2227
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
IDAHO
PM
 
10
 
Continued
Designated
area
Designation
Classification
Date
Type
Date
Type
Remainder
of
AQCR
63
...............................................................................
11/
15/
90
Unclassifiable.
Metropolitan
Boise
the
Intrastate
AQCR
64:
Ada
County:
Boise
.......................................................................................
3/
12/
99
Pre­
existing
........
3/
12/
99
PM
 
10
NAAQS
NA
Pre­
existing
PM
 
10
NAAQS
NA
Northern
Boundary
 
Beginning
at
a
point
in
the
center
of
the
channel
of
the
Boise
River,
where
the
line
between
sections
15
and
16
in
Township
3
north
(
T3N),
range
4
east
(
R4E),
crosses
said
Boise
River;
thence,
west
down
the
center
of
the
channel
of
the
Boise
River
to
a
point
opposite
the
mouth
of
More's
Creek;
thence,
in
a
straight
line
north
44
degrees
and
38
minutes
west
until
the
said
line
intersects
the
north
line
T5N
(
12
Ter.
Ses.
67);
thence
west
to
the
northwest
corner
T5N,
R1W.
Western
Boundary
 
Thence,
south
to
the
northwest
corner
of
T3N,
R1W;
thence
east
to
the
northwest
corner
of
section
4
of
T3N,
R1W;
thence
south
to
the
southeast
corner
of
section
32
of
T2N,
R1W;
thence,
west
to
the
northwest
corner
of
T1N,
R1W;
thence,
south
to
the
southwest
corner
of
section
32
of
T2N,
R1W;
thence,
west
to
the
northwest
corner
of
T1N,
R1W;
thence
south
to
the
southwest
corner
of
T1N,
R1W.
Southern
Boundary
 
Thence,
east
to
the
southwest
corner
of
section
33
of
T1N,
R4E.
Eastern
Boundary
 
Thence,
north
along
the
north
and
south
center
line
of
Townships
T1N,
R4E,
T2N,
R4E,
and
T3N,
R4E,
Boise
Meridian
to
the
beginning
point
in
the
center
of
the
channel
of
the
Boise
River.
Remainder
of
AQCR
64
...............................................................................
11/
15/
90
Unclassifiable..

*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
856
Filed
1
 
15
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
OAR
 
2002
 
0047;
FRL
 
7418
 
2]

RIN
2060
 
AH13
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
promulgates
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
municipal
solid
waste
(
MSW)
landfills.
The
final
rule
is
applicable
to
both
major
and
area
sources
and
contains
the
same
requirements
as
the
Emission
Guidelines
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
EG/
NSPS).
The
final
rule
adds
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
(
SSM)
requirements,
adds
operating
condition
deviations
for
outof
bounds
monitoring
parameters,
requires
timely
control
of
bioreactor
landfills,
and
changes
the
reporting
frequency
for
one
type
of
report.
The
final
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.

EFFECTIVE
DATE:
January
16,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
information
concerning
applicability
and
rule
determinations,
contact
your
State
or
local
regulatory
agency
representative
or
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Office
representative.
For
information
concerning
the
development
of
the
final
rule,
contact
Ms.
JoLynn
Collins,
Waste
and
Chemical
Processes
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C439
 
03),
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
5671,
facsimile
number
(
919)
541
 
0246,
electronic
mail
address
collins.
jolynn@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Regulated
Entities.
Categories
and
entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action:

Category
NAICS
code
SIC
code
Examples
of
potentially
regulated
entities
Industry:
Air
and
water
resource
and
solid
waste
management
924110
9511
Solid
waste
landfills.

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

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2228
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Category
NAICS
code
SIC
code
Examples
of
potentially
regulated
entities
State,
local,
and
tribal
government
agencies
...................
562212
924110
4953
Solid
waste
landfills;
Air
and
water
resource
and
solid
waste
management.

This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
sections
63.1935
and
63.1940
of
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.
Docket.
We
have
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0047.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(
Air
Docket)
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742.
Electronic
Docket
Access.
You
may
access
the
final
rule
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
in
the
above
paragraph
entitled
``
Docket.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
the
final
rule
is
also
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
the
final
rule
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
the
following
address:
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.
Judicial
Review.
The
NESHAP
for
MSW
landfills
was
proposed
on
November
7,
2000
(
65
FR
66672).
A
supplemental
proposal
with
additional
bioreactor
provisions
was
published
on
May
23,
2002
(
67
FR
36460).
The
final
rule
announces
the
EPA's
final
decision.
Under
section
307(
b)(
1)
of
the
CAA,
judicial
review
of
the
final
rule
is
available
by
filing
a
petition
for
review
in
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
by
March
17,
2003.
Only
those
objections
to
the
final
rule
which
were
raised
with
reasonable
specificity
during
the
period
for
public
comment
may
be
raised
during
judicial
review.
Under
section
307(
b)(
2)
of
the
CAA,
the
requirements
that
are
the
subject
of
the
final
rule
may
not
be
challenged
later
in
civil
or
criminal
proceedings
brought
by
EPA
to
enforce
these
requirements.
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
NESHAP
A.
What
Source
Categories
Are
Affected
by
the
Final
Rule?
B.
What
Is
the
Affected
Source?
C.
What
Do
the
Standards
Require?
D.
When
Must
I
Begin
Complying
With
the
Standards?
E.
How
Are
New
and
Existing
Sources
Defined
Differently
For
Purposes
of
the
NESHAP
and
for
the
EG/
NSPS?
F.
How
Must
I
Demonstrate
Compliance?
G.
What
Are
the
Additional
Requirements
for
Bioreactors?
III.
Summary
of
Public
Comments
and
Responses
A.
Applicability
of
the
NESHAP
B.
Major
Source
Determination
C.
Bioreactors
D.
Mercury
E.
Title
V
Operating
Permits
IV.
Summary
of
the
Energy,
Environmental,
and
Economic
Impacts
V.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
F.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA)
of
1995
G.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
United
States
Code
(
U.
S.
C.)
601,
et
seq.
H.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
J.
Congressional
Review
Act
I.
Introduction
and
Background
Information
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
188
HAP
listed
in
section
112(
b)
of
the
CAA.
On
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576),
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.
Under
section
112(
k)
of
the
CAA,
we
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
on
July
19,
1999,
as
an
area
source
category
to
be
regulated
pursuant
to
section
112(
k)
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
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2229
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
emissions
of
HAP
that
is
achievable
for
new
and
existing
major
sources.
This
level
of
control
is
commonly
referred
to
as
MACT.
The
MACT
floor
is
the
minimum
control
level
allowed
for
NESHAP
and
is
defined
under
section
112(
d)(
3)
of
the
CAA.
The
MACT
floor
ensures
that
all
major
HAP
emissions
sources
achieve
the
level
of
control
already
achieved
by
the
better­
controlled
and
lower­
emitting
sources
in
each
category.
For
new
sources,
the
MACT
floor
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
emission
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
bestcontrolled
similar
source.
The
standards
for
existing
sources
can
be
less
stringent
than
standards
for
new
sources,
but
they
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emissions
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
must
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,
non­
air­
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
final
rule
ensures
reductions
of
emissions
of
nearly
30
HAP
including,
but
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.
Additional
discussion
of
health
effects
is
provided
in
the
proposal
(
65
FR
66672)
and
Docket
A
 
98
 
28.
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
depend
on
the
ambient
concentration
observed
in
the
area
(
as
influenced
by
emissions
rates,
meteorological
conditions,
and
terrain);
the
frequency
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).
We
recognize
that
health
risks
are
significantly
reduced
at
landfills
that
collect
and
control
landfill
gas.

II.
Summary
of
the
NESHAP
The
final
rule
contains
the
same
requirements
as
the
EG/
NSPS
(
40
CFR
part
60,
subparts
Cc
and
WWW),
plus
SSM
definition
and
reporting
of
deviations
for
out­
of­
range
monitoring
parameters.
Also,
the
final
rule
requires
compliance
reporting
every
6
months
while
the
EG/
NSPS
requires
annual
reporting.
For
bioreactors
at
large
landfills,
the
NESHAP
also
require
timely
installation
of
controls,
and
allows
timely
removal
of
controls.

A.
What
Source
Categories
Are
Affected
by
the
Final
Rule?
The
final
rule
applies
to
all
MSW
landfills
that
are
major
sources
or
are
collocated
with
a
major
source,
and
to
some
landfills
that
are
area
sources.
We
estimate
that
all
MSW
landfills
that
are
major
sources
of
HAP
(
i.
e.,
with
a
potential
to
emit
at
least
10
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
of
any
individual
HAP
or
25
tpy
total
HAP)
will
also
meet
the
EG/
NSPS
criteria
for
installing
collection
and
control
systems
(
i.
e.,
have
a
design
capacity
equal
to
or
greater
than
2.5
million
megagrams
(
Mg)
and
2.5
million
cubic
meters
(
m3)
and
have
estimated
uncontrolled
emissions
of
50
megagrams
per
year
(
Mg/
yr)
nonmethane
organic
compound
(
NMOC)).
All
major
source
landfills,
including
those
operated
partially
or
completely
as
bioreactors,
are
covered
by
the
final
rule
and,
in
addition
to
EG/
NSPS
control
requirements,
are
subject
to
the
additional
SSM,
deviation,
and
compliance
reporting
requirements
of
the
NESHAP.
Landfills
that
do
not
themselves
emit
major
source
levels
of
HAP
but
that
are
collocated
with
major
sources
of
HAP
are
also
covered
by
the
final
rule.
However,
if
these
landfills
are
smaller
than
the
EG/
NSPS
thresholds,
they
have
fewer
requirements
under
the
NESHAP,
as
previously
discussed
in
this
preamble.
In
addition,
as
previously
discussed
in
this
preamble,
landfills
have
been
listed
as
an
area
source
category
pursuant
to
section
112(
k).
The
final
rule
applies
to
area
source
landfills
if
they
have
a
design
capacity
equal
to
or
greater
than
2.5
million
Mg
and
2.5
million
m3,
and
they
have
estimated
uncontrolled
emissions
of
50
Mg/
yr
NMOC
or
more,
or
are
operated
as
a
bioreactor.
The
final
rule
does
not
apply
to
area
source
landfills
(
including
bioreactors)
with
a
design
capacity
less
than
2.5
million
Mg
or
2.5
million
m3.
It
also
does
not
apply
to
conventional
area
source
landfills
that
have
estimated
uncontrolled
emissions
of
less
than
50
Mg/
yr
NMOC.
(
The
EG/
NSPS
require
landfills
that
meet
the
design
capacity
criteria
to
periodically
calculate
uncontrolled
annual
NMOC
emissions.
If
an
area
source
landfill
that
currently
has
estimated
uncontrolled
emissions
less
than
50
Mg/
yr
increases
to
50
Mg/
yr
in
the
future,
it
will
become
subject
to
the
NESHAP
at
that
time.)
For
a
complete
description
of
applicability,
see
section
III.
A
of
this
preamble
and
sections
63.1935
through
63.1945
of
the
final
rule.

B.
What
Is
the
Affected
Source?
The
affected
source
is
the
entire
MSW
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
be
operated
as
a
conventional
landfill,
or
it
may
be
operated
completely
or
partially
as
a
bioreactor.
To
be
an
affected
source,
the
landfill
must
have
accepted
waste
since
November
8,
1987,
or
have
additional
capacity
for
waste
deposition,
and
must
be
either:
(
1)
A
major
source
of
HAP;
(
2)
collocated
with
a
major
source
of
HAP;
(
3)
an
area
source
with
a
design
capacity
greater
than
or
equal
to
2.5
million
Mg
and
2.5
million
m3
and
with
estimated
uncontrolled
NMOC
emissions
equal
to
or
greater
than
50
Mg/
yr;
or
(
4)
an
active
area
source
landfill
with
a
design
capacity
greater
than
or
equal
to
2.5
million
Mg
and
2.5
million
m3
that
operates
an
anaerobic
bioreactor,
as
defined
in
the
final
rule.
The
bioreactor
provisions
do
not
apply
to
closed
landfills.

C.
What
Do
the
Standards
Require?
Major
and
area
source
landfills
with
a
design
capacity
of
greater
than
or
equal
to
2.5
million
Mg
and
2.5
million
m3,
and
with
estimated
uncontrolled
NMOC
emissions
of
at
least
50
Mg/
yr,
would
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
EG/
NSPS
as
applicable,
plus
additional
requirements
imposed
by
the
final
rule.
These
requirements
also
apply
to
bioreactors
within
active
landfills
at
both
major
and
area
sources
if
the
landfill
meets
the
design
capacity
criteria.
You
are
required
to
meet
the
SSM
requirements
that
are
listed
in
the
general
provisions
to
40
CFR
part
63.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2230
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
You
must
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
SSM
(
section
63.6(
e)(
3)).
There
are
also
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
SSM
incidents.
The
final
rule
also
requires
you
to
operate
the
control
device
within
the
operating
parameter
boundaries
as
described
in
40
CFR
60.758(
c)(
1)
and
to
continuously
monitor
control
device
operating
parameters.
Compliance
with
the
operating
conditions
is
demonstrated
when
monitoring
data
show
that
the
gas
control
devices
are
operated
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.
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.
To
be
considered
a
valid
hour,
measured
values
must
be
available
for
at
least
three
15­
minute
periods
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).
With
one
exception,
the
final
rule
also
requires
you
to
submit
the
reports
that
are
specified
in
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
or
in
the
Federal
plan,
the
EPAapproved
State
plan,
or
Tribal
plan
that
implements
40
CFR
part
60
subpart
Cc,
whichever
is
applicable.
As
an
exception,
the
report
required
in
section
60.757(
f)
must
be
submitted
every
6
months
rather
than
annually.
The
report
pertains
to
the
control
device
operating
parameter
value
and
the
duration
of
time
that
control
devices
were
operating
in
out­
of­
bounds
conditions,
the
duration
of
periods
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.
If
a
landfill
is
subject
to
the
final
rule
because
it
is
collocated
with
a
major
source
and
the
landfill
has
a
design
capacity
less
than
2.5
million
Mg
or
2.5
million
m3,
the
landfill
must
comply
with
the
applicable
EG/
NSPS
requirements
(
i.
e.,
it
must
submit
a
design
capacity
report).
The
landfill
would
not
be
subject
to
additional
control
and
reporting
requirements
under
the
NESHAP.
Note
that
while
area
source
landfills
that
have
a
design
capacity
less
than
2.5
million
Mg
or
2.5
million
m3,
or
estimated
uncontrolled
NMOC
emissions
less
than
50
Mg/
yr
(
for
landfills
other
than
bioreactors)
are
not
subject
to
the
final
rule,
they
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
NSPS
or
State,
tribal,
or
Federal
plan
that
implements
the
EG,
as
applicable.

D.
When
Must
I
Begin
Complying
With
the
Standards?
If
your
landfill
is
a
new
affected
source,
you
must
comply
with
the
final
rule
by
January
16,
2003
or
at
the
time
you
begin
operating,
whichever
occurs
last.
The
final
rule
requires
you
to
comply
with
the
NSPS
at
that
time.
For
the
requirements
in
the
final
rule
that
are
over
and
above
the
NSPS,
you
must
begin
complying
by
the
date
your
new
major
or
area
source
landfill
is
required
to
install
a
collection
and
control
system
by
the
NSPS.
If
you
own
or
operate
a
bioreactor
at
a
landfill
that
is
a
new
affected
source,
then
you
are
required
to
install
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
in
the
bioreactor
prior
to
initiating
liquids
addition,
regardless
of
whether
the
landfill
emissions
rate
equals
or
exceeds
the
estimated
uncontrolled
emissions
rate
of
50
Mg/
yr
specified
in
the
EG/
NSPS.
Startup
of
the
collection
and
control
system
is
required
within
180
days
after
initiating
liquids
addition
or
within
180
days
after
reaching
40
percent
moisture
content
within
the
bioreactor,
whichever
is
later.
If
your
landfill
is
an
existing
affected
source,
then
you
must
comply
with
the
final
rule
by
January
16,
2004.
The
final
rule
requires
you
to
comply
with
the
NSPS
or
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
plan
that
implements
the
EG,
whichever
applies
to
your
landfill,
at
that
time.
You
must
begin
complying
with
the
additional
requirements
of
the
final
rule
(
that
are
over
and
above
the
EG/
NSPS)
by
January
16,
2004,
or
the
date
your
landfill
is
required
to
install
a
collection
and
control
system
by
the
NSPS
or
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
plan
that
implements
the
EG,
whichever
is
later.
If
your
landfill
has
a
bioreactor
and
the
landfill
is
an
existing
affected
source,
then
you
must
install
and
begin
operating
a
collection
and
control
system
for
the
bioreactor
within
3
years
after
publication
of
the
final
rule
unless
earlier
control
is
already
required
by
the
EG/
NSPS.
You
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test
and
report
the
results
within
180
days
after
startup
of
the
bioreactor
collection
and
control
system.
If
an
existing
source
landfill
installs
and
begins
to
operate
a
bioreactor
at
a
date
later
than
3
years
after
the
final
rule
is
published,
you
must
install
a
collection
and
control
system
for
the
bioreactor
before
the
initiation
of
liquids
addition.
The
control
system
is
required
to
begin
operation
within
180
days
after
the
first
date
of
liquids
addition
or
within
180
days
after
reaching
40
percent
moisture
content.
See
sections
63.1935
through
63.1947
for
the
complete
requirements
regarding
compliance
times.

E.
How
Are
New
and
Existing
Sources
Defined
Differently
for
Purposes
of
the
NESHAP
and
for
the
EG/
NSPS?
For
the
final
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
any
time
since
November
8,
1987,
or
has
additional
capacity
for
waste
deposition.
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,
or
has
capacity
for
additional
waste
deposition.
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
the
final
rule,
and,
thus,
will
not
be
discussed
further
here.
The
regulatory
implications
of
new
versus
existing
source
determination
for
sources
affected
by
the
final
rule
are
limited
to
compliance
timing
and
are
previously
discussed
in
this
preamble.

F.
How
Must
I
Demonstrate
Compliance?
You
must
demonstrate
compliance
by
meeting
the
applicable
requirements
in
the
EG/
NSPS
and,
if
you
are
required
to
install
a
collection
and
control
system,
by
maintaining
monitoring
parameters
within
acceptable
ranges.
In
addition,
you
must
submit
reports
every
6
months
which
would
include
any
notifications
of
deviations
from
the
monitoring
parameter
values.
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
written
SSM
plan
according
to
the
provisions
in
section
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2231
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
(
section
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii)).

G.
What
Are
the
Additional
Requirements
for
Bioreactors?
A
bioreactor
is
defined
as
a
MSW
landfill
or
portion
of
a
MSW
landfill
where
any
liquid
other
than
leachate
(
leachate
includes
landfill
gas
condensate)
is
added
in
a
controlled
fashion
into
the
waste
mass
(
often
in
combination
with
recirculating
leachate)
to
reach
a
minimum
average
moisture
content
of
at
least
40
percent
by
weight
to
accelerate
or
enhance
the
anaerobic
(
without
oxygen)
biodegradation
of
the
waste.
We
consider
landfill
gas
condensate
to
be
a
constituent
of
leachate.
Addition
of
wastewater
sludges
to
the
waste
mass
is
considered
addition
of
liquids
other
than
leachate.
Bioreactors
at
active
landfills
that
meet
the
design
capacity
criteria
are
required
to
install
and
begin
operating
gas
collection
and
control
systems
in
a
timely
manner
as
previously
discussed
in
this
preamble.
The
timing
for
extending
the
collection
and
control
system
into
new
cells
or
areas
of
the
bioreactor
is
also
different
from
conventional
landfills.
Once
control
of
your
bioreactor
is
required,
you
must
install
collection
and
control
systems
in
new
areas
or
cells
of
the
bioreactor
prior
to
initiating
liquids
addition
to
that
area,
cell,
or
group
of
cells.
Controls
may
be
removed
from
the
bioreactor
portion
of
the
landfill
either:
(
1)
When
the
criteria
for
control
removal
specified
in
the
landfills
EG/
NSPS
are
met,
or
(
2)
When
the
bioreactor
is
permanently
closed,
liquids
addition
has
ceased,
and
liquids
have
not
been
added
to
the
bioreactor
for
at
least
1
year.
At
some
landfills,
a
portion
of
the
landfill
is
a
bioreactor
and
the
remainder
is
designed
and
operated
as
a
conventional
landfill.
In
these
situations,
the
control
requirements
and
the
timing
of
control
installation
for
the
conventional
portion
of
the
landfill
do
not
change.
You
must
continue
to
use
the
equations
and
factors
in
the
EG/
NSPS
to
calculate
the
annual
estimated
uncontrolled
NMOC
emissions
for
your
landfill
as
a
whole
(
including
the
total
waste
placed
in
the
bioreactor
area
and
the
conventional
area).
When
your
calculated
uncontrolled
NMOC
emissions
equal
or
exceed
50
Mg/
yr,
then
you
must
install
a
collection
and
control
system
for
the
conventional
portions
of
the
landfill
according
to
the
schedule
in
the
NSPS,
or
the
applicable
State,
Tribal,
or
Federal
plan
that
implements
the
EG.
Only
the
bioreactor
portion
of
the
landfill
must
meet
the
control
schedule
for
bioreactors.
Note
that
as
a
general
rule,
it
is
currently
difficult
for
an
owner/
operator
of
a
MSW
landfill
to
operate
a
large
bioreactor
as
defined
in
the
final
rule.
This
is
because
of
the
Federal
criteria
regulating
MSW
landfills,
specifically
40
CFR
part
258.28
which
prohibits
the
addition
of
liquids
other
than
leachate
and
gas
condensate
to
a
landfill
and
40
CFR
part
258.26
which
limits
the
entry
of
rainwater
into
MSW
landfills
through
specified
run­
on
control
systems.
A
few
landfills
have
gained
site
specific
variances
under
Project
XL
to
operate
landfill
bioreactors.
However,
on
June
10,
2002,
EPA
proposed
a
revision
to
40
CFR
part
258
that
would
allow
the
Director
of
an
approved
State
to
issue
a
research,
development,
and
demonstration
(
RD&
D)
permit
for
a
MSW
landfill
(
67
FR
39662).
That
proposed
RD&
D
rule
would
allow
the
States
to
grant
variances
to
certain
parts
of
the
MSW
landfill
criteria
(
40
CFR
part
258)
through
the
issuance
of
RD&
D
permits.
As
a
result,
once
the
RD&
D
rule
becomes
final
and
an
approved
State
integrates
the
new
Federal
regulations,
the
Director
of
an
approved
State
may
issue
permits
which
could
potentially
allow
for
the
operation
of
a
bioreactor
landfill
as
long
as
there
is
no
increased
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
(
as
compared
to
a
MSW
landfill
permitted
under
the
existing
40
CFR
part
258
criteria).
Therefore,
once
the
proposed
rule
allowing
RD&
D
permits
for
MSW
landfills
becomes
final,
we
expect
the
number
of
bioreactor
landfills
to
increase.

III.
Summary
of
Public
Comments
and
Responses
This
section
of
the
preamble
is
a
brief
summary
of
the
major
public
comments
received
in
response
to
the
original
proposal
and
the
supplemental
proposal
for
the
MSW
landfills
NESHAP,
and
changes
resulting
from
the
comments.
Additional
comments
are
summarized
in
the
document
``
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills:
Background
Information
Document
for
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
 
Public
Comments
and
Responses.''
The
document
contains
a
full
report
of
all
comments
received
and
our
responses.
The
document
may
be
found
in
Docket
A
 
98
 
28.

A.
Applicability
of
the
NESHAP
Comment:
Two
commenters
recommended
that
additional
MACT
requirements
apply
only
to
major
sources
and
that
EPA
require
no
controls
for
area
sources.
Response:
We
believe
regulation
of
area
sources
is
appropriate
under
section
112(
k)
of
the
CAA.
Under
Section
112(
k),
we
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
on
July
19,
1999,
as
an
area
source
category
to
be
regulated
pursuant
to
section
112(
k)
because
13
of
the
listed
HAP
are
emitted
from
MSW
landfills
(
64
FR
38706).
Section
112(
k)
requires
that
sufficient
categories
of
area
sources
be
regulated
to
assure
that
sources
accounting
for
at
least
90
percent
of
the
aggregate
emissions
of
each
of
the
HAP
identified
pursuant
to
112(
k)
as
being
the
greatest
threat
to
health
in
urban
areas
are
subject
to
standards.
As
we
stated
at
proposal,
we
believe
it
is
necessary
to
regulate
some
area
MSW
landfills
to
meet
this
requirement
of
section
112(
k).
Therefore,
we
have
not
changed
this
aspect
of
the
final
rule's
applicability.
(
Note
that
the
bioreactor
provisions
of
the
final
rule
apply
to
major
and
area
sources
that
exceed
the
EG/
NSPS
design
capacity
criteria
of
2.5
million
Mg
and
2.5
million
m3
and
operate
as
a
bioreactor
regardless
of
whether
they
meet
or
exceed
the
EG/
NSPS
estimated
uncontrolled
NMOC
emissions
criteria
of
50
Mg/
yr.
See
sections
II
and
III.
C
of
this
preamble
for
further
information
on
bioreactor
applicability
and
requirements.)
Comment:
A
commenter
expressed
concern
that
small
landfills
that
are
collocated
with
major
source
facilities
become
subject
to
EG/
NSPS
control
under
the
final
rule.
Response:
Small
landfills
that
are
collocated
with
major
source
facilities
are
subject
to
the
final
rule.
The
final
rule
requires
them
to
comply
with
the
EG/
NSPS.
If
the
design
capacity
of
the
collocated
landfills
is
less
than
2.5
million
Mg
or
2.5
million
m3,
the
landfills
comply
by
submitting
a
design
capacity
report
as
required
by
the
EG/
NSPS.
The
final
rule
language
has
been
revised
to
clarify
that
the
final
rule
applies
to
these
landfills
but
does
not
extend
the
additional
final
rule
requirements
and
EG/
NSPS
collection
and
control
requirements
to
landfills
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2232
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
that
do
not
meet
the
control
device
applicability
thresholds
of
the
EG/
NSPS.
Comment:
Several
other
comments
included
suggested
changes
to
proposed
rule
applicability
language.
Response:
We
have
revised
sections
63.1935,
63.1940,
and
63.1945
to
clarify
the
application
of
the
final
rule
to
major
sources,
area
sources
and
smaller
landfills
collocated
with
major
sources,
as
well
as
identify
the
affected
source
for
the
final
rule
and
clarify
the
timing
of
the
regulatory
requirements.
We
also
added
language
to
section
63.1955
to
further
explain
that
landfills
required
to
install
a
collection
and
control
system
under
NSPS,
Federal,
State
or
tribal
plans
that
implement
the
EG
must
also
meet
the
requirements
in
sections
63.1960
through
63.1980
of
the
final
rule.
Comment:
Two
commenters
requested
clarification
of
the
timing
of
the
final
rule
regulatory
requirements.
They
pointed
out
that
the
proposal
preamble
indicated
that
the
additional
requirements
of
the
final
rule
(
compared
to
the
NSPS)
do
not
take
effect
until
the
landfill
is
required
to
install
controls
under
the
EG/
NSPS,
but
the
regulation
language
was
not
clear.
Response:
In
response
to
this
comment,
we
revised
section
63.1945
to
be
consistent
with
our
intent
at
proposal.
The
wording
of
this
section
continues
to
require
that
new
sources
comply
with
the
final
rule
on
the
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
or
at
the
time
they
begin
operation,
whichever
is
later;
and
that
existing
sources
comply
with
the
final
rule
by
January
16,
2004.
At
that
time,
the
source
is
required
to
comply
with
the
NSPS
or
the
Federal,
State,
or
tribal
plan
that
implements
the
EG.
We
have
added
language
to
this
section
to
clarify
when
landfills
must
comply
with
certain
requirements
within
the
final
rule.
New
affected
sources
must
comply
with
the
additional
final
rule
requirements
(
such
as
the
SSM
plan
and
the
semiannual
reporting
of
deviations)
on
the
date
the
landfill
is
required
to
install
collection
and
control
systems
under
the
NSPS.
Existing
affected
sources
must
comply
with
the
additional
final
rule
requirements
on
the
date
the
landfill
is
required
to
install
collection
and
control
systems
under
the
NSPS,
Federal,
State
or
tribal
plan
or
1
year
after
publication
of
the
final
rule,
whichever
is
later.

B.
Major
Source
Determination
Comment:
Several
commenters
expressed
concern
that
we
overestimated
the
number
of
major
source
landfills.
The
commenters
contend
that
AP
 
42
emissions
factors
are
incorrect
and
provide
overestimates
of
landfill
gas
emissions,
that
EG/
NSPS
controls
should
be
taken
into
account
when
determining
major
source
status
of
landfills,
and
that
using
NMOC
as
a
HAP
surrogate
is
too
arbitrary.
Response:
We
respond
that
we
used
the
best
method
for
calculating
emissions
that
is
currently
available
and
accepted,
which
is
the
current
version
of
AP
 
42.
The
EPA
program
responsible
for
AP
 
42
factors
is
reviewing
existing
reports
and
technical
data
as
well
as
undertaking
a
landfill
testing
program
to
collect
additional
HAP
data.
Currently,
the
data
collection
and
analysis
are
not
yet
complete,
and
could
not
be
completed
prior
to
promulgation
of
the
final
rule.
When
we
update
the
AP
 
42
chapter
on
landfill
emissions,
we
will
consider
all
relevant
data.
However,
any
update
of
AP
 
42
or
adjustment
of
calculation
procedures
would
not
affect
our
regulatory
decisions
in
developing
the
final
rule.
We
find
that
the
MACT
floor
is
the
EG/
NSPS
level
of
control.
The
floor
is
based
on
the
current
level
of
control
at
major
and
synthetic
area
sources
and
would
not
change
if
there
were
somewhat
fewer
or
more
major
sources
than
previously
estimated.
We
agree
that
in
determining
whether
a
source
is
major,
enforceable
control
requirements
should
be
considered.
The
statement
in
the
proposal
preamble
identifying
1,140
facilities
as
major
sources
may
not
have
been
clear.
The
intent
was
to
say
that
based
on
estimates
of
maximum
uncontrolled
emissions,
1,140
landfills
have
potential
emissions
greater
than
10
tpy
individual
HAP
or
25
tpy
of
a
combination
of
HAP.
Some
of
the
1,140
landfills
are
major
sources
and
others
are
``
synthetic
area''
sources
(
sources
that
would
otherwise
be
major
if
not
for
enforceable
emissions
controls).
Both
major
and
synthetic
area
sources
were
correctly
included
in
the
MACT
floor
determination.
The
CAA
does
not
suggest
we
exclude
a
control
technology
from
consideration
in
the
MACT
floor
because
it
is
so
effective
it
reduces
emissions
from
a
source
such
that
the
source
is
no
longer
a
major
source
of
HAP.
To
determine
major
source
status
for
rule
applicability,
a
landfill
owner/
operator
would
consider
enforceable
control
requirements
such
as
the
NSPS.
Since
the
landfills
NESHAP
requirements
for
area
sources
that
meet
the
NSPS
capacity
criteria
and
have
uncontrolled
NMOC
emissions
of
50
Mg/
yr
or
greater
are
the
same
as
for
major
sources,
this
classification
would
not
change
the
control
or
reporting
requirements
for
the
landfill.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
final
rule
has
not
redefined
major
source.
Major
source
status
is
determined
according
to
the
NESHAP
general
provisions
definition.
Nonmethane
organic
compounds
are
a
surrogate
for
HAP
control,
not
for
whether
a
facility
is
a
major
source.
Nonmethane
organic
compounds
are
an
appropriate
surrogate
for
HAP
control
because
all
HAP
regulated
by
the
final
rule
are
contained
in
the
NMOC
portion
of
the
landfill
gas.
Landfill
owners/
operators
are
already
required
to
estimate
NMOC
under
the
EG/
NSPS,
and
it
is
not
necessary
to
increase
the
burden
by
requiring
specific
HAP
measurements
as
well.

C.
Bioreactors
Comment:
We
received
several
comments
about
the
timing
of
startup
of
the
gas
collection
and
control
system.
Three
commenters
expressed
concern
that
due
to
a
wide
range
of
possible
development
scenarios,
commencing
operation
of
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
within
90
days
of
liquids
addition
may
not
be
appropriate
in
all
cases.
Two
of
the
commenters
stated
that
the
generation
rates
of
landfill
gas
during
the
initial
development
phases
of
bioreactors
are
a
function
of
many
factors
and
substantial
quantities
of
recoverable
landfill
gas
may
not
be
available
due
to
low
waste
acceptance
rates,
hybrid
bioreactor
operations,
high
inorganic
waste
fractions,
or
low
liquids
addition
rates
where
gas
generation
is
likely
to
be
similar
to
that
of
conventional
landfills.
Under
these
circumstances,
premature
startup
of
the
gas
control
system
may
result
in
significant
volumes
of
air
being
introduced
into
the
bioreactor,
thus
killing
methane­
producing
bacteria.
These
commenters
recommended
extending
the
startup
time
frame
to
180
days
or
establishing
a
process
for
waiving
or
delaying
the
startup
date
if
local
conditions
warrant.
Response:
In
response
to
this
comment,
we
have
changed
the
final
rule
to
allow
180
days
instead
of
90
days
to
begin
operation
of
the
collection
and
control
system.
We
are
aware
that
bioreactors
may
experience
variable
emissions
rates
upon
initial
liquids
addition
due
to
site­
specific
factors
such
as
those
described
by
the
commenters.
Furthermore,
gas
collection
systems
for
bioreactors
are
site­
specific
and
are
likely
to
use
newer
designs,
so
operators
may
require
time
to
gain
experience
and
make
operational
adjustments
to
their
systems.
The
180
day
period
will
allow
time
for
landfill
operators
to
adjust
their
collection
systems
such
that
they
can
achieve
continuous,
stable
collection
and
control
system
operation.
Comment:
Four
commenters
requested
clarification
as
to
whether
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2233
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
rule
was
meant
to
require
the
operation
of
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
within
90
days
after
the
initial
liquids
addition
or
within
90
days
after
the
moisture
content
has
reached
40
percent.
Commenters
stated
that
they
believed
the
intent
was
to
require
operation
of
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
after
the
moisture
content
reached
40
percent.
The
commenters
stated
that
it
may
take
longer
than
90
days
of
liquids
addition
to
reach
a
moisture
content
of
40
percent.
Response:
It
was
our
intent
that
attaining
40
percent
moisture
triggers
the
operation
of
the
control
system,
and
not
merely
the
introduction
of
liquids.
If
operation
of
the
control
system
is
based
on
the
time
of
liquids
addition
and
the
landfill
has
not
reached
40
percent
moisture
content
within
90
days,
then
the
rule
(
as
proposed)
would
be
requiring
collection
and
control
to
be
installed
and
operated
prior
to
the
landfill
meeting
the
definition
of
a
bioreactor.
We
have
revised
the
final
rule
to
clarify
that
the
operation
of
the
collection
and
control
system
is
required
within
180
days
after
the
landfill
starts
liquids
addition
or
within
180
days
after
the
bioreactor
has
reached
40
percent
moisture
content
(
i.
e.
180
days
after
the
landfill
has
met
the
definition
of
bioreactor),
whichever
is
later.
Landfills
must
use
the
procedures
in
section
63.1980(
g)
and
(
h)
to
determine
when
40
percent
moisture
content
is
reached.
(
No
calculation
is
needed
if
you
start
operating
the
collection
and
control
system
within
180
days
after
the
initial
liquids
addition.)
Installation
of
the
collection
and
control
system
is
still
required
prior
to
liquids
addition,
as
required
in
the
supplemental
proposal.
Comment:
We
received
several
comments
pertaining
to
the
exclusion
of
landfills
that
recirculate
leachate
and
do
not
add
any
other
liquids
from
the
definition
of
a
bioreactor
landfill.
Three
commenters
who
supported
the
exclusion
stated
that
liquids
addition
other
than
that
provided
by
leachate
recirculation
is
normally
needed
to
achieve
optimum
moisture
for
bioreactors.
Many
landfills
recirculate
leachate
as
part
of
their
leachate
management
system
without
creating
bioreactor
conditions.
A
commenter
who
opposed
the
exclusion
contended
that
a
landfill
in
a
relatively
moist
climate
could
sustain
an
effective
bioreactor
operation
on
leachate
recirculation
alone.
This
commenter
pointed
out
that
there
were
odor
problems
at
landfills
in
his
State
that
began
recirculating
leachate
without
a
collection
and
control
system.
The
commenter
stated
that
his
State
now
requires
collection
and
control
for
all
landfills
that
recirculate
leachate.
The
commenter
also
expressed
concern
that
landfills
recirculating
leachate
only
may
reach
the
40
percent
moisture
level
in
the
waste
by
recirculating
leachate
from
the
entire
landfill
into
a
single
bioreactor
cell.
Another
commenter
who
opposed
the
exclusion
contended
that
minimal
data
from
landfills
recirculating
leachate
has
been
collected
to
allow
for
the
exclusion.
Response:
We
have
not
changed
the
bioreactor
definition.
A
very
small
percentage
of
bioreactors
in
moist
climates
would
reach
moisture
content
of
40
percent
with
leachate
recirculation
only.
Due
to
variations
in
rainfall
throughout
the
year,
it
would
be
difficult
to
consistently
maintain
a
high
moisture
content
in
the
waste
to
function
as
a
fully
operational
bioreactor.
We
expect
that
landfill
owners
that
decide
to
create
bioreactors
in
the
future
will
typically
plan
to
operate
a
large
area
as
a
bioreactor
to
achieve
potential
benefits
such
as
earlier
stabilization
of
waste,
extended
use
of
current
sites
and
reduced
need
for
new
sites.
Liquids
addition
would
be
needed
to
maintain
such
bioreactors.
It
would
be
a
large
and
unnecessary
burden
to
require
potentially
hundreds
of
landfills
that
recirculate
leachate,
but
do
not
add
any
other
liquids,
to
calculate
their
percent
moisture
content
and
determine
if
they
are
a
bioreactor,
when
we
expect
that
they
will
not
meet
the
40
percent
moisture
criteria
in
the
definition
of
a
bioreactor.
These
landfills
would
still
be
subject
to
the
final
rule
and
EG/
NSPS
control
requirements
for
conventional
landfills,
which
will
require
gas
collection
and
control
after
their
estimated
uncontrolled
NMOC
emissions
reach
50
Mg/
yr.
State,
local,
or
tribal
agencies
may
develop
more
stringent
State
or
local
regulations
for
landfills
recirculating
leachate
in
cases
where
odor
or
air
emissions
warrant
active
landfill
gas
collection
and
control.
Comment:
One
commenter
pointed
out
that
the
potential
exists
for
smaller
bioreactor
landfills
that
add
liquids,
to
generate
significant
air
emissions
that
warrant
timely
installation
of
gas
collection
and
control
systems.
The
commenter
recommended
requiring
control
of
bioreactors
at
landfills
with
design
capacities
less
than
2.5
million
Mg
or
2.5
million
m3.
Response:
We
have
not
changed
our
conclusion
since
proposal.
In
determining
GACT
for
area
sources,
we
decided
not
to
require
control
at
small
area
source
conventional
or
bioreactor
landfills.
While
bioreactors
generate
larger
amounts
of
landfill
gas
early
in
their
life,
we
expect
that
their
lifetime
total
landfill
gas
generation
potential
would
not
be
significantly
greater
than
a
conventional
landfill
accepting
the
same
total
amount
of
waste.
Therefore,
potential
emissions
reductions
from
control
of
bioreactors
would
be
similar
to
potential
long­
term
emissions
reductions
from
control
of
small
conventional
landfills.
Requiring
bioreactors
at
small
landfills
(
i.
e.,
landfills
with
design
capacities
less
than
2.5
million
Mg
or
2.5
million
m3)
to
install
controls
would
result
in
additional
control
costs
because
they
are
not
required
to
install
controls
by
the
EG/
NSPS.
The
design
capacity
exemption
excludes
those
landfills
that
can
least
afford
the
costs
of
collection
and
control
systems
including
small
businesses
and,
particularly,
municipalities.
Other
reasons
for
exempting
small
landfills
are
described
in
the
proposed
landfills
NESHAP
(
65
FR
66677,
November
7,
2000)
and
also
apply
to
bioreactors.
Comment:
Four
commenters
encouraged
us
to
include
aerobic
bioreactor
operations
by
imposing
the
anaerobic
bioreactor
emissions
requirements
on
aerobic
bioreactor
landfills.
Two
of
these
commenters
provide
references
to
available
literature
on
MSW
composting.
They
suggested
that
controls
for
aerobic
bioreactor
landfills
may
be
warranted,
although
one
of
these
commenters
concluded
that
there
is
not
enough
scientifically
valid
data
to
develop
a
MACT
standard
for
aerobic
bioreactor
landfills.
Five
other
commenters
agreed
there
is
limited
data,
especially
HAP
emissions
data,
and
believe
it
is
important
to
exclude
aerobic
bioreactors
at
this
time.
Response:
The
references
provided
for
composting
operations
are
not
applicable
because
composting
of
MSW
is
not
the
same
as
operating
an
aerobic
bioreactor
within
a
MSW
landfill.
We
know
of
no
full
scale
aerobic
bioreactors
in
operation
in
the
United
States,
and
an
insufficient
amount
of
aerobic
landfill
data
are
available
to
properly
characterize
HAP
emissions
from
aerobic
bioreactors.
We
expect
a
significant
number
of
aerobic
bioreactors
will
not
be
built
in
the
next
several
years
(
in
contrast
to
the
trend
for
anaerobic
bioreactors).
For
these
reasons,
we
have
determined
that
it
is
not
appropriate
to
include
aerobic
bioreactors
in
the
bioreactor
definition
or
related
timing
requirements.
Portions
of
a
landfill
that
are
operated
as
aerobic
bioreactors
would
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
EG/
NSPS
and
the
final
rule
requirements
for
conventional
landfills.
Under
section
112(
f)
of
the
CAA,
we
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00059
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2234
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
determination
regarding
the
permitting
of
area
sources
under
this
NESHAP
does
not
affect
the
permitting
of
area
sources
under
other
section
111
or
112
standards.
Rather,
to
exempt
area
sources
under
either
a
section
111
or
112
standard,
the
test
in
section
502(
a)
must
be
met.
If
commenters
choose
to
try
and
meet
this
test
when
commenting
on
a
proposed
section
111
or
112
standard,
they
must
submit
comments
which
document
in
detail
the
ways
in
which
title
V
requirements
are
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome
for
the
source
catergory
in
question.
2
For
information
on
aggregating
emissions
units
to
determine
what
is
a
source
under
title
V,
see
the
definition
of
major
source
in
40
CFR
70.2,
71.2,
and
63.2.
Nothing
in
this
subpart
revises
how
affected
sources
are
aggregated
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
an
affected
source
is
a
part
of
an
area,
nonmajor,
or
major
source
under
any
provisions
of
the
CAA
or
EPA's
regulations.
3
Consistent
with
the
above,
it
is
important
to
note
that
an
application
deadline
once
established
will
evaluate
residual
risks
and
promulgate
standards
to
address
residual
risks
within
8
years
of
promulgation
of
the
final
rule.
In
addition,
section
112(
d)(
6)
requires
review
of
the
final
rule
every
8
years.
At
that
time,
we
will
consider
any
new
information
on
the
prevalence
and
emissions
of
aerobic
bioreactors
to
determine
if
additional
requirements
are
necessary.

D.
Mercury
Comment:
Four
commenters
questioned
the
reliability
of
the
available
mercury
data.
Some
commenters
quoted
mercury
emissions
tests
that
showed
mercury
emissions
from
MSW
landfills
to
be
insignificant.
Response:
We
considered
data
from
a
number
of
studies,
including
one
specifically
mentioned
by
the
commenters,
prior
to
proposal.
We
found
insufficient
data
to
adequately
characterize
the
concentrations
of
mercury
in
landfill
gas
or
determine
their
significance.
Based
on
the
available
information,
we
concluded
that
the
MACT
floor
for
mercury
is
no
emissions
reductions
and
because
there
are
no
alternatives
above
that
floor,
the
MACT
standard
is
also
no
reduction
in
emissions.
Comment:
Other
commenters
wrote
in
support
of
the
cooperative
efforts
of
EPA
and
the
Environmental
Research
and
Education
Foundation
to
conduct
tests
for
HAP
metals
such
as
mercury
in
landfill
gas
and
emissions
from
gas
combustion.
The
commenters
suggested
waiting
until
the
test
results
are
complete
before
making
any
decision
on
mercury
controls.
Another
commenter
also
asked
us
to
clarify
the
level
of
mercury
emissions
from
MSW
landfill
gas
and
requested
that
we
investigate
beyond­
the­
floor
control
options.
Response:
We
find
that
the
currently
available
data
support
the
promulgation
of
the
rulemaking
without
a
mercury
emissions
limit.
Because
there
are
no
control
devices,
pollution
prevention
practices
or
other
techniques
to
reduce
landfill
mercury
emissions,
we
could
not
identify
any
beyond­
the­
floor
control
options,
and
we
consider
the
MACT
for
new
and
existing
landfills
to
be
no
reduction
in
mercury
emissions.

E.
Title
V
Operating
Permits
Comment:
A
commenter
recommended
that
we
delete
the
requirement
mandating
that
area
sources
be
required
to
obtain
a
title
V
permit
and
instead
allow
part
60
to
address
the
permitting
of
area
source
landfills.
The
commenter
further
suggested
that
if
we
retain
the
requirement
of
permitting
area
source
landfills,
that
we
justify
why
area
source
landfills
must
be
permitted.
Response:
In
response
to
that
comment,
title
V
requirements
included
in
§
63.1935
at
proposal
have
been
deleted.
We
further
respond
that
section
502(
a)
of
the
CAA
requires
any
source,
including
an
area
source,
subject
to
standards
or
regulations
under
section
111
or
112
of
the
CAA
to
operate
in
compliance
with
a
title
V
permit
after
the
effective
date
of
any
title
V
permits
program.
This
section
states
that
the
Administrator
may
promulgate
regulations
to
exempt
one
or
more
source
categories,
in
whole
or
in
part,
from
the
requirements
of
the
section
if
the
Administrator
finds
that
compliance
with
title
V
requirements
is
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
such
categories.
Thus,
we
do
not
need
to
justify
requiring
title
V
permits.
The
CAA
mandates
criteria
that
must
be
met
to
justify
an
exemption
for
any
category
of
sources.
According
to
section
502(
a),
however,
the
Administrator
may
not
exempt
any
major
source
from
the
requirements
of
title
V.
Although
section
502(
a)
requires
that
area
sources
subject
to
regulations
under
section
111
or
112
be
permitted
unless
the
test
in
this
section
is
met
(
i.
e.,
the
Administrator
finds
that
compliance
with
title
V
permitting
requirements
is
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome),
we
are
not
applying
this
test
to
the
landfills
NESHAP.
1
Rather,
consistent
with
what
the
commenter
suggested,
EPA
is
allowing
the
EG/
NSPS
for
MSW
landfills
to
address
the
permitting
requirements
for
area
source
landfills.
This
approach
is
justified
because
the
same
universe
of
area
source
landfills
would
have
been
required
to
apply
for
a
title
V
permit
under
the
final
rule
(
if
the
final
rule
were
promulgated
as
proposed)
as
is
currently
subject
to
title
V
permitting
requirements
under
the
NSPS
for
landfills
and
whatever
plan
is
used
to
implement
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
Cc
in
an
area
(
i.
e.,
an
EPA
approved
and
effective
section
111(
d)
State
or
tribal
plan
for
landfills
or
the
landfills
Federal
plan
(
40
CFR
part
62,
subpart
GGG)).
Moreover,
most
area
source
landfills
which
have
a
design
capacity
equal
to
or
greater
than
2.5
million
Mg
and
2.5
million
m3
have
already
been
required
to
apply
for
a
title
V
permit
due
to
either
the
NSPS
for
landfills,
an
EPA
approved
and
effective
section
111(
d)
State
or
tribal
plan
for
landfills,
or
the
landfills
Federal
plan.
See
40
CFR
60.752(
c),
60.32c(
c),
and
62.14352(
e).
See
also
the
``
Clarification
of
Title
V
Permitting
Requirements''
section
of
the
EG/
NSPS
direct
final
rule
amendments
for
MSW
Landfills
(
63
FR
32743,
32746,
June
16,
1998).
In
fact,
unless
the
owner/
operator
of
a
MSW
landfill
only
recently
commenced
construction
of
the
landfill
and
has
not
yet
been
required
to
file
a
design
capacity
report
(
which
the
NSPS
requires
within
90
days
after
the
owner/
operator
commences
construction),
all
area
source
landfills
of
the
design
capacity
noted
above
and
which
meet
the
definition
of
new
or
existing
under
the
EG/
NSPS
should
have
already
applied
for
a
title
V
permit.
As
a
result,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
unnecessary
for
area
sources
to
be
required
to
apply
for
a
title
V
permit
as
a
result
of
the
landfills
NESHAP.
If
a
MSW
landfill
is
a
major
source
or
is
a
part
of
a
major
source
as
defined
under
one
or
more
of
title
V's
three
major
source
definitions
(
section
112,
section
302,
and
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
CAA),
2
a
title
V
application
from
such
a
source
may
be
due
even
earlier
than
the
deadlines
established
by
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
any
EPA
approved
and
effective
section
111(
d)
State
or
tribal
plan,
or
the
landfills
Federal
plan.
When
a
source
is
subject
to
title
V
for
more
than
one
reason
(
e.
g.,
meeting
the
title
V
applicability
criteria
in
subpart
WWW
as
well
as
having
the
potential
to
emit
one
or
more
pollutants
at
major
source
levels),
the
12­
month
timeframe
(
or
earlier
if
required
by
the
title
V
permitting
authority)
for
submitting
a
title
V
application
is
triggered
by
the
requirement
which
first
causes
the
source
to
become
subject
to
title
V.
See
CAA
section
503(
c)
and
40
CFR
70.3(
a)
and
(
b),
70.5(
a)(
1),
71.3(
a)
and
(
b),
and
71.5(
a)(
1).
See
also
the
``
Clarification
of
Title
V
Permitting
Requirements''
section
of
the
EG/
NSPS
direct
final
rule
for
MSW
Landfills
(
63
FR
32743,
32746,
June
16,
1998).
3
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00060
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2235
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
for
a
source
cannot
be
superseded
by
another
later
application
deadline
unless
the
title
V
program
itself
changes
(
e.
g.,
a
State
program
under
40
CFR
part
70
becomes
a
Federal
program
under
40
CFR
part
71).
4
A
title
V
application
should
be
submitted
early
enough
for
the
permitting
authority
to
find
the
application
either
complete
or
incomplete
before
the
title
V
application
deadline.
In
the
event
the
application
is
found
incomplete
by
the
permitting
authority,
the
source
must
submit
the
information
needed
to
make
the
application
complete
by
the
application
deadline
in
order
to
obtain
an
application
shield.
(
An
application
shield
allows
a
source
to
operate
without
being
in
violation
of
title
V
prior
to
being
issued
a
final
title
V
permit.)
To
maintain
an
application
shield,
a
source
must
submit
information
as
requested
by
the
permitting
authority
and
by
the
specified
deadline.
See
section
503(
d)
of
the
CAA,
40
CFR
70.5(
a)(
2),
70.7(
b),
71.5(
a)(
2),
and
71.7(
b).
5
A
title
V
application
from
a
major
source
must
address
all
emissions
units
at
the
title
V
source,
not
just
the
section
111
or
112
emissions
unit.
See
40
CFR
70.3(
c)(
1)
and
71.3(
c)(
1).
Given
that
most
area
source
landfills
subject
to
the
final
rule
are
already
subject
to
the
requirements
of
title
V,
it
is
important
to
note
the
following.
In
cases
where
the
owner/
operator
of
a
landfill
has
submitted
a
timely
and
complete
title
V
application4,
but
the
draft
title
V
permit
has
not
yet
been
released
by
the
permitting
authority,
the
owner/
operator
must
supplement
his
title
V
application
5
by
incorporating
the
applicable
requirements
of
the
final
landfills
NESHAP
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
70.5(
b)
or
71.5(
b).
Additionally,
if
a
landfill
is
a
major
source,
or
is
a
part
of
a
major
source,
and
is
covered
by
a
title
V
permit
with
a
remaining
permit
term
of
3
or
more
years
on
the
promulgation
date
of
the
landfills
NESHAP,
the
title
V
permitting
authority
must
complete
a
reopening
of
the
source's
title
V
permit
to
incorporate
the
requirements
of
the
final
rule
within
18
months
of
the
promulgation
date
of
the
final
rule.
See
CAA
section
502(
b)(
9)
and
40
CFR
70.7(
f)(
1)(
i)
and
71.7(
f)(
1)(
i).
Comment:
Two
commenters
recommended
that
we
clarify
that
deviations
that
are
properly
addressed
in
accordance
with
the
SSM
plan
under
the
proposed
rule
will
not
become
violations
under
any
CAA
program
or
permit,
such
as
a
title
V
permit,
in
which
the
standard,
limitation,
prohibition,
or
other
Federallyenforceable
requirement
is
contained.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
proposed
rule
suggested
that
any
deviations
that
occur
during
SSM
would
not
be
violations
under
section
112
if
the
SSM
plan
were
adequate
and
followed.
The
commenters
are
concerned
that
such
a
deviation
might
be
considered
a
violation
under
title
V
and/
or
the
EG/
NSPS
for
MSW
landfills.
Response:
To
the
extent
that
a
source
is
in
compliance
with
the
applicable
SSM
provisions
of
parts
60
and
63,
the
source
is
in
compliance
with
its
title
V
permit
with
respect
to
these
specific
applicable
requirements.
In
terms
of
the
EG/
NSPS
for
landfills,
deviations,
and,
therefore,
potential
violations,
will
be
defined
by
the
applicable
requirements
(
i.
e.,
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
an
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
or
tribal
plan,
or
the
landfills
Federal
plan.)
Furthermore,
in
response
to
this
comment,
section
63.1970
has
been
removed
from
the
final
rule
to
eliminate
any
confusion
regarding
the
use
of
SSM
plans.
Given
that
the
revisions
to
the
General
Provisions
for
part
63
(
67
FR
16582,
April
5,
2002)
included
revisions
to
40
CFR
63.6(
e),
a
subsection
which
addresses
SSM
plans,
and
given
the
other
language
in
the
General
Provisions
for
parts
60
and
63,
the
NSPS
for
landfills,
and
the
landfills
Federal
plan
relevant
to
this
topic,
EPA
does
not
believe
a
regulatory
section
regarding
the
use
of
SSM
plans
is
needed
in
the
final
rule.
See
40
CFR
60.11(
c),
60.755(
e),
63.6(
e),
63.6(
f)(
1),
and
62.14354(
b).
Comment:
Two
commenters
requested
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
which
reporting
requirements
under
the
final
rule
would
satisfy
specific
requirements
under
the
title
V
program.
The
commenters
cited
a
specific
example:
the
proposed
rule
requires
that
the
landfill
owner/
operator
notify
EPA
within
2
days
of
a
SSM
event.
The
commenters
questioned
whether
this
requirement
would
satisfy
the
prompt
reporting
requirements
of
the
title
V
program.
Response:
As
many
owners/
operators
of
landfills
subject
to
this
subpart
will
have
the
requirements
of
the
final
rule
in
their
title
V
permits,
any
reports
submitted
for
such
sources
will
need
to
satisfy
the
reporting
requirements
of
the
landfills
NESHAP
and
title
V
(
e.
g.,
type
of
report,
content
of
report,
and
frequency
of
submission.)
A
permitting
authority
is
not,
however,
precluded
from
consolidating
required
reports
as
long
as
all
reporting
requirements
of
the
landfills
NESHAP
and
title
V
are
met.
We
would
like
to
emphasize
that
under
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
any
application
form,
report,
compliance
certification,
or
other
document
required
by
a
permit
to
be
submitted
to
a
permitting
authority
must
contain
certification
by
a
responsible
official
that
the
statements
and
information
in
the
document
are
true,
accurate,
and
complete.
See
40
CFR
70.5(
d),
70.6(
c)(
1),
71.5(
d),
and
71.6(
c)(
1).
Thus,
to
the
extent
reports
submitted
under
the
final
rule
are
also
required
by
a
title
V
permit
to
be
submitted,
they
must
meet
the
title
V
certification
requirement
to
meet
the
reporting
requirements
of
title
V.
The
commenters
mentioned
a
specific
requirement
in
40
CFR
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii).
This
provision
states
that
any
time
an
owner/
operator
takes
an
action
during
a
SSM
event
which
is
not
consistent
with
the
procedures
specified
in
the
affected
source's
SSM
plan,
the
owner/
operator
shall
report
the
actions
taken
for
that
event
within
2
working
days
after
commencing
actions
inconsistent
with
the
plan
followed
by
a
letter
within
7
working
days
after
the
end
of
the
event.
The
commenters
questioned
whether
this
requirement
would
satisfy
the
prompt
reporting
requirements
of
title
V.
In
terms
of
the
prompt
reporting
of
deviations,
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
B)
requires
the
permitting
authority
to
define
prompt
in
relation
to
the
degree
and
type
of
deviation
likely
to
occur
and
the
applicable
requirements.
Therefore,
it
is
the
responsibility
of
the
part
70
permitting
authority
to
determine
whether
the
timing
of
reports
under
40
CFR
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii)
is
sufficient
to
meet
the
permitting
authority's
requirements
for
the
prompt
reporting
of
deviations.
The
permitting
authority
may
decide
for
a
particular
source
or
source
category,
or
as
a
general
matter,
to
impose
more
stringent
reporting
requirements
(
e.
g.,
type
of
report,
content
of
report,
and
frequency
of
submission)
than
those
specified
in
the
applicable
requirement.

IV.
Summary
of
the
Energy,
Environmental,
and
Economic
Impacts
We
foresee
minimal
economic
impacts
to
major
sources
since
all
of
these
landfills
are
currently
required
to
comply
with
the
EG/
NSPS.
For
such
sources,
the
final
rule
will
only
impose
a
requirement
to
prepare
a
SSM
plan,
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
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
final
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
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00061
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2236
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
standards
and,
therefore,
will
not
incur
impacts.
We
expect
a
positive
environmental
impact
and
negligible
economic
impacts
from
the
requirements
for
bioreactors.
One
reason
for
the
small
economic
impact
is
that
the
final
rule
bioreactor
provisions
will
require
gas
collection
and
control
for
only
the
same
landfills
that
are
already
required
to
install
collection
and
control
systems
under
the
EG/
NSPS
and
the
final
rule.
It
will
not
change
the
number
of
landfills
that
must
apply
controls.
In
the
analysis
described
in
the
supplemental
proposal
(
67
FR
36460,
May
23,
2002),
we
found
that
greater
emissions
reductions
are
achieved
by
timely
control
of
bioreactor
landfills.
The
analysis
also
concludes
that
the
bioreactor
provisions
will
not
increase
the
costs
of
control
for
most
landfills
compared
to
the
previous
EG/
NSPS
and
final
rule
cost
analyses,
and
some
landfills
with
bioreactors
will
experience
reduced
control
costs.
We
expect
the
number
of
bioreactors
to
increase
over
the
next
few
years
given
their
potential
environmental
and
economic
benefits,
and
pending
regulatory
clarifications.
A
regulation
proposed
under
40
CFR
258
(
67
FR
39662)
will
provide
approved
States
the
ability
to
issue
research,
development,
and
demonstration
permits
to
allow
liquids
other
than
leachate
to
be
recirculated
into
bioreactor
landfills.
Promulgation
of
the
regulation
will
lift
a
barrier
for
some
landfills
to
become
bioreactors
and,
therefore,
is
likely
to
result
in
an
increase
of
bioreactor
landfills.
Overall,
the
bioreactor
provisions
of
the
final
rule
will
have
minimal
economic
impacts
and
may
in
fact
have
an
overall
beneficial
economic
impact.
Additional
information
on
this
analysis,
including
example
cases
examined,
HAP
emissions
reductions,
and
NMOC
emissions
reductions,
are
contained
in
Docket
No.
A
 
98
 
28
and
in
the
supplemental
proposal
(
67
FR
36460).

V.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
we
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
that
the
final
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
because
the
final
rule
will
not
have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
and
does
not
impose
any
additional
control
requirements
above
the
1996
EG/
NSPS.
We
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.
We
submitted
the
1996
EG/
NSPS
to
OMB
for
review
(
61
FR
9905,
March
12,
1996).
The
rule
promulgated
today
is
projected
to
have
no
significant
impact
above
the
1996
EG/
NSPS.
Consequently,
the
final
rule
was
not
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.

B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
The
final
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
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.
We
have
concluded
the
final
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
the
city
and
county
governments
in
complying
with
the
mandate.
However,
it
will
not
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
State
or
local
governments,
it
will
not
preempt
State
law.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
the
final
rule.
Although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
the
final
rule,
EPA
did
consult
with
State
and
local
governments
in
developing
the
1996
EG/
NSPS.
The
EPA
consulted
extensively
with
State
and
local
governments
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulations
to
permit
them
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
into
its
development.
Because
the
control
requirements
of
the
final
rule
are
substantially
the
same
as
those
developed
in
1996,
the
previous
consultations
still
apply.
In
addition,
State
and
local
government
agencies
participated
in
a
conference
call
on
the
bioreactor
provisions
of
the
final
rule,
and
provided
comments
on
the
proposal,
which
we
considered.
For
a
discussion
of
our
consultations
with
State
and
local
governments,
the
nature
of
the
governments'
concerns,
and
our
position
supporting
the
need
for
the
specific
control
requirements
included
in
both
the
EG/
NSPS
and
the
final
rule,
see
the
preamble
to
the
1996
EG/
NSPS
(
60
FR
9918,
March
12,
1996).

C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
requires
us
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
The
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Information
received
from
the
Regions
during
development
of
the
Federal
Plan
showed
no
landfills
on
tribal
land
large
enough
to
require
control
under
the
NSPS
or
the
final
rule.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
final
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
we
have
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
we
must
evaluate
the
environmental
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00062
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2237
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
we
considered.
We
interpret
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
final
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.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
The
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

F.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA)
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
UMRA
of
1995,
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
we
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
us
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
us
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
we
publish
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
we
establish
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
we
must
have
developed
a
small
government
agency
plan
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA.
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
our
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
We
have
determined
that
the
final
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
average
total
annual
cost
of
the
final
rule
for
any
year
has
been
estimated
to
be
less
than
$
2.2
million.
Thus,
the
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
In
addition,
we
have
determined
that
the
final
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
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

G.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
United
States
Code
(
U.
S.
C.).
601
et
seq.

The
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
in
connection
with
the
final
rule.
The
EPA
has
also
determined
that
the
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impact
of
the
final
rule
on
small
entities,
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
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
562212
and
924110
with
annual
receipts
less
than
10
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
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
the
final
rule
on
small
entities,
EPA
has
concluded
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
the
final
rule
relies
on
the
requirements
specified
in
40
CFR
part
60,
subparts
Cc
and
WWW.
Additional
requirements
for
the
final
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
$
1700
(
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
final
rule
should
be
insignificant.
For
more
information
on
the
economic
impacts,
refer
to
the
economic
analysis
in
the
docket.
Although
the
final
rule
for
MSW
landfills
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
we
nonetheless
have
tried
to
reduce
the
impact
of
the
final
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
a
slight
increase
in
reporting
activity/
frequency
for
the
final
rule.
In
addition
to
the
reduction
effort,
we
performed
a
number
of
outreach
activities
to
interact
with
small
entities
during
the
development
of
the
rule.
We
held
formal
stakeholder
meetings.
In
addition,
we
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
rulemaking
effort.

H.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
the
final
rule
are
being
submitted
for
approval
to
OMB
under
the
requirements
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
An
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA,

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00063
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2238
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
and
a
(
ICR
No.
1938.02)
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
email
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
Internet
at
``
http:/
/
www.
epa.
gov/
icr''.
The
information
would
be
used
to
ensure
that
the
requirements
for
the
rule
are
implemented
properly
and
are
complied
with
on
a
continuous
basis.
Records
and
reports
are
necessary
to
enable
us
to
identify
MSW
landfills
that
may
not
be
in
compliance
with
this
standard.
Based
on
reported
information,
we
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
us
whether
personnel
are
operating
and
maintaining
control
equipment
properly.
The
final
rule
is
projected
to
affect
approximately
1,331
MSW
landfills
in
the
first
year.
The
estimated
average
annual
burden
for
industry
for
the
first
3
years
after
promulgation
of
this
NESHAP
would
be
39,360
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.
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Under
section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
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.,
material
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
final
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
final
rule,
and
there
are
no
new
technical
standard
requirements
resulting
from
specifying
subpart
WWW
in
the
final
rule,
we
are
not
adopting
any
VCS
in
the
final
rule.
Landfills
have
been
using
the
methods
in
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW
since
March
1996
and
are
familiar
with
these
technical
standards.
In
addition,
no
new
VCS
have
been
identified,
although
comments
on
applicable
VCS
were
requested
at
the
time
of
proposal.
We
received
no
comments
on
the
subject.
Also,
landfills
may
request
approval
to
use
alternative
testing
or
monitoring
methods,
as
stated
in
the
final
rule.

J.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801,
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
SBREFA,
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.
Therefore,
we
will
submit
a
report
containing
the
final
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.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
final
rule
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2),
and,
therefore,
will
be
effective
January
16,
2003.
List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
November
26,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
cited
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
part
63
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
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
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
is
the
affected
source
of
this
subpart?
63.1945
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?
63.1947
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart
if
I
own
or
operate
a
bioreactor?
63.1950
When
am
I
no
longer
required
to
comply
with
this
subpart?
63.1952
When
am
I
no
longer
required
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
subpart
if
I
own
or
operate
a
bioreactor?

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?
63.1975
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
to
Subpart
AAAA
of
Part
63
Table
1
of
Subpart
AAAA
of
Part
63
 
Applicability
of
NESHAP
General
Provisions
to
Subpart
AAAA
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00064
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2239
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
What
This
Subpart
Covers
§
63.1930
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
This
subpart
establishes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
for
existing
and
new
municipal
solid
waste
(
MSW)
landfills.
This
subpart
requires
all
landfills
described
in
§
63.1935
to
meet
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
Cc
or
WWW
and
requires
timely
control
of
bioreactors.
This
subpart
also
requires
such
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
shall
be
demonstrated
by
parameter
monitoring
results
that
are
within
the
specified
ranges.
It
also
includes
additional
reporting
requirements.

§
63.1935
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
meet
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
a)
or
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
own
or
operate
a
MSW
landfill
that
has
accepted
waste
since
November
8,
1987
or
has
additional
capacity
for
waste
deposition
and
meets
any
one
of
the
three
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Your
MSW
landfill
is
a
major
source
as
defined
in
40
CFR
63.2
of
subpart
A.
(
2)
Your
MSW
landfill
is
collocated
with
a
major
source
as
defined
in
40
CFR
63.2
of
subpart
A.
(
3)
Your
MSW
landfill
is
an
area
source
landfill
that
has
a
design
capacity
equal
to
or
greater
than
2.5
million
megagrams
(
Mg)
and
2.5
million
cubic
meters
(
m3)
and
has
estimated
uncontrolled
emissions
equal
to
or
greater
than
50
megagrams
per
year
(
Mg/
yr)
NMOC
as
calculated
according
to
§
60.754(
a)
of
the
MSW
landfills
new
source
performance
standards
in
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
the
Federal
plan,
or
an
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
or
tribal
plan
that
applies
to
your
landfill.
(
b)
You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
own
or
operate
a
MSW
landfill
that
has
accepted
waste
since
November
8,
1987
or
has
additional
capacity
for
waste
deposition,
that
includes
a
bioreactor,
as
defined
in
§
63.1990,
and
that
meets
any
one
of
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Your
MSW
landfill
is
a
major
source
as
defined
in
40
CFR
63.2
of
subpart
A.
(
2)
Your
MSW
landfill
is
collocated
with
a
major
source
as
defined
in
40
CFR
63.2
of
subpart
A.
(
3)
Your
MSW
landfill
is
an
area
source
landfill
that
has
a
design
capacity
equal
to
our
greater
than
2.5
million
Mg
and
2.5
million
m3
and
that
is
not
permanently
closed
as
of
January
16,
2003.

§
63.1940
What
is
the
affected
source
of
this
subpart?

(
a)
An
affected
source
of
this
subpart
is
a
MSW
landfill,
as
defined
in
§
63.1990,
that
meets
the
criteria
in
§
63.1935(
a)
or
(
b).
The
affected
source
includes
the
entire
disposal
facility
in
a
contiguous
geographic
space
where
household
waste
is
placed
in
or
on
land,
including
any
portion
of
the
MSW
landfill
operated
as
a
bioreactor.
(
b)
A
new
affected
source
of
this
subpart
is
an
affected
source
that
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
after
November
7,
2000.
An
affected
source
is
reconstructed
if
it
meets
the
definition
of
reconstruction
in
40
CFR
63.2
of
subpart
A.
(
c)
An
affected
source
of
this
subpart
is
existing
if
it
is
not
new.

§
63.1945
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

(
a)
If
your
landfill
is
a
new
affected
source,
you
must
comply
with
this
subpart
by
January
16,
2003
or
at
the
time
you
begin
operating,
whichever
is
last.
(
b)
If
your
landfill
is
an
existing
affected
source,
you
must
comply
with
this
subpart
by
January
16,
2004.
(
c)
If
your
landfill
is
a
new
affected
source
and
is
a
major
source
or
is
collocated
with
a
major
source,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
in
§
§
63.1955(
b)
and
63.1960
through
63.1980
by
the
date
your
landfill
is
required
to
install
a
collection
and
control
system
by
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2)
of
subpart
WWW.
(
d)
If
your
landfill
is
an
existing
affected
source
and
is
a
major
source
or
is
collocated
with
a
major
source,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
in
§
§
63.1955(
b)
and
63.1960
through
63.1980
by
the
date
your
landfill
is
required
to
install
a
collection
and
control
system
by
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2)
of
subpart
WWW,
the
Federal
plan,
or
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
or
tribal
plan
that
applies
to
your
landfill
or
by
January
13,
2004,
whichever
occurs
later.
(
e)
If
your
landfill
is
a
new
affected
source
and
is
an
area
source
meeting
the
criteria
in
§
63.1935(
a)(
3),
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
§
§
63.1955(
b)
and
63.1960
through
63.1980
by
the
date
your
landfill
is
required
to
install
a
collection
and
control
system
by
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2)
of
subpart
WWW.
(
f)
If
your
landfill
is
an
existing
affected
source
and
is
an
area
source
meeting
the
criteria
in
§
63.1935(
a)(
3),
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
in
§
§
63.1955(
b)
and
63.1960
through
63.1980
by
the
date
your
landfill
is
required
to
install
a
collection
and
control
system
by
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2)
of
subpart
WWW,
the
Federal
plan,
or
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
or
tribal
plan
that
applies
to
your
landfill
or
by
January
16,
2004,
whichever
occurs
later.

§
63.1947
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart
if
I
own
or
operate
a
bioreactor?

You
must
comply
with
this
subpart
by
the
dates
specified
in
§
63.1945(
a)
or
(
b)
of
this
subpart.
If
you
own
or
operate
a
bioreactor
located
at
a
landfill
that
is
not
permanently
closed
as
of
January
16,
2003
and
has
a
design
capacity
equal
to
or
greater
than
2.5
million
Mg
and
2.5
million
m3,
then
you
must
install
and
operate
a
collection
and
control
system
that
meets
the
criteria
in
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2)(
v)
of
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
the
Federal
plan,
or
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
plan
according
to
the
schedule
specified
in
paragraph
(
a),
(
b),
or
(
c)
of
this
section.
(
a)
If
your
bioreactor
is
at
a
new
affected
source,
then
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Install
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
for
the
bioreactor
before
initiating
liquids
addition.
(
2)
Begin
operating
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
within
180
days
after
initiating
liquids
addition
or
within
180
days
after
achieving
a
moisture
content
of
40
percent
by
weight,
whichever
is
later.
If
you
choose
to
begin
gas
collection
and
control
system
operation
180
days
after
achieving
a
40
percent
moisture
content
instead
of
180
days
after
liquids
addition,
use
the
procedures
in
§
63.1980(
g)
and
(
h)
to
determine
when
the
bioreactor
moisture
content
reaches
40
percent.
(
b)
If
your
bioreactor
is
at
an
existing
affected
source,
then
you
must
install
and
begin
operating
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
for
the
bioreactor
by
January
17,
2006
or
by
the
date
your
bioreactor
is
required
to
install
a
gas
collection
and
control
system
under
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
the
Federal
plan,
or
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
plan
or
tribal
plan
that
applies
to
your
landfill,
whichever
is
earlier.
(
c)
If
your
bioreactor
is
at
an
existing
affected
source
and
you
do
not
initiate
liquids
addition
to
your
bioreactor
until
later
than
January
17,
2006,
then
you
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00065
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2240
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Install
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
for
the
bioreactor
before
initiating
liquids
addition.
(
2)
Begin
operating
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
within
180
days
after
initiating
liquids
addition
or
within
180
days
after
achieving
a
moisture
content
of
40
percent
by
weight,
whichever
is
later.
If
you
choose
to
begin
gas
collection
and
control
system
operation
180
days
after
achieving
a
40
percent
moisture
content
instead
of
180
days
after
liquids
addition,
use
the
procedures
in
§
63.1980(
g)
and
(
h)
to
determine
when
the
bioreactor
moisture
content
reaches
40
percent.

§
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
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2)(
v)
of
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
applies
to
your
landfill.

§
63.1952
When
am
I
no
longer
required
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
subpart
if
I
own
or
operate
a
bioreactor?

If
you
own
or
operate
a
landfill
that
includes
a
bioreactor,
you
are
no
longer
required
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
subpart
for
the
bioreactor
provided
you
meet
the
conditions
of
either
paragraphs
(
a)
or
(
b).
(
a)
Your
affected
source
meets
the
control
system
removal
criteria
in
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2)(
v)
of
part
60,
subpart
WWW
or
the
bioreactor
meets
the
criteria
for
a
nonproductive
area
of
the
landfill
in
40
CFR
60.759(
a)(
3)(
ii)
of
part
60,
subpart
WWW.
(
b)
The
bioreactor
portion
of
the
landfill
is
a
closed
landfill
as
defined
in
40
CFR
60.751,
subpart
WWW,
you
have
permanently
ceased
adding
liquids
to
the
bioreactor,
and
you
have
not
added
liquids
to
the
bioreactor
for
at
least
1
year.
A
closure
report
for
the
bioreactor
must
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
as
provided
in
40
CFR
60.757(
d)
of
subpart
WWW.
(
c)
Compliance
with
the
bioreactor
control
removal
provisions
in
this
section
constitutes
compliance
with
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW
or
the
Federal
plan,
whichever
applies
to
your
bioreactor.
Standards
§
63.1955
What
requirements
must
I
meet?
(
a)
You
must
fulfill
one
of
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
or
(
2)
of
this
section,
whichever
is
applicable:
(
1)
Comply
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW.
(
2)
Comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
Federal
plan
or
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
plan
or
tribal
plan
that
implements
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
Cc.
(
b)
If
you
are
required
by
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2)
of
subpart
WWW,
the
Federal
plan,
or
an
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
or
tribal
plan
to
install
a
collection
and
control
system,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
in
§
§
63.1960
through
63.1985
and
with
the
general
provisions
of
this
part
specified
in
table
1
of
this
subpart.
(
c)
For
approval
of
collection
and
control
systems
that
include
any
alternatives
to
the
operational
standards,
test
methods,
procedures,
compliance
measures,
monitoring,
recordkeeping
or
reporting
provisions,
you
must
follow
the
procedures
in
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2).
If
alternatives
have
already
been
approved
under
40
CFR
part
60
subpart
WWW
or
the
Federal
plan,
or
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
or
tribal
plan,
these
alternatives
can
be
used
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
except
that
all
affected
sources
must
comply
with
the
SSM
requirements
in
Subpart
A
of
this
part
as
specified
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
and
all
affected
sources
must
submit
compliance
reports
every
6
months
as
specified
in
§
63.1980(
a)
and
(
b),
including
information
on
all
deviations
that
occurred
during
the
6­
month
reporting
period.
Deviations
for
continuous
emission
monitors
or
numerical
continuous
parameter
monitors
must
be
determined
using
a
3
hour
monitoring
block
average.
(
d)
If
you
own
or
operate
a
bioreactor
that
is
located
at
a
MSW
landfill
that
is
not
permanently
closed
and
has
a
design
capacity
equal
to
or
greater
than
2.5
million
Mg
and
2.5
million
m3,
then
you
must
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
a)
and
the
additional
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
You
must
comply
with
the
general
provisions
specified
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
and
§
§
63.1960
through
63.1985
starting
on
the
date
you
are
required
to
install
the
gas
collection
and
control
system.
(
2)
You
must
extend
the
collection
and
control
system
into
each
new
cell
or
area
of
the
bioreactor
prior
to
initiating
liquids
addition
in
that
area,
instead
of
the
schedule
in
40
CFR
60.752(
b)(
2)(
ii)(
A)(
2).
General
and
Continuing
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.1960
How
is
compliance
determined?

Compliance
is
determined
in
the
same
way
it
is
determined
for
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
including
performance
testing,
monitoring
of
the
collection
system,
continuous
parameter
monitoring,
and
other
credible
evidence.
In
addition,
continuous
parameter
monitoring
data,
collected
under
40
CFR
60.756(
b)(
1),
(
c)(
1),
and
(
d)
of
subpart
WWW,
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
40
CFR
63.6(
e)(
3).
A
copy
of
the
SSM
plan
must
be
maintained
on
site.
Failure
to
write,
implement,
or
maintain
a
copy
of
the
SSM
plan
is
a
deviation
from
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.

§
63.1965
What
is
a
deviation?

A
deviation
is
defined
in
§
63.1990.
For
the
purposes
of
the
landfill
monitoring
and
SSM
plan
requirements,
deviations
include
the
items
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section.
(
a)
A
deviation
occurs
when
the
control
device
operating
parameter
boundaries
described
in
40
CFR
60.758(
c)(
1)
of
subpart
WWW
are
exceeded.
(
b)
A
deviation
occurs
when
1
hour
or
more
of
the
hours
during
the
3­
hour
block
averaging
period
does
not
constitute
a
valid
hour
of
data.
A
valid
hour
of
data
must
have
measured
values
for
at
least
three
15­
minute
monitoring
periods
within
the
hour.
(
c)
A
deviation
occurs
when
a
SSM
plan
is
not
developed,
implemented,
or
maintained
on
site.

§
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.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00066
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2241
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Notifications,
Records,
and
Reports
§
63.1980
What
records
and
reports
must
I
keep
and
submit?

(
a)
Keep
records
and
reports
as
specified
in
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
or
in
the
Federal
plan,
EPA
approved
State
plan
or
tribal
plan
that
implements
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
Cc,
whichever
applies
to
your
landfill,
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
plan
reports.
(
c)
For
bioreactors
at
new
affected
sources
you
must
submit
the
initial
semiannual
compliance
report
and
performance
test
results
described
in
40
CFR
60.757(
f)
within
180
days
after
the
date
you
are
required
to
begin
operating
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
by
§
63.1947(
a)(
2)
of
this
subpart.
(
d)
For
bioreactors
at
existing
affected
sources,
you
must
submit
the
initial
semiannual
compliance
report
and
performance
test
results
described
in
40
CFR
60.757(
f)
within
180
days
after
the
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.1947(
b)
of
this
subpart,
unless
you
have
previously
submitted
a
compliance
report
for
the
bioreactor
required
by
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
the
Federal
plan,
or
an
EPA
approved
and
effective
State
plan
or
tribal
plan.
(
e)
For
bioreactors
that
are
located
at
existing
affected
sources,
but
do
not
initiate
liquids
addition
until
later
than
the
compliance
date
in
§
63.1947(
b)
of
this
subpart,
you
must
submit
the
initial
semiannual
compliance
report
and
performance
tests
results
described
in
40
CFR
60.757(
f)
within
180
days
after
the
date
you
are
required
to
begin
operating
the
gas
collection
and
control
system
by
§
63.1947(
c)
of
this
subpart.
(
f)
If
you
must
submit
a
semiannual
compliance
report
for
a
bioreactor
as
well
as
a
semiannual
compliance
report
for
a
conventional
portion
of
the
same
landfill,
you
may
delay
submittal
of
a
subsequent
semiannual
compliance
report
for
the
bioreactor
according
to
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section
so
that
the
reports
may
be
submitted
on
the
same
schedule.
(
1)
After
submittal
of
your
initial
semiannual
compliance
report
and
performance
test
results
for
the
bioreactor,
you
may
delay
submittal
of
the
subsequent
semiannual
compliance
report
for
the
bioreactor
until
the
date
the
initial
or
subsequent
semiannual
compliance
report
is
due
for
the
conventional
portion
of
your
landfill.
(
2)
You
may
delay
submittal
of
your
subsequent
semiannual
compliance
report
by
no
more
than
12
months
after
the
due
date
for
submitting
the
initial
semiannual
compliance
report
and
performance
test
results
described
in
40
CFR
60.757(
f)
for
the
bioreactor.
The
report
shall
cover
the
time
period
since
the
previous
semiannual
report
for
the
bioreactor,
which
would
be
a
period
of
at
least
6
months
and
no
more
than
12
months.
(
3)
After
the
delayed
semiannual
report,
all
subsequent
semiannual
reports
for
the
bioreactor
must
be
submitted
every
6
months
on
the
same
date
the
semiannual
report
for
the
conventional
portion
of
the
landfill
is
due.
(
g)
If
you
add
any
liquids
other
than
leachate
in
a
controlled
fashion
to
the
waste
mass
and
do
not
comply
with
the
bioreactor
requirements
in
§
§
63.1947,
63.1955(
c)
and
63.1980(
c)
through
(
f)
of
this
subpart,
you
must
keep
a
record
of
calculations
showing
that
the
percent
moisture
by
weight
expected
in
the
waste
mass
to
which
liquid
is
added
is
less
than
40
percent.
The
calculation
must
consider
the
waste
mass,
moisture
content
of
the
incoming
waste,
mass
of
water
added
to
the
waste
including
leachate
recirculation
and
other
liquids
addition
and
precipitation,
and
the
mass
of
water
removed
through
leachate
or
other
water
losses.
Moisture
level
sampling
or
mass
balances
calculations
can
be
used.
You
must
document
the
calculations
and
the
basis
of
any
assumptions.
Keep
the
record
of
the
calculations
until
you
cease
liquids
addition.
(
h)
If
you
calculate
moisture
content
to
establish
the
date
your
bioreactor
is
required
to
begin
operating
the
collection
and
control
system
under
§
63.1947(
a)(
2)
or
(
c)(
2),
keep
a
record
of
the
calculations
including
the
information
specified
in
paragraph
(
g)
of
this
section
for
5
years.
Within
90
days
after
the
bioreactor
achieves
40
percent
moisture
content,
report
the
results
of
the
calculation,
the
date
the
bioreactor
achieved
40
percent
moisture
content
by
weight,
and
the
date
you
plan
to
begin
collection
and
control
system
operation.

Other
Requirements
and
Information
§
63.1985
Who
enforces
this
subpart?

(
a)
This
subpart
can
be
implemented
and
enforced
by
the
U.
S.
EPA,
or
a
delegated
authority
such
as
the
applicable
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
If
the
EPA
Administrator
has
delegated
authority
to
a
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency,
then
that
agency
as
well
as
the
U.
S.
EPA
has
the
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
this
subpart.
Contact
the
applicable
EPA
Regional
Office
to
find
out
if
this
subpart
is
delegated
to
a
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
b)
In
delegating
implementation
and
enforcement
authority
of
this
subpart
to
a
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency
under
subpart
E
of
this
part,
the
authorities
contained
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
are
retained
by
the
EPA
Administrator
and
are
not
transferred
to
the
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
c)
The
authorities
that
will
not
be
delegated
to
State,
local,
or
tribal
agencies
are
as
follows.
Approval
of
alternatives
to
the
standards
in
§
63.1955.
Where
these
standards
reference
another
subpart,
the
cited
provisions
will
be
delegated
according
to
the
delegation
provisions
of
the
referenced
subpart.

§
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
that
follows:
Bioreactor
means
a
MSW
landfill
or
portion
of
a
MSW
landfill
where
any
liquid
other
than
leachate
(
leachate
includes
landfill
gas
condensate)
is
added
in
a
controlled
fashion
into
the
waste
mass
(
often
in
combination
with
recirculating
leachate)
to
reach
a
minimum
average
moisture
content
of
at
least
40
percent
by
weight
to
accelerate
or
enhance
the
anaerobic
(
without
oxygen)
biodegradation
of
the
waste.
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
emissions
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
SSM,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
such
failure
is
permitted
by
this
subpart.
Emissions
limitation
means
any
emission
limit,
opacity
limit,
operating
limit,
or
visible
emissions
limit.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00067
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
2242
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
11
/
Thursday,
January
16,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
MSW
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.
Municipal
solid
waste
landfill
or
MSW
landfill
means
an
entire
disposal
facility
in
a
contiguous
geographical
space
where
household
waste
is
placed
in
or
on
land.
A
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
may
also
receive
other
types
of
RCRA
Subtitle
D
wastes
(
see
§
257.2
of
this
chapter)
such
as
commercial
solid
waste,
nonhazardous
sludge,
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
waste,
and
industrial
solid
waste.
Portions
of
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
may
be
separated
by
access
roads.
A
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
may
be
publicly
or
privately
owned.
A
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
may
be
a
new
municipal
solid
waste
landfill,
an
existing
municipal
solid
waste
landfill,
or
a
lateral
expansion.
Tribal
plan
means
a
plan
submitted
by
a
tribal
authority
pursuant
to
40
CFR
parts
9,
35,
49,
50,
and
81
to
implement
and
enforce
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
Cc.
Work
practice
standard
means
any
design,
equipment,
work
practice,
or
operational
standard,
or
combination
thereof,
that
is
promulgated
pursuant
to
section
112(
h)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
As
stated
in
§
§
63.1955
and
63.1980,
you
must
meet
each
requirement
in
the
following
table
that
applies
to
you.

TABLE
1
OF
SUBPART
AAAA
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
NESHAP
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
AAAA
Part
63
Citation
Description
Explanation
63.1(
a)
..................................
Applicability:
general
applicability
of
NESHAP
in
this
part.
Affected
sources
are
already
subject
to
the
provisions
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
10)
 
(
12)
through
the
same
provisions
under
40
CFR,
part
60
subpart
A.
63.1(
b)
..................................
Applicability
determination
for
stationary
sources.
63.1(
e)
..................................
Title
V
permitting.
63.2
......................................
Definitions.
63.4
......................................
Prohibited
activities
and
circumvention
...........................
Affected
sources
are
already
subject
to
the
provisions
of
paragraph
(
b)
through
the
same
provisions
under
40
CFR,
part
60
subpart
A.
63.5(
b)
..................................
Requirements
for
existing,
newly
constructed,
and
reconstructed
sources.
63.6(
e)
..................................
Operation
and
maintenance
requirements,
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
plan
provisions.
63.6(
f)
...................................
Compliance
with
nonopacity
emission
standards
...........
Affected
sources
are
already
subject
to
the
provisions
of
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
and
(
2)(
i)
through
the
same
provisions
under
40
CFR,
part
60
subpart
A.
63.10(
b)(
2)(
i)
 
(
b)(
2)(
v)
.........
General
recordkeeping
requirements.
63.10(
d)(
5)
...........................
If
actions
taken
during
a
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
plan
are
consistent
with
the
procedures
in
the
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
plan,
this
information
shall
be
included
in
a
semi­
annual
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
plan
report.
Any
time
an
action
taken
during
a
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
plan
is
not
consistent
with
the
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
plan,
the
source
shall
report
actions
taken
within
2
working
days
after
commencing
such
actions,
followed
by
a
letter
7
days
after
the
event.
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.
03
 
88
Filed
1
 
15
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
180
[
OPP
 
2002
 
0336;
FRL
 
7284
 
8]

Extension
of
Tolerances
for
Emergency
Exemptions
(
Multiple
Chemicals)

AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Final
rule.
SUMMARY:
This
regulation
extends
timelimited
tolerances
for
the
pesticides
listed
in
Unit
II.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
These
actions
are
in
response
to
EPA's
granting
of
emergency
exemptions
under
section
18
of
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
authorizing
use
of
these
pesticides.
Section
408(
l)(
6)
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA)
requires
EPA
to
establish
a
time­
limited
tolerance
or
exemption
from
the
requirement
for
a
tolerance
for
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
12:
24
Jan
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00068
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JAR1.
SGM
16JAR1
