[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70022-70027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33481]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[TN 183-1-9824a; FRL-6204-4]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans For Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants: Tennessee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Sections 111(d)/129 State Plan for 
Nashville/Davidson County submitted by the State of Tennessee, through 
the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on 
December 24, 1996, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions 
Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Municipal Waste Combustors 
(MWCs) with capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal 
solid waste (MSW). See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. EPA is also 
approving the Section 111(d) State Plan for Nashville/Davidson County 
submitted on December 24, 1996, for implementing and enforcing the EG 
applicable to existing MSW landfills. See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on February 16, 1999 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives significant, material, and adverse 
comment by January 19, 1999. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will 
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal 
Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should address comments on this action to Steven M. 
Scofield at the EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, 
SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
    Copies of documents related to this action are available for the 
public to review during normal business hours at the locations below. 
If you would like to review these documents, please make an appointment 
with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day. 
Reference file TN 183-1-9824a. The Region 4 office may have additional 
documents not available at the other locations.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Steven M. Scofield, 404/
562-9034.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air 
Pollution Control, 9th Floor L & C Annex, 401 Church Street, Nashville, 
Tennessee 37243-1531. 615/532-0554

[[Page 70023]]

Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Metropolitan Health 
Department, Nashville and Davidson County, 311--23rd Avenue, North, 
Nashville, Tennessee 37203. 615/340-5653

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Davis at 404/562-9127 or Steven 
M. Scofield at 404/562-9034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

MWCs

I. Background

    On December 19, 1995, pursuant to sections 111 and 129 of the Clean 
Air Act (Act), EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) 
applicable to new MWCs and EG applicable to existing MWCs. The NSPS and 
EG are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Eb and Cb, respectively. 
See 60 FR 65387. Subparts Cb and Eb regulate the following: particulate 
matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, 
carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans.
    On April 8, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit vacated subparts Cb and Eb as they apply 
to MWC units with capacity to combust less than or equal to 250 tons 
per day of MSW (small MWCs), consistent with their opinion in Davis 
County Solid Waste Management and Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F.3d 
1395 (D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As a 
result, subparts Eb and Cb apply only to MWC units with individual 
capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of MSW (large MWC 
units).
    Under section 129 of the Act, emission guidelines are not federally 
enforceable. Section 129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit to 
EPA for approval State Plans that implement and enforce the emission 
guidelines. State Plans must be at least as protective as the emission 
guidelines, and become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA. The 
procedures for adoption and submittal of State Plans are codified in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart B. EPA originally promulgated the subpart B 
provisions on November 17, 1975. EPA amended subpart B on December 19, 
1995, to allow the subparts developed under section 129 to include 
specifications that supersede the general provisions in subpart B 
regarding the schedule for submittal of State Plans, the stringency of 
the emission limitations, and the compliance schedules. See 60 FR 
65414.
    This action approves the State Plan submitted by the State of 
Tennessee for the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Health 
Department (MHD) to implement and enforce subpart Cb, as it applies to 
large MWC units only.

II. Discussion

    The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation submitted 
correspondence on May 21, 1997, certifying there are no MWCs under the 
direct jurisdiction of the State of Tennessee. The State submitted to 
EPA on December 24, 1996, the following in their 111(d)/129 State Plan 
for implementing and enforcing the emission guidelines for existing 
MWCs under their direct jurisdiction in the State of Tennessee: Legal 
Authority; Enforceable Mechanism; Inventory of MWC Plants/Units; MWC 
Emission Inventory; Emission Limits; Compliance Schedule; Testing, 
Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; Demonstration 
That the Public Had Adequate Notice and Opportunity to Submit Written 
Comments; Submittal of Progress Reports to EPA; and applicable 
Tennessee statutes, Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County 
Government statutes, and MHD agency regulations. The State submitted 
its plan before the Court of Appeals vacated subpart Cb as it applies 
to small MWC units. Thus, the MHD plan covers both large and small MWC 
units. As a result of the Davis decision and subsequent vacatur order, 
there are no emission guidelines promulgated under sections 111 and 129 
that apply to small MWC units. Accordingly, EPA's review and approval 
of the MHD plan for MWCs addresses only those parts of the MHD plan 
which affect large MWC units. Small units are not subject to the 
requirements of the federal rule and not part of this approval. Until 
EPA again promulgates emission guidelines for small MWC units, EPA has 
no authority under section 129(b)(2) of the Act to review and approve 
State Plans applying state rules to small MWC units.
    The approval of the MHD plan is based on finding that: (1) the MHD 
provided adequate public notice of public hearings for the proposed 
rulemaking which allows the MHD to implement and enforce the EG for 
large MWCs, and (2) the MHD also demonstrated legal authority to adopt 
emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to the 
designated facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards 
and compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information 
necessary to determine compliance; require recordkeeping; conduct 
inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission 
reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly 
available.
    In Appendix 1 of the plan, the MHD cites the following references 
for the legal authority: State of Tennessee Codes Annotated 68-201-115, 
``Local Pollution Control Programs,'' 10-7-503, ``Records Open to 
Public Inspection-Exceptions,'' and 10-7-504, ``Inspection of 
Records;'' Metropolitan Code of Laws, Article 10, ``Public Health and 
Hospitals,'' Chapter 1, ``Public Health'' of the Charter of the 
Metropolitan Government, Chapter 10.56, Air Pollution Control,'' 
Section 10.56.090, ``Board-Powers and Duties,'' Section 10.56.150, 
``Nuisance Declared-Injunctive Relief,'' Section 10.56.290, 
``Measurement and Reporting of Emissions,'' Section 2.36 ``Health 
Department,'' and Section 2.36.130 ``Records and Proceedings-Public 
Inspection Authorized When.'' These statutes and regulations are 
approved as being at least as protective as the federal requirements 
for existing large MWC units.
    In Appendix 2 of the plan, the MHD cites all emission standards and 
limitations for the major pollutant categories related to the 
designated sites and facilities. These standards and limitations in the 
MHD Pollution Control Division's Regulation No. 12, ``Regulation for 
Control of Municipal Waste Combustors,'' are approved as being at least 
as protective as the federal requirements contained in subpart Cb for 
existing large MWC units.
    The State submitted compliance schedules and legally enforceable 
increments of progress for each large MWC under their direct 
jurisdiction in the State of Tennessee. This portion of the plan has 
been reviewed and approved as being at least as protective as federal 
requirements for existing large MWC units.
    The State submitted an emission inventory of all designated 
pollutants for each large MWC under their direct jurisdiction in the 
State of Tennessee. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and 
approved as meeting the federal requirements for existing large MWC 
units.
    The MHD plan includes its legal authority to require owners and 
operators of designated facilities to maintain records and report to 
their agency the nature and amount of emissions and any other 
information that may be necessary to enable their agency to judge the 
compliance status of the facilities. The MHD also cites its legal 
authority to provide for periodic inspection and testing and provisions 
for making reports of MWC emissions data, correlated with emission 
standards

[[Page 70024]]

that apply, available to the general public. The State submitted MHD's 
Regulation No. 12 to support the requirements of monitoring, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance assurance. These MHD rules 
have been reviewed and approved as being at least as protective as 
federal requirements for existing large MWC units.
    As stated on page 5 of the plan, the MHD will provide progress 
reports of plan implementation updates to the EPA on an annual basis. 
These progress reports will include the required items pursuant to 40 
CFR 60, subpart B. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and 
approved as meeting the federal requirement for State Plan reporting.

MSW Landfills

I. Background

    Under section 111(d) of the Act, EPA has established procedures 
whereby states submit plans to control certain existing sources of 
``designated pollutants.'' Designated pollutants are defined as 
pollutants for which a standard of performance for new sources applies 
under section 111, but which are not ``criteria pollutants'' (i.e., 
pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are 
set pursuant to sections 108 and 109 of the Act) or hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) regulated under section 112 of the Act. As required 
by section 111(d) of the Act, EPA established a process at 40 CFR part 
60, subpart B, which states must follow in adopting and submitting a 
section 111(d) plan. Whenever EPA promulgates a NSPS that controls a 
designated pollutant, EPA establishes EG in accordance with 40 CFR 
60.22 which contain information pertinent to the control of the 
designated pollutant from that NSPS source category (i.e., the 
``designated facility'' as defined at 40 CFR 60.21(b)). Thus, a state, 
local, or tribal agency's section 111(d) plan for a designated facility 
must comply with the EG for that source category as well as 40 CFR part 
60, subpart B.
    On March 12, 1996, EPA published EG for existing MSW landfills at 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc (40 CFR 60.30c through 60.36c) and NSPS for 
new MSW landfills at 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.750 through 
60.759). See 61 FR 9905-9944. The pollutants regulated by the NSPS and 
EG are MSW landfill emissions, which contain a mixture of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs), other organic compounds, methane, and HAPs. 
VOC emissions can contribute to ozone formation which can result in 
adverse effects to human health and vegetation. The health effects of 
HAPs include cancer, respiratory irritation, and damage to the nervous 
system. Methane emissions contribute to global climate change and can 
result in fires or explosions when they accumulate in structures on or 
off the landfill site. To determine whether control is required, 
nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs) are measured as a surrogate for 
MSW landfill emissions. Thus, NMOC is considered the designated 
pollutant. The designated facility which is subject to the EG is each 
existing MSW landfill (as defined in 40 CFR 60.32c) for which 
construction, reconstruction or modification was commenced before May 
30, 1991.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.23(a), states were required to either: (1) 
submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant to which the 
EG applies; or (2) submit a negative declaration if there were no 
designated facilities in the state within nine months after publication 
of the EG (by December 12, 1996).
    EPA has been involved in litigation over the requirements of the 
MSW landfill EG and NSPS since the summer of 1996. On November 13, 
1997, EPA issued a notice of proposed settlement in National Solid 
Wastes Management Association v. Browner, et al. No. 96-1152 (D.C. 
Cir), in accordance with section 113(g) of the Act. See 62 FR 60898. It 
is important to note that the proposed settlement does not vacate or 
void the existing MSW landfill EG or NSPS. Accordingly, the currently 
promulgated MSW landfill EG was used as a basis by EPA for review of 
section 111(d) plan submittals.
    This action approves the section 111(d) plan submitted by the State 
of Tennessee for the Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, MHD to 
implement and enforce subpart Cc.

II. Discussion

    The State submitted to EPA on December 24, 1996, the following in 
their section 111(d) plan for implementing and enforcing the emission 
guidelines for existing MSW landfills in Nashville and Davidson County, 
Tennessee: Legal Authority; Enforceable Mechanism; Inventory of MSW 
Landfills; MSW Landfill Emission Inventory; Emission Limits; Compliance 
Schedule; Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting 
Requirements; Demonstration That the Public Had Adequate Notice and 
Opportunity to Submit Written Comments; Submittal of Progress Reports 
to EPA; and applicable Tennessee statutes, Metropolitan Nashville and 
Davidson County Government statutes, and MHD agency regulations.
    The approval of the MHD plan is based on finding that: (1) the MHD 
provided adequate public notice of public hearings for the proposed 
rulemaking which allows the MHD to implement and enforce the EG for MSW 
landfills; and (2) the MHD also demonstrated legal authority to adopt 
emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to the 
designated facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards 
and compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information 
necessary to determine compliance; require recordkeeping; conduct 
inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission 
reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly 
available.
    In Appendix 1 of the plan, the MHD cites the following references 
for the legal authority: State of Tennessee Codes Annotated 68-201-115, 
``Local Pollution Control Programs,'' 10-7-503, ``Records Open to 
Public Inspection-Exceptions,'' and 10-7-504, ``Inspection of 
Records;'' Metropolitan Code of Laws, Article 10, ``Public Health and 
Hospitals,'' Chapter 1, ``Public Health'' of the Charter of the 
Metropolitan Government, Chapter 10.56, ``Air Pollution Control,'' 
Section 10.56.090, ``Board-Powers and Duties,'' Section 10.56.150, 
``Nuisance Declared-Injunctive Relief,'' Section 10.56.290, 
``Measurement and Reporting of Emissions,'' Section 2.36 ``Health 
Department,'' and Section 2.36.130 ``Records and Proceedings-Public 
Inspection Authorized When.'' These statutes and regulations are 
approved as being at least as protective as the federal requirements 
for existing MSW landfills.
    In Appendix 2 of the plan, the MHD cites all emission standards and 
limitations for the major pollutant categories related to the 
designated sites and facilities. These standards and limitations in the 
MHD Pollution Control Division's Regulation No. 16, ``Regulation for 
Control of Municipal Waste Landfills,'' are approved as being at least 
as protective as the federal requirements contained in subpart Cc for 
existing MSW landfills.
    The MHD adopted compliance schedules in Regulation No. 16 for each 
existing MSW landfill to be in compliance within 12 months of the 
effective date of their implementing regulation (November 12, 1996). 
All other compliance times for affected MSW landfills in Regulation No. 
12 comply with the compliance timelines of the EG. This portion of the 
plan has been reviewed and approved as being at

[[Page 70025]]

least as protective as federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.
    The State submitted an emission inventory of all designated 
pollutants for each MSW landfill in Nashville and Davidson County, 
Tennessee. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and approved as 
meeting the federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.
    The MHD plan includes its legal authority to require owners and 
operators of designated facilities to maintain records and report to 
their agency the nature and amount of emissions and any other 
information that may be necessary to enable their agency to judge the 
compliance status of the facilities. The MHD also cites its legal 
authority to provide for periodic inspection and testing and provisions 
for making reports of MSW landfill emissions data, correlated with 
emission standards that apply, available to the general public. The 
State submitted MHD's Regulation No. 16 to support the requirements of 
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance assurance. These 
MHD rules have been reviewed and approved as being at least as 
protective as federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.
    As stated on page 2 of the plan, the MHD will provide progress 
reports of plan implementation updates to the EPA on an annual basis. 
These progress reports will include the required items pursuant to 40 
CFR 60, subpart B. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and 
approved as meeting the federal requirement for plan reporting.
    Consequently, EPA finds that the MHD plan meets all of the 
requirements applicable to such plans in 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and 
Cc. The MHD did not, however, submit evidence of authority to regulate 
existing MSW landfills in Indian Country. Therefore, EPA is not 
approving this plan as it relates to those sources.

Final Action

    EPA is approving the Sections 111(d)/129 State Plan for Nashville/
Davidson County submitted by the State of Tennessee for implementing 
and enforcing the EG applicable to existing MWCs with capacity to 
combust more than 250 tons per day of MSW. EPA is also approving the 
Section 111(d) State Plan for Nashville/Davidson County for 
implementing and enforcing the EG applicable to existing MSW landfills, 
except for those existing MSW landfills located in Indian Country. MSW 
landfills located in other Tennessee counties will be addressed in 
separate rulemaking. As provided by 40 CFR 60.28(c), any revisions to 
the State plan or associated regulations will not be considered part of 
the applicable plan until submitted by the State in accordance with 40 
CFR 60.28(a) or (b), as applicable, and until approved by EPA in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective 
February 16, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives 
relevant adverse comments by January 19, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice 
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will 
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period. Only parties interested in 
commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, 
the public is advised that this rule will be effective on February 16, 
1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the 
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, 
copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of 
Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and 
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies 
on matters that

[[Page 70026]]

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create 
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 16, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Municipal waste 
combustors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 30, 1998.
Winston A. Smith,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    Part 62 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is 
amended as follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.

Subpart RR--Tennessee

    2. Subpart RR is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.10626 and a new 
undesignated center heading to read as follows: Plan for the Control of 
Designated Pollutants From Existing Facilities (Section 111(d) Plan).


Sec. 62.10626  Identification of plan.

    (a) Identification of plan. Tennessee Designated Facility Plan 
(Section 111(d) plan).
    (b) The plan was officially submitted as follows:
    (1) Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee's 
Implementation Plan For Municipal Waste Combustors, submitted on 
December 24, 1996, by the State of Tennessee Department of Environment 
and Conservation.
    (2) Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee's Plan For 
Implementing the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Emission Guidelines, 
submitted on December 24, 1996, by the State of Tennessee Department of 
Environment and Conservation.
    (c) Designated facilities. The plan applies to existing facilities 
in the following categories of sources:
    (1) Existing municipal waste combustors.
    (2) Existing municipal solid waste landfills.
    3. Subpart RR is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.10627 and a new 
undesignated center heading to read as follows:

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 
From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the Capacity To 
combust Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid Waste


Sec. 62.10627  Identification of sources.

    The plan applies to existing facilities with a municipal waste 
combustor (MWC) unit capacity greater than 250 tons per day of 
municipal solid waste (MSW) at the following MWC sites:
    (a) Nashville Thermal Transfer Corporation, Nashville, Tennessee.
    4. Subpart RR is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.10628 and a new 
undesignated center heading to read as follows:

[[Page 70027]]

Landfill Gas Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills


Sec. 62.10628  Identification of sources.

    The plan applies to existing municipal solid waste landfills for 
which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced 
before May 30, 1991, that accepted waste at any time since November 8, 
1987, or that have additional capacity available for future waste 
deposition, as described in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

[FR Doc. 98-33481 Filed 12-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P