonstrates the considerations made

to apply the NSPS General Provisions to

landfills. This limited definition of

modification is uniquely appropriate for

landfills, and EPA does not believe at

this time that such a rationale could be

extended outside the landfill context.

As stated in 40 CFR 60.14(a),

modifications are physical or

operational changes to an existing

facility that result in an increase in the

emissions of any pollutant to which a

standard applies. However, with respect

to landfills, the concept of a physical or

operational change leading to an

increase in emissions is of limited

application, since unlike more

traditional sources of air pollution,

increased emissions at landfills are

based on the amount and character of

waste placed in the landfill, rather than

through physical or operational changes

to equipment or production methods.

Equipment at a landfill is essentially the

landfill itself and while production can

be roughly equated to the amount of

waste placed in the landfill, total

‘‘production’’ for the entire life of the

facility is controlled through the amount

of design capacity specified in the

permit. Although the amount and

character of waste present at any given

time may vary within the design

capacity constraints set forth in the

permit, emissions over the total life of

the facility depend on the amount of

waste a landfill can accept pursuant to

its permitted design capacity.

Accordingly, for landfills, it makes

sense to consider only those physical or

operational changes that increase the

size of the landfill beyond its permitted

capacity as modifications subjecting an

existing facility to the NSPS. Therefore,

if the design capacity of a landfill

increases, a change leading to an

increase in emissions is assumed to

have occurred. For purposes of this

NSPS, a landfill is considered modified

and subject to the NSPS if its design

capacity has been increased after May

30, 1991.

Operational changes at landfills, such

as increasing the moisture content of the

waste, increasing the physical

compaction on the surface, changing the

cover material or thickness of daily

cover, and changing bailing or

compaction practices, can typically be

accomplished without a capital

expenditure. Consequently, the landfill

definition of modification does not

include such operational changes.

Existing landfills that make an

operational change but do not increase

the horizontal or vertical dimensions of

the landfill continue to be subject to the

emission guidelines rather than the

NSPS. Therefore, for landfills, the only

change which would constitute a

modification is an increase in design

capacity caused by an increase in the

permitted horizontal or vertical

dimensions of the landfill.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32745

Reconstructions are unlikely for

landfills. As specified in the NSPS

General Provisions, reconstructions are

‘‘the replacement of components of an

existing facility [landfill] to such an

extent that: the fixed capital cost of the

new components exceeds 50 percent of

the fixed capital cost of a comparable

entirely new facility [landfill] * * *.’’

The Agency knows of no situation

where this would occur at a landfill.

The definition of ‘‘design capacity’’ is

being amended to clarify that the design

capacity is determined by the most

recent permit issued by the State, local,

or Tribal agency responsible for

regulating the landfill plus any in-place

waste not accounted for in that permit.

This clarification addresses cases where

a landfill may have multiple permits. It

makes sense to use the most recent

permitted design capacity to determine

whether a landfill exceeds the design

capacity exemption level. The words

‘‘construction or operating’’ permit have

also been deleted and substituted with

the word ‘‘permit.’’ The use of the term

‘‘operating permit’’ could be

misinterpreted to mean a title V permit.

The permit intended was the State,

local, or Tribal agency permit that

establishes the design capacity.

The definition of design capacity is

also being clarified to state that a permit

may express design capacity on a

volumetric or a mass basis. The revised

definition also states that the owner or

operator may choose to convert the

design capacity from volume to mass or

from mass to volume, using a sitespecific density, in order to demonstrate

that the design capacity is less than 2.5

million Mg or 2.5 million m3. If the

density changes, the design capacity

changes. Therefore, an owner or

operator who converts from volume to

mass or mass to volume must annually

calculate the site-specific density. These

revisions to the definition are

clarifications that do not change the

intent of the NSPS and emission

guidelines as promulgated on March 12,

1996.

Under the NSPS and emission

guidelines, design capacity is used to

determine whether or not a landfill is

below the design capacity cutoff. If the

design capacity in the permit is below

either 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) or 2.5

million cubic meters (m3), the landfill is

exempt (except for design capacity

reporting requirements). A landfill with

a volumetric permit may choose to

calculate design capacity on a mass

basis (or vice versa) based on a sitespecific density. The initial design

capacity report must provide supporting

documentation of this calculation. If

such a conversion is made, records must

also be kept of the annual recalculation

of the site-specific density and design

capacity with supporting

documentation.

For example, a landfill may have a

permitted design capacity greater than

2.5 million m3 by volume; but the

landfill may have documented

calculations showing that, based on the

actual waste density, the design

capacity is less than 2.5 million Mg by

mass. Because the design capacity is

less than 2.5 million Mg, the landfill is

below the design capacity cutoff. If such

a landfill changes its compaction

practices such that the density of the

waste placed in the landfill increases,

the calculated design capacity could

become greater than 2.5 million Mg, and

the landfill would then need to submit

an amended design capacity report. If

the revised design capacity is over 2.5

million m3 and 2.5 million Mg, the

landfill must estimate emissions and

must install controls if emissions are

greater than or equal to 50 Mg/yr.

If an existing landfill makes an

operational change (such as a change in

compaction practices), this is not a

‘‘modification’’ (see the previous

discussion on the definition of

‘‘modification’’). Such a landfill will

continue to be subject to the emission

guidelines rather than becoming subject

to the NSPS. The emission guidelines

require the landfill to report any

increase in design capacity that results

in a capacity equal to or greater than 2.5

million Mg and 2.5 million m3. The

control requirements of the emission

guidelines will apply if the design

capacity increases to over 2.5 million

Mg and 2.5 million m3 due to an

operational change and not due to

modification as defined by this rule.

The definition of ‘‘closed landfill’’

and wording in section 60.752(b) are

being revised to delete references to

section 258.60. This reference is not

appropriate for all landfills because

some landfills closed prior to the

October 1993 effective date of part 258

and are not subject to part 258. Section

60.752(b)(2)(v)(A) is being revised for

clarification to refer to the definition of

‘‘closed landfill’’ in section 60.751

instead of the requirements of section

258.60.

The definition of ‘‘interior well’’ is

being revised to clarify that an interior

well is located inside the perimeter of

the landfilled waste.

The definition of ‘‘radii of influence’’

is being added parenthetically in section

60.759(a)(3)(ii) for clarification. This

definition makes it clear that the radii

of influence is the distance from the

well center to a point in the landfill

where the pressure gradient applied by

the blower or compressor approaches

zero.

B. Designation of Affected Facility

Section 60.750(a) of subpart WWW is

being revised slightly to clarify which

landfills are subject to the NSPS. The

promulgated rule stated that ‘‘the

provisions of this subpart apply to each

municipal solid waste landfill that

commenced construction,

reconstruction, or modification or began

accepting waste on or after May 30,

1991. The words ‘‘or began accepting

waste’’ have been deleted. This change

makes the applicability consistent with

both the definition of ‘‘new source’’ in

section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

and the applicability of the emission

guidelines in section 60.32c of subpart

Cc. As stated in section 60.32c(a), the

emission guidelines apply to landfills

that commenced construction,

modification, or reconstruction before

May 30, 1991. A landfill that

commenced construction before May 30,

1991, but began accepting waste after

May 1991 should be subject to the

emission guidelines rather than the

NSPS. The change being made

accomplishes this objective and is

consistent with the CAA. The

definitions of ‘‘commenced’’ and

‘‘construction’’ are contained in section

60.2 of the NSPS General Provisions

(subpart A). A definition for

‘‘modification’’ is being added to

subpart WWW, and ‘‘reconstruction’’ is

described in section 60.15 of the NSPS

General Provisions.

Section 60.750(b) of subpart WWW is

being revised to clarify that authority for

test methods are retained by the

Administrator and shall not be

transferred to the State. This is

consistent with EPA’s historical

position on test methods.

Under applicability, we are also

clarifying that activities conducted as

part of CERCLA remedial actions or

RCRA corrective actions are not

considered construction, modification,

or reconstruction and would not make

a landfill subject to the NSPS. This is

consistent with the provisions that

changes made to an existing landfill

solely to comply with the emission

guidelines do not make the landfill

subject to the NSPS. It is also consistent

with the exemption of facilities subject

to a CERCLA remedial action from

permitting requirements. This provision

is being added to section 60.750 of

subpart WWW as paragraph (c).

Regarding applicability and the

design capacity exemption, the wording

‘‘or’’ in several places in section 60.752

has been changed to ‘‘and’’ to clarify

that if a landfill design capacity is less
32746 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

than either 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million

m3, the landfill is exempt from all

provisions except the design capacity

report; whereas if the capacity is equal

to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5

million m3, the additional requirements

of the rule apply. As previously

discussed under the definition of design

capacity, a landfill may calculate design

capacity on either a mass or volume

basis to determine if it qualifies for the

design capacity exemption.

C. Compliance Dates

The compliance time in section

60.752(b)(2)(ii) is being revised to make

it clear that landfills have 30 months to

install a collection and control system

once the landfill becomes affected (i.e.,

the annual report shows NMOC

emissions equal to or greater than 50

Mg/yr). Section 60.752(b)(2)(ii) stated

that a landfill has 18 months to install

a collection and control system after

submitting a design plan to the

Administrator. Section 60.752(b)(2)(i)

requires landfills to submit a design

plan within 1 year of the annual report

showing NMOC emissions equal to or

greater than 50 Mg/yr. Therefore, the

previous language in the rule would

require landfills that submitted a design

plan earlier than 1 year after becoming

affected to install a collection and

control system sooner than landfills that

waited the full 1 year to submit the

design plan. The intent was to allow

landfills 30 months after the first report

showing NMOC emissions equal to or

greater than 50 Mg/yr to install controls.

Similarly, in the emission guidelines,

section 60.36c(a) is revised to specify

that installation of collection and

control systems shall be accomplished

within 30 months of the initial report

showing NMOC emissions equal or

exceed 50 Mg/yr rather than within 30

months of the effective date of the State

rule. This is consistent with the timing

in the NSPS, which allows 90 days to

submit an initial report, and 30 months

to install controls if the report shows

that emissions equal or exceed 50 Mg/

yr.

Section 60.755(b) is being revised to

clarify that an affected landfill must

install each well no later than 60 days

after the date on which the initial solid

waste has been in place (1) for five years

or more if the area is active or (2) two

years or more if the area is closed or at

final grade. The only change is to

specify ‘‘no later than 60 days after’’

instead of ‘‘within 60 days.’’

D. Clarification of Title V Permitting

Requirements

The paragraphs on part 70 permitting

requirements are being revised to refer

to both part 70 and 71. In States with

approved part 70 operating permit

programs, sources will apply for part 70

permits; in States without approved part

70 permit programs, EPA will

implement the federal operating permits

program under part 71.

Section 502(a) of the Act requires title

V operating permits for a number of

sources, including, but not limited to,

major sources and sources (including

nonmajor sources) which are subject to

standards or regulations under section

111 or 112. Section 502(a) also states

that the Administrator may exempt

source categories (in whole or in part)

from permitting requirements if the

Administrator determines that

compliance with such requirements is

impracticable, infeasible, or

unnecessarily burdensome on such

categories, but not major sources.

At promulgation of this NSPS and EG

(61 FR 9905, March 12, 1996), landfills

with a design capacity less than 2.5

million Mg in mass or 2.5 million m3 in

volume were exempted from part 70

operating permit requirements based on

the above provisions. Although these

landfills are required to submit a design

capacity report under this NSPS and EG,

no control is required for landfills of

this size. As a result, EPA believes that

it would be unnecessarily burdensome

for landfills, which are not major

sources and which have design

capacities less than 2.5 million Mg or

2.5 million m3, to apply for a title V

permit when the NSPS or EG does not

establish any emission limits or control

requirements for such landfills.

If a MSW landfill is subject to title V

permitting (40 CFR part 70 or part 71)

as a result of this NSPS or EG standard

(i.e., a source which meets or exceeds

the design capacity of 2.5 million Mg

and 2.5 million m3) it is not subject to

the requirement to apply for a title V

permit until 90 days after the earlier of

the following dates: (1) the effective date

of this NSPS (March 12, 1996); (2) the

effective date of EPA’s approval of a

state’s 111(d) plan; or (3) the date of

commenced construction, modification,

or reconstruction for landfills that

commence construction, modification,

or reconstruction on or after March 12,

1996, even if the design capacity report

is submitted prior to the relevant

deadline. Sentences have been added to

section 60.752 and section 60.32c(c) to

clarify the date the landfill becomes

subject to title V. These dates for

triggering title V applicability are

consistent with the dates that NSPS

sources are required to file design

capacity reports. To maintain

consistency between NSPS sources and

EG sources, EG sources will not become

subject to the requirement to apply for

a title V permit until 90 days after the

effective date of EPA’s approval of a

state’s 111(d) plan.

The permit provisions originally

included as sentences within

paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 60.752

have been moved to separate paragraphs

(c) and (d) so that the detailed permit

provisions are in one location. The

wording has also been revised to clarify

that landfills smaller than 2.5 million

Mg or 2.5 million m3 do not require a

part 70 or 71 operating permit unless

they are subject to part 70 or 71 for some

other reason. A landfill of this size

could be a major source, and, if so,

would need to apply for a permit. This

situation was discussed in the preamble

to the promulgated rule (61 FR 9912,

March 12, 1996). Also, a landfill of this

size could be subject to title V for some

other reason, e.g., subject to another

NSPS or NESHAP.

Sources subject to the title V

permitting program under parts 70 or 71

are required to file applications within

12 months after becoming subject to the

program. Landfills which are subject to

the title V permitting program as a result

of being subject to this NSPS or EG are

required to file title V applications

within 12 months following the

deadline to submit a design capacity

report (which indicates that the landfill

in question is equal to, or greater than,

2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3). In

that the designation of size in the report

triggers title V applicability, EPA

believes that it is appropriate that the

deadline for filing this report initiates

the 12 month time frame for submitting

a title V application. As provided in

section 503(c) of the Act, permitting

authorities may establish earlier

deadlines, prior to the 12 month

deadline, for submitting title V

applications. If more than one

requirement causes a source to be

subject to title V permitting, the time

frame for filing a title V application will

be triggered by the requirement which

first caused the source to be subject to

title V.

Section 60.752(d) (formerly the last

sentence in section 60.752(b)) is being

revised. This paragraph stated that after

a landfill is closed and either never

required a control system or has met the

criteria for control system removal, a

title V permit is no longer needed. The

phrase ‘‘if the landfill is not otherwise

subject to the requirements of either part

70 or 71’’ has been added. As previously

discussed, if a landfill is a major source

or is subject to title V for some other

reason (e.g., subject to another NSPS or

NESHAP), it will still require a permit.

Other format changes to this paragraph
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32747

are to improve clarity and do not change

the intent.

Subpart Cc is being amended by

adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to section

60.32c. These paragraphs, which cover

when existing MSW landfills require

part 70 or 71 operating permits, were

excluded from the promulgated

emission guidelines through an

oversight. Part 70 permit provisions

were included in the NSPS, but the

Emission Guidelines inadvertently did

not reference this section of the NSPS.

The inclusion of these paragraphs

makes subpart Cc consistent with

subpart WWW with respect to part 70 or

71 operating permits. Specifically,

paragraph (c) clarifies that an existing

landfill smaller than 2.5 million Mg or

2.5 million m3 does not require a part

70 or 71 operating permit unless it is

subject to part 70 or 71 for some other

reason. Paragraph (c) also clarifies that

an existing landfill equal to or greater

than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3

is subject to part 70 or 71 permitting

requirements whether it is a major

source or not. In addition, paragraph (d)

clarifies that closed landfills that are

only required to have title V permits

due to 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW

or Cc and are not required to have a

control system or meet the conditions

for control system removal are not

required to have part 70 or 71 operating

permits, if they are not otherwise

subject to title V permitting

requirements. As with 40 CFR part 60,

subpart WWW, under 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Cc, the deadline for submitting

a design capacity report initiates the

time frame for submitting a title V

application. Permitting authorities may,

however, establish earlier dates by

which applications are required from

these title V sources.

E. Equations

Section 60.754(a)(1) is being revised

to clarify that both the equation in

section 60.754(a)(1)(i) and the equation

in section 60.754(a)(1)(ii) may be used

when the actual year-to-year solid waste

acceptance rate is known for only part

of the life of the landfill. This is the

technically correct way to calculate

emissions and was the intent of the rule.

Section 60.754(a)(1) is being amended

by the addition of the methane

generation rate constant (k) for

geographical areas with low

precipitation. A k value of 0.02 per year

is provided for the tier 1 calculation for

landfills located in geographical areas

with a thirty year annual average

precipitation of less than 25 inches, as

measured at the nearest representative

official meteorologic site. Landfills

located in geographical areas with low

precipitation experience slower

decomposition of their waste than

landfills located in geographical areas

with moderate to high rainfall.

Consequently, the gas production rate at

landfills located in drier areas is

reduced. Rather than burden these

landfills with pursuing tier 3 Method 2E

testing and analysis for a site-specific k

value, it is reasonable to allow an

alternative default k value. In reviewing

the information used to estimate the

impacts of the final rule (Docket A–88–

09, Item IV–M–4), a k value of 0.02 per

year for landfills that meet this

description is a reasonably conservative

value consistent with the intent of the

tier 1 analysis.

Sections 60.754(a)(1)(i) and (ii) are

also being revised to clarify that only

documentation of the nature and

amount of nondegradable waste needs

to be maintained when subtracting the

mass of nondegradable waste from the

total mass of waste when calculating the

NMOC emission rate. The previous

language specified that the

documentation provisions of section

60.758(d)(2) were to be followed;

however, these provisions are related to

segregated areas within the landfill

excluded from collection pursuant to

section 60.759(a)(3)(i) or (ii) because

asbestos or other nondegradable wastes

were disposed in those areas or because

the area is nonproductive. For the

purposes of estimating emissions, only

documentation of the nature and

amount of nondegradable waste needs

to be maintained to justify the

subtraction of the mass of

nondegradable waste.

F. Test Methods and Procedures

Section 60.754(a)(4)(ii) is revised to

clarify that the site-specific methane

generation rate constant is calculated

only once and that this value is to be

used in all subsequent annual NMOC

emission rate calculations.

Section 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B) is being

revised to clarify that the initial

performance test required under section

60.8 must be completed no later than

180 days after the initial startup of the

approved control system. The

promulgated regulation already required

under section 60.757(f) that the initial

performance test report must be

submitted within 180 days of start-up of

the collection system. This is being

reiterated in section 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B)

for clarification.

Section 60.759(a)(3)(ii), which

required the use of the values of k and

CNMOC determined by field testing, if

performed to determine the NMOC

emission rate or radii of influence, is

being revised to also refer to alternative

means for determining k or CNMOC

allowed by section 60.754(a)(5). The

reference to using Lo values from testing

is deleted because it was incorrect. The

tier procedures do not include testing

for Lo. As previously mentioned, the

definition of radii of influence is being

added parenthetically for clarity.

G. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Determination

Section 60.754(c) is being revised to

clarify that the intent of this provision

was to establish the method by which

prevention of significant deterioration

determinations should be made, not to

require a PSD determination. The

original wording could have been

misinterpreted to require PSD-related

actions. PSD is a separate permit

program that applies to new and

modified sources. The PSD regulations,

not this NSPS, establish whether a PSD

determination is needed. New sources

may be subject to PSD review.

In a July 1, 1994 guidance

memorandum issued by the EPA

(available on the Technology Transfer

Network; see ‘‘Pollution Control Projects

(PCP) and New Source Review (NSR)

Applicability’’ from John S. Seitz,

Director, OAQPS to EPA Regional Air

Division Directors), the EPA provided

guidance for permitting authorities on

the approvability of PCP exclusions for

source categories other than electric

utilities. In the guidance, the EPA

indicated that add-on controls and fuel

switches to less polluting fuels meet the

definition of a PCP and, provided

certain safeguards are met, may qualify

for an exclusion from major NSR. To be

eligible to be excluded from otherwise

applicable major NSR requirements, a

PCP must, on balance, be

‘‘environmentally beneficial,’’ and the

permitting authority must ensure that

the project will not cause or contribute

to a violation of a national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD

increment, or adversely affect visibility

or other air quality related value

(AQRV).

A potential exclusion available under

PSD is discussed here for informational

purposes. In the July 1, 1994 guidance

memorandum, the EPA specifically

identified the installation of controls

pursuant to the NSPS and EG rules as

an example of add-on controls that

could be considered a PCP and an

appropriate candidate for a case-by-case

exclusion from major NSR. The EPA

considers installation of controls

pursuant to the NSPS and EG rules for

the control of landfill gases a PCP

because the controls are installed to

comply with the NSPS and will reduce

emissions of NMOC. The EPA also
32748 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

considers the reduction of these

pollutants to represent an

environmental benefit. However, EPA

recognizes that the incidental formation

of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide

due to the destruction of landfill gas

will occur. Consistent with the 1994

guidance, the permitting authority

should confirm that in each case that

the resultant increase in nitrogen oxides

and carbon monoxide would not cause

or contribute to a violation of the

NAAQS and PSD increment or

adversely affect an AQRV.

Finally, the 1994 guidance did not

void or create an exclusion from any

applicable minor source preconstruction

review requirements in an approved

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Any

minor NSR permitting requirements in a

SIP would continue to apply, regardless

of any exclusion from major NSR that

might be approved for a source under

the PCP exclusion policy.

H. Monitoring

Section 60.756(a) is being revised to

clarify that a temperature measuring

device does not need to be permanently

installed at each wellhead. It is common

for wellheads to have an access port for

temperature measurements so that a

temperature measuring device can be

shared across wellheads for the monthly

temperature monitoring requirement. As

long as the temperature is monitored

monthly, the intent of the regulation is

met.

Section 60.756(b)(2) is also being

revised to clarify that the device for

monitoring gas flow need only record

the flow or bypass, not necessarily

measure the rate at which gas is flowing

to the control device.

I. Compliance Provisions

Section 60.755(a)(3) is being revised

to allow an alternative timeline to be

proposed for correcting an exceedance

in collection header pressure at each

well. Consistent with section

60.755(c)(4)(v), a sentence is being

added to sections 60.755(a)(3) and

60.755(a)(5) to allow an alternate

timeline to be proposed to the

Administrator for correcting an

exceedance. This revision makes the

sections consistent. Depending on the

remedy selected to correct the problem,

a different timeline may be needed, but

any timeline extending more than 120

days must be approved by the regulatory

agency.

Section 60.755(c)(1) is being revised

slightly to indicate that surface

monitoring of methane shall be

performed along the entire perimeter of

the collection area and along a pattern

that traverses the landfill at 30-meter

intervals. This change makes the

wording consistent with other sections

of the rule (e.g., section 60.753(d)).

J. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Sections 60.757(a)(1) and (b)(1)(i) are

being revised to clarify that subject

landfills that commenced construction,

modification, or reconstruction after

May 30, 1991 (date of proposal) but

before the date of promulgation had

until June 10, 1996 (90 days from the

promulgation date) to submit an initial

design capacity report and an initial

NMOC emission rate report to the

Administrator. The previous language

was not clear as to when landfills that

commenced construction, modification,

or reconstruction between proposal and

promulgation would be required to

submit an initial design capacity report

or NMOC emission rate report.

However, it is obvious that the reports

could not be required prior to

promulgation of the regulation.

Therefore, instead of submitting the

reports 90 days after commencing

construction, landfills that were

constructed before promulgation have

90 days after the promulgation date to

submit the reports.

Also paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) in the

promulgated rule were somewhat

repetitive and contradictory. Paragraph

(a)(1)(iii) reflected an unrealistic

scenario in that this date would always

occur later than the date in paragraphs

(a)(1)(i) and (ii). For this reason, the

previous paragraph (a)(1)(iii) was

unnecessary and confusing. Therefore,

that paragraph has been deleted, and

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been

revised to state that the report is due on

June 10, 1996 or within 90 days after the

date of commencement of construction,

modification, or reconstruction,

depending on when the construction,

modification, or reconstruction

commenced.

The wording of section 60.757(a)(2)(ii)

is being revised to require calculation of

design capacity submitted as part of the

design capacity report to include

‘‘relevant parameters’’ rather than the

specific list of parameters in the

promulgated rule. Some of the

previously listed parameters (e.g.,

compaction practices) would not apply

to landfills that calculate design

capacity on a volumetric rather than

mass basis. Other parameters that were

not listed will be needed to perform the

calculation in some cases.

The wording of section 60.757(a)(3),

which requires amended design

capacity reports, is being revised for

clarity and consistency with the

definitions of modification and design

capacity discussed under I.A. It also

clarifies that a report is required only if

capacity increases above 2.5 million Mg

and 2.5 million m3. This was the

original intent, but the original wording

was confusing.

Several paragraphs in section 60.758

are being revised to clarify that the

recordkeeping requirements in

paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) do not

apply if an alternative to the operational

standards, test methods, procedures,

compliance measures, monitoring, or

reporting provisions has been submitted

with the design plan and approved by

the Administrator.

II. Cross-Referencing and

Typographical Errors

Errors in cross-referencing one section

to another within subpart WWW are

being corrected. Typographical errors

are also being corrected.

III. Corrections to Promulgation

Preamble

Tables 3 and 5 in the promulgation

preamble contained typographical

errors. The units for the small size cutoff

(column 1) are stated to be in millions

of megagrams (millions Mg); however,

the values presented are actually in

megagrams. These tables are corrected

and provided below for clarification.

TABLE 3.—ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CAPACITY EXEMPTION LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE EMISSION GUIDELINES a b

Small size cutoff

(mg)

Number

landfills affected

Annual c

NMOC

emission

reduction

(Mg/yr)

Annual d

methane

emission

reduction

(Mg/yr)

Annual cost

(million $/yr)

NMOC average cost

eff.

($/Mg)

NMOC incremental

cost eff.

($/Mg)

Baseline e ................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .............................. .................... ....................

3,000,000 ................................................................ 273 73,356 3,220,000 84 1,145 1,145

2,500,000 ................................................................ 312 77,600 3,370,000 89 1,147 1,178

1,000,000 ................................................................ 572 97,600 3,990,000 119 1,219 1,500
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32749

TABLE 3.—ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CAPACITY EXEMPTION LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE EMISSION GUIDELINES a b—Continued

Small size cutoff

(mg)

Number

landfills affected

Annual c

NMOC

emission

reduction

(Mg/yr)

Annual d

methane

emission

reduction

(Mg/yr)

Annual cost

(million $/yr)

NMOC average cost

eff.

($/Mg)

NMOC incremental

cost eff.

($/Mg)

No cutoff f ................................................................ 7,299 142,000 8,270,000 719 5,063 13,514

aEmission rate cutoff level of 50 Mg NMOC/yr.

bAll values are fifth year annualized.

c NMOC emission reductions are from a baseline of 145,000 Mg NMOC/yr.

d Methane emission reductions are from a baseline of 8,400,000 Mg methane/yr.

e In the absence of an emission guidelines.

f No emission rate cutoff and no design capacity exemption level.

TABLE 5.—ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CAPACITY EXEMPTION LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS a b

Small size cutoff

(mg)

Number

landfills affected

Annual c

NMOC

emission

reduction

(Mg/yr)

Annual d

methane

emission

reduction

(Mg/yr)

Annual e cost

(million $/yr)

MNOC average cost

eff.

($/Mg)

MNOC f incremental

cost eff.

($/Mg)

Baseline g ................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .............................. .................... ....................

3,000,000 ................................................................ 41 4,900 193,000 4 816 NA

2,500,000 ................................................................ 43 4,900 193,000 4 816 NA

1,000,000 ................................................................ 89 4,900 193,000 4 816 NA

No cutoff h ................................................................ 872 13,115 881,000 81 6,176 NA

aEmission rate cutoff level of 50 Mg NMOC/yr.

bAll values are fifth year annualized.

c NMOC emission reductions are from a baseline of 13,400 Mg NMOC/yr.

d Methane emission reductions are from a baseline of 899,000 Mg methane/yr.

e Due to rounding off to the nearest million dollar, cost values do not appear to change for each option. However, actual costs are slightly less

for a less stringent option. fBecause the annual cost does not change enough to show a different cost from one option to the next, incremental cost effectiveness values

are not applicable. g In the absence of a standard.

h No emission rate cutoff and no design capacity exemption level.

IV. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

judicial review of the actions taken by

this final rule is available only on the

filing of a petition for review in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit within 60 days of

today’s publication of this action. Under

section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the

requirements that are subject to today’s

document may not be challenged later

in civil or criminal proceedings brought

by EPA to enforce these requirements.

V. Administrative

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated NSPS were submitted to

and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). A copy

of this Information Collection Request

(ICR) document (OMB control number

1557.03) may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137); 401 M Street, SW;

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740.

Today’s changes to the NSPS should

have no impact on the information

collection burden estimates made

previously. The changes consist of new

definitions and clarifications of

requirements; not additional

requirements. Consequently, the ICR has

not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether a regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of this Executive Order.

The 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

obligation 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

that this action is not ‘‘significant’’

because none of the listed criteria apply

to this action. Consequently, this action

was not submitted to OMB for review

under Executive Order 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this direct final rule. EPA has also

determined that this direct final rule

amendment will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Today’s action

clarifies the applicability of control

requirements in the Standards of

Performance for New Stationary Sources

and Guidelines for Control of Existing

Sources: Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills and does not include any
32750 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

provisions that create a burden for any

of the regulated entities.

The changes in today’s action do not

increase the stringency of the rule or

add additional control requirements.

Nor is the scope of the rule changed so

as to bring any entities not previously

subject to the rule within its scope or

coverage. Today’s action does not alter

control, monitoring, recordkeeping, or

reporting requirements of the

promulgated rule.

D. Submission to Congress

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

E. Executive Order 12875 and Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act

Under the executive order EPA must

consult with representatives of affected

State, local, and Tribal governments.

Under the unfunded mandates reform

act, EPA must prepare a statement to

accompany any rule where the

estimated costs to State, local, or Tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

will be $100 million or more per year.

The EPA held consultations and

prepared such a statement at the time of

promulgation of subpart Cc and WWW

(61 FR 9913, March 12, 1996). Today’s

changes consist of new definitions and

clarifications and do not impose costs

on government entities or the private

sector. Consequently, a new unfunded

mandates statement has not been

prepared.

F. Children’s Health Protection

This direct final rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it does not

involve decisions on environmental

health risks or safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Municipal

solid waste landfills, Air pollution

control.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter 1, part 60 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 60—STANDARDS OF

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW

STATIONARY SOURCES

1. The authority citation for part 60

continued to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414,

7416, 7429, and 7601.

Subpart Cc—[Amended]

2. Amend § 60.32c by adding

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

§ 60.32c Designated facilities.

* * * * *

(c) For purposes of obtaining an

operating permit under title V of the

Act, the owner or operator of a MSW

landfill subject to this subpart with a

design capacity less than 2.5 million

megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters

is not subject to the requirement to

obtain an operating permit for the

landfill under part 70 or 71 of this

chapter, unless the landfill is otherwise

subject to either part 70 or 71. For

purposes of submitting a timely

application for an operating permit

under part 70 or 71, the owner or

operator of a MSW landfill subject to

this subpart with a design capacity

greater than or equal to 2.5 million

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters

on the effective date of EPA approval of

the State’s program under section 111(d)

of the Act, and not otherwise subject to

either part 70 or 71, becomes subject to

the requirements of §§ 70.5(a)(1)(i) or

71.5(a)(1)(i) of this chapter 90 days after

the effective date of such 111(d)

program approval, even if the design

capacity report is submitted earlier.

(d) When a MSW landfill subject to

this subpart is closed, the owner or

operator is no longer subject to the

requirement to maintain an operating

permit under part 70 or 71 of this

chapter for the landfill if the landfill is

not otherwise subject to the

requirements of either part 70 or 71 and

if either of the following conditions are

met.

(1) The landfill was never subject to

the requirement for a control system

under § 60.33c(c) of this subpart; or

(2) The owner or operator meets the

conditions for control system removal

specified in § 60.752(b)(2)(v) of subpart

WWW.

3. Amend § 60.33c by removing in

paragraph (a)(2) the phrase ‘‘2.5 million

megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters’’

and adding, in its place ‘‘2.5 million

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic

meters.’’

4. Amend § 60.36c by revising

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 60.36c Compliance times.

(a) Except as provided for under

paragraph (b) of this section, planning,

awarding of contracts, and installation

of MSW landfill air emission collection

and control equipment capable of

meeting the emission guidelines

established under § 60.33c shall be

accomplished within 30 months after

the date the initial NMOC emission rate

report shows NMOC emissions equal or

exceed 50 megagrams per year.

* * * * *

Subpart WWW

5. Amend § 60.750 as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), remove the words

‘‘or began accepting waste’’.

b. In paragraph (b), remove the word

‘‘None’’ and add, in its place

‘‘§ 60.754(a)(5)’’.

c. Add paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 60.750 Applicability, designation of

affected facility, and delegation of authority.

* * * * *

(c) Activities required by or

conducted pursuant to a CERCLA,

RCRA, or State remedial action are not

considered construction, reconstruction,

or modification for purposes of this

subpart.

6. Amend § 60.751 as follows:

a. Remove the last sentence in the

definition of ‘‘closed landfill.’’

b. Revise the definitions of

‘‘controlled landfill,’’ ‘‘design capacity,’’

and ‘‘interior well’’ and add a definition

of ‘‘modification’’ to read as follows:

§ 60.751 Definitions.

* * * * *

Controlled landfill means any landfill

at which collection and control systems

are required under this subpart as a

result of the nonmethane organic

compounds emission rate. The landfill

is considered controlled at the time a

collection and control system design

plan is submitted in compliance with

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i).

Design capacity means the maximum

amount of solid waste a landfill can

accept, as indicated in terms of volume

or mass in the most recent permit issued

by the State, local, or Tribal agency

responsible for regulating the landfill,

plus any in-place waste not accounted

for in the most recent permit. If the

owner or operator chooses to convert

the design capacity from volume to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32751

mass or from mass to volume to

demonstrate its design capacity is less

than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5

million cubic meters, the calculation

must include a site specific density,

which must be recalculated annually.

* * * * *

Interior well means any well or

similar collection component located

inside the perimeter of the landfill

waste. A perimeter well located outside

the landfilled waste is not an interior

well.

* * * * *

Modification means an 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.

7. Amend § 60.752 by revising

paragraph (a), the introductory text of

paragraph (b), paragraphs (b)(2)(ii),

(b)(2)(iii)(B), and (b)(2)(v)(A), and

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

follows:

§ 60.752 Standards for air emissions from

municipal solid waste landfills.

(a) Each owner or operator of an MSW

landfill having a design capacity less

than 2.5 million megagrams by mass or

2.5 million cubic meters by volume

shall submit an initial design capacity

report to the Administrator as provided

in § 60.757(a). The landfill may

calculate design capacity in either

megagrams or cubic meters for

comparison with the exemption values.

Any density conversions shall be

documented and submitted with the

report. Submittal of the initial design

capacity report shall fulfill the

requirements of this subpart except as

provided for in paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(2) of this section.

(1) The owner or operator shall

submit to the Administrator an

amended design capacity report, as

provided for in § 60.757(a)(3).

(2) When an increase in the maximum

design capacity of a landfill exempted

from the provisions of § 60.752(b)

through § 60.759 of this subpart on the

basis of the design capacity exemption

in paragraph (a) of this section results in

a revised maximum design capacity

equal to or greater than 2.5 million

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic

meters, the owner or operator shall

comply with the provision of paragraph

(b) of this section.

(b) Each owner or operator of an MSW

landfill having a design capacity equal

to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams

and 2.5 million cubic meters, shall

either comply with paragraph (b)(2) of

this section or calculate an NMOC

emission rate for the landfill using the

procedures specified in § 60.754. The

NMOC emission rate shall be

recalculated annually, except as

provided in § 60.757(b)(1)(ii) of this

subpart. The owner or operator of an

MSW landfill subject to this subpart

with a design capacity greater than or

equal to 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5

million cubic meters is subject to part

70 or 71 permitting requirements.

(1) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Install a collection and control

system that captures the gas generated

within the landfill as required by

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) and

(b)(2)(iii) of this section within 30

months after the first annual report in

which the emission rate equals or

exceeds 50 megagrams per year, unless

Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling demonstrates

that the emission rate is less than 50

megagrams per year, as specified in

§ 60.757(c)(1) or (2).

* * * * *

(iii) * * *

(A) * * *

(B) A control system designed and

operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weightpercent, or, when an enclosed

combustion device is used for control,

to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight

percent or reduce the outlet NMOC

concentration to less than 20 parts per

million by volume, dry basis as hexane

at 3 percent oxygen. The reduction

efficiency or parts per million by

volume shall be established by an initial

performance test to be completed no

later than 180 days after the initial

startup of the approved control system

using the test methods specified in

§ 60.754(d).

* * * * *

(v) * * *

(A) The landfill shall be a closed

landfill as defined in § 60.751 of this

subpart. A closure report shall be

submitted to the Administrator as

provided in § 60.757(d);

* * * * *

(c) For purposes of obtaining an

operating permit under title V of the

Act, the owner or operator of a MSW

landfill subject to this subpart with a

design capacity less than 2.5 million

megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters

is not subject to the requirement to

obtain an operating permit for the

landfill under part 70 or 71 of this

chapter, unless the landfill is otherwise

subject to either part 70 or 71. For

purposes of submitting a timely

application for an operating permit

under part 70 or 71, the owner or

operator of a MSW landfill subject to

this subpart with a design capacity

greater than or equal to 2.5 million

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic

meters, and not otherwise subject to

either part 70 or 71, becomes subject to

the requirements of §§ 70.5(a)(1)(i) or

71.5(a)(1)(i) of this chapter, regardless of

when the design capacity report is

actually submitted, no later than:

(1) June 10, 1996 for MSW landfills

that commenced construction,

modification, or reconstruction on or

after May 30, 1991 but before March 12,

1996;

(2) Ninety days after the date of

commenced construction, modification,

or reconstruction for MSW landfills that

commence construction, modification,

or reconstruction on or after March 12,

1996.

(d) When a MSW landfill subject to

this subpart is closed, the owner or

operator is no longer subject to the

requirement to maintain an operating

permit under part 70 or 71 of this

chapter for the landfill if the landfill is

not otherwise subject to the

requirements of either part 70 or 71 and

if either of the following conditions are

met:

(1) The landfill was never subject to

the requirement for a control system

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or

(2) The owner or operator meets the

conditions for control system removal

specified in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this

section.

8. Amend § 60.753 by revising the

introductory text of § 60.753 and the

second sentence of paragraph (d) and

the first sentence of paragraph (g) to

read as follows:

§ 60.753 Operational standards for

collection and control systems.

Each owner or operator of an MSW

landfill with a gas collection and control

system used to comply with the

provisions of § 60.752(b)(2)(ii) of this

subpart shall: * * *

(d) * * * To determine if this level is

exceeded, the owner or operator shall

conduct surface testing around the

perimeter of the collection area and

along a pattern that traverses the landfill

at 30 meter intervals and where visual

observations indicate elevated

concentrations of landfill gas, such as

distressed vegetation and cracks or

seeps in the cover. * * *

* * * * *

(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the

operational requirements in paragraphs

(b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met,

corrective action shall be taken as

specified in § 60.755(a)(3) through (5) or

§ 60.755(c) of this subpart. * * *

9. Amend § 60.754 as follows:

a. In the last sentences of paragraph

(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) remove the phrase

‘‘if the documentation provisions of

§ 60.758(d)(2) are followed’’ and add, in
32752 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

its place, ‘‘if documentation of the

nature and amount of such wastes is

maintained’’;

b. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii) remove the

last sentence and add in its place, ‘‘The

calculation of the methane generation

rate constant is performed only once,

and the value obtained from this test

shall be used in all subsequent annual

NMOC emission rate calculations.’’;

c. In paragraphs (a)(5) and (b)(3)

remove the phrase ‘‘as provided in

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(B)’’;

d. In paragraph (d), remove the words

‘‘Method 25’’ and add, in its place

‘‘Method 25C’’;

e. Revise the introductory text of

paragraph (a)(1) and revise paragraph (c)

to read as follows:

§ 60.754 Test methods and procedures.

(a)(1) The landfill owner or operator

shall calculate the NMOC emission rate

using either the equation provided in

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or the

equation provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)

of this section. Both equations may be

used if the actual year-to-year solid

waste acceptance rate is known, as

specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i), for part

of the life of the landfill and the actual

year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate

is unknown, as specified in paragraph

(a)(1)(ii), for part of the life of the

landfill. The values to be used in both

equations are 0.05 per year for k, 170

cubic meters per megagram for LO, and

4,000 parts per million by volume as

hexane for the CNMOC. For landfills

located in geographical areas with a

thirty year annual average precipitation

of less than 25 inches, as measured at

the nearest representative official

meteorologic site, the k value to be used

is 0.02 per year.

* * * * *

(c) When calculating emissions for

PSD purposes, the owner or operator of

each MSW landfill subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall estimate

the NMOC emission rate for comparison

to the PSD major source and

significance levels in §§ 51.166 or 52.21

of this chapter using AP–42 or other

approved measurement procedures.

* * * * *

10. Amend § 60.755 as follows:

a. In paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5), add

a sentence at the end of each paragraph

reading ‘‘An alternative timeline for

correcting the exceedance may be

submitted to the Administrator for

approval.’’;

b. Revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 60.755 Compliance provisions.

(a) * * *

(4) Owners or operators are not

required to expand the system as

required in paragraph (a)(3) of this

section during the first 180 days after

gas collection system startup.

* * * * *

c. In paragraph (b) introductory text,

in the last sentence, remove the phrase

‘‘within 60 days of the date in which’’

and add in its place, ‘‘no later than 60

days after the date on which’’;

d. In paragraph (c)(1), delete the

phrase ‘‘and along a serpentine pattern

spaced 30 meters apart (or a site-specific

established spacing)’’ and add in its

place, ‘‘and along a pattern that

traverses the landfill at 30 meter

intervals (or a site-specific established

spacing)’’.

11. Amend § 60.756 as follows:

a. In paragraph (a) introductory text,

remove the phrase ‘‘or other

temperature measuring device’’ and

add, in its place, ‘‘other temperature

measuring device, or an access port for

temperature measurements’’;

b. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the

phrase ‘‘an accuracy of’’ and add in its

place, ‘‘a minimum accuracy of’’;

c. In paragraph (b)(2), introductory

text, remove the phrase ‘‘A gas flow rate

measuring device that provides a

measurement of gas flow’’ and add, in

its place, ‘‘A device that records flow’’;

12. Amend § 60.757 by revising

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(1)(i)

and (g) introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 60.757 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) The initial design capacity report

shall fulfill the requirements of the

notification of the date construction is

commenced as required by § 60.7(a)(1)

and shall be submitted no later than:

(i) June 10, 1996, for landfills that

commenced construction, modification,

or reconstruction on or after May 30,

1991 but before March 12, 1996 or

(ii) Ninety days after the date of

commenced construction, modification,

or reconstruction for landfills that

commence construction, modification,

or reconstruction on or after March 12,

1996.

(2) The initial design capacity report

shall contain the following information:

(i) A map or plot of the landfill,

providing the size and location of the

landfill, and identifying all areas where

solid waste may be landfilled according

to the permit issued by the State, local,

or tribal agency responsible for

regulating the landfill.

(ii) The maximum design capacity of

the landfill. Where the maximum design

capacity is specified in the permit

issued by the State, local, or tribal

agency responsible for regulating the

landfill, a copy of the permit specifying

the maximum design capacity may be

submitted as part of the report. If the

maximum design capacity of the landfill

is not specified in the permit, the

maximum design capacity shall be

calculated using good engineering

practices. The calculations shall be

provided, along with the relevant

parameters as part of the report. The

State, Tribal, local agency or

Administrator may request other

reasonable information as may be

necessary to verify the maximum design

capacity of the landfill.

(3) An amended design capacity

report shall be submitted to the

Administrator providing notification of

an increase in the design capacity of the

landfill, within 90 days of an increase

in the maximum design capacity of the

landfill to or above 2.5 million

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic

meters. This increase in design capacity

may result from an increase in the

permitted volume of the landfill or an

increase in the density as documented

in the annual recalculation required in

§ 60.758(f).

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) The initial NMOC emission rate

report may be combined with the initial

design capacity report required in

paragraph (a) of this section and shall be

submitted no later than indicated in

paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this

section. Subsequent NMOC emission

rate reports shall be submitted annually

thereafter, except as provided for in

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this

section.

(A) June 10, 1996, for landfills that

commenced construction, modification,

or reconstruction on or after May 30,

1991, but before March 12, 1996, or

(B) Ninety days after the date of

commenced construction, modification,

or reconstruction for landfills that

commence construction, modification,

or reconstruction on or after March 12,

1996.

* * * * *

(g) Each owner or operator seeking to

comply with § 60.752(b)(2)(iii) shall

include the following information with

the initial performance test report

required under § 60.8:

* * * * *

13. Amend § 60.758 as follows:

a. Remove the introductory text;

b. At the beginning of paragraphs (a),

(b) introductory text, (c) introductory

text, (d) introductory text, and (e), add

the phrase ‘‘Except as provided in

§ 60.752(b)(2)(i)(B),’’;
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32753

c. In paragraph (a), remove the phrase

‘‘on-site records of the maximum design

capacity’’ and add, in its place ‘‘on-site

records of the design capacity report

which triggered § 60.752(b)’’;

d. Add paragraph (f) to read as

follows:

§ 60.758 Recordkeeping Requirements.

* * * * *

(f) Landfill owners or operators who

convert design capacity from volume to

mass or mass to volume to demonstrate

that landfill design capacity is less than

2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million

cubic meters, as provided in the

definition of ‘‘design capacity’’, shall

keep readily accessible, on-site records

of the annual recalculation of sitespecific density, design capacity, and

the supporting documentation. Off-site

records may be maintained if they are

retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper

copy or electronic formats are

acceptable.

14. Amend § 60.759 as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii), remove the

sentence ‘‘The values for k, LO, and

CNMOC determined in field testing shall

be used, if field testing has been

performed in determining the NMOC

emission rate or the radii of influence.’’

and add, in its place, the sentence ‘‘The

values for k and CNMOC determined in

field testing shall be used, if field testing

has been performed in determining the

NMOC emission rate or the radii of

influence (the distance from the well

center to a point in the landfill where

the pressure gradient applied by the

blower or compressor approaches

zero).’’

b. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii), remove the

sentence ‘‘If field testing has not been

performed, the default values for k, LO,

and CNMOC provided in § 60.754(a)(1)

shall be used’’ and add, in its place, the

sentence ‘‘If field testing has not been

performed, the default values for k, LO

and CNMOC provided in § 60.754(a)(1)

or the alternative values from

§ 60.754(a)(5) shall be used.

[FR Doc. 98–15007 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 180, 185 and 186

[OPP–300663; FRL–5793–5]

RIN 2070–AB78

Quizalofop-p ethyl ester; Pesticide

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

tolerances for combined residues of

quizalofop-p ethyl ester [ethyl (R)-(2-[4-

((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxyl]

propanoate), and its acid metabolite

quizalofop-p [(R)-(2-[4-((6-

chloroquinoxalin-2-

yl)oxy)phenoxyl]propionate) and the S

enantiomers of the ester and the acid, all

expressed as quizalofop-p ethyl ester in

or on canola seed, canola meal,

peppermint tops and spearmint tops.

DuPont Agricultural Products requested

the tolerances for canola and the

Interregional Research Project Number 4

(IR-4) requested the tolerances for

peppermint and spearmint. These

tolerances were requested under the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-170).

DATES: This regulation is effective June

16, 1998. Objections and requests for

hearings must be received by EPA on or

before August 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300663],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified

by the docket control number, [OPP–

300663], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7502C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

a copy of objections and hearing

requests to Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number [OPP–

300663]. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic copies of

objections and hearing requests on this

rule may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Sidney Jackson, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: Crystal

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA, (703) 305-7610; e-mail:

jackson.sidney@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register published on October

29, 1997 (62 FR 56176 (mint)) (FRL–

5749–7) and December 17, 1997, 62 FR

66080 (canola)) (FRL–5758–3), EPA,

issued notices pursuant to section 408

of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e)

announcing the filing of pesticide

petitions (PP) 6E4652 and 5F4545 for

tolerances by the IR-4 and DuPont

Agricultural Products, Wilmington,

Delaware. These notices included a

summary of the petitions prepared by

DuPont Agricultural Products,

Wilmington, Delaware, the registrant.

There were no comments received in

response to these notices of filing.

The petitions requested that 40 CFR

180.441 be amended by establishing

tolerances for combined residues of the

herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl ester [ethyl

(R)-(2-[4-((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-

yl)oxy)phenoxyl] propanoate), and its

acid metabolite quizalofop-p [(R)-(2-[4-

((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxyl]

propionate) and the S enantiomers of

the ester and the acid, all expressed as

quizalofop-p ethyl ester, in or on canola

seed at 1.0 part per million (ppm),

canola meal at 1.5 ppm, and peppermint

tops and spearmint tops at 2.0 ppm. .

I. Risk Assessment and Statutory

Findings

New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

FFDCA allows EPA to establish a

tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide

chemical residue in or on a food) only

if EPA determines that the tolerance is

‘‘safe.’’ Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines

‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate exposure to the

pesticide chemical residue, including

all anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is

reliable information.’’ This includes

exposure through drinking water and in

residential settings, but does not include

occupational exposure. Section

408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special

consideration to exposure of infants and