[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51447-51451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24257]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[CA 013-MSWa; FRL-6439-9]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants: California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the California State Plan for implementing 
the emissions guidelines (EG) applicable to existing municipal solid 
waste (MSW) landfills. The Plan was submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) for the State of California to satisfy 
requirements of section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (the Act).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 22, 1999 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by 
October 25, 1999. If EPA receives such comments, then it will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that 
this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region 
IX office listed below. Copies of the submitted Plan and EPA's 
evaluation report are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 
IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted Plan 
are available for inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Bowlin, (AIR-4), Air 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415) 744-1188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 new source performance 
standards (NSPS) that control 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'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 (40 CFR 60.23 through 60.26).
    On March 12, 1996, EPA promulgated NSPS for new MSW landfills at 40 
CFR part 60, subpart WWW (Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid 
Waste Landfills) and EG for existing MSW landfills at 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Cc (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal 
Solid Waste Landfills) (see 61 FR 9905). The pollutants regulated by 
the NSPS and EG are MSW landfill emissions, which contain a mixture of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC), other organic compounds, methane, and 
HAPs. VOC emissions contribute to ozone formation which can result in 
adverse effects to

[[Page 51448]]

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 (NMOC) 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 within nine 
months after promulgation of subpart Cc (by December 12, 1996) to 
submit either a plan to implement and enforce the EG or, if there are 
no existing MSW landfills subject to the EG in the State, a negative 
declaration letter.
    EPA published a direct final rulemaking on June 16, 1998, in which 
EPA amended 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc (and subpart WWW) to add 
clarifying language, make editorial amendments, and to correct 
typographical errors (see 63 FR 32743). EPA published additional 
technical amendments and corrections on February 24, 1999 (see 64 FR 
9258). These amendments did not change the submittal date or the 
requirements for State plans for existing MSW landfills.
    On September 26, 1997, CARB submitted to EPA the California State 
Plan for implementing subpart Cc. CARB submitted amendments to the 
California State Plan on June 26, 1998; November 9, 1998; and July 14, 
1999.
    The submitted Plan controls existing MSW landfills in the following 
sixteen (16) air districts: Amador County Air Pollution Control 
District (APCD), Butte County Air Quality Management District (AQMD), 
Feather River AQMD, Glenn County APCD, Kern County APCD, Lake County 
AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, Placer County APCD, Sacramento 
Metropolitan AQMD, San Diego County APCD, Santa Barbara County APCD, 
Shasta County AQMD, South Coast AQMD, Tehama County APCD, Ventura 
County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD.
    Each of the following nine (9) districts submitted a negative 
declaration letter to CARB certifying that there are no existing MSW 
landfills in the district that are subject to the control requirements 
of the emission guidelines: Colusa County APCD, El Dorado County APCD, 
Great Basin Unified APCD, Lassen County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, 
North Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Northern Sonoma County 
APCD, and Tuolumne County APCD. Because these districts have no 
existing MSW landfills, they are not required to develop enforceable 
mechanisms to implement the EG.
    The California State Plan, as submitted, does not apply to 
landfills in the following ten (10) air districts: Antelope Valley 
APCD, Bay Area AQMD, Calaveras County APCD, Imperial County APCD, 
Mendocino County AQMD, Modoc County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, San 
Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD, and Siskiyou 
County APCD. Existing landfills in these districts will be subject to 
the requirements of the Federal Plan upon its promulgation until EPA 
receives and approves each district's portion of the California State 
Plan.
    The following provides a brief discussion of the requirements for 
an approvable State plan for existing MSW landfills and EPA's review of 
the California State Plan with respect to those requirements. A 
detailed discussion of the State Plan and EPA's evaluation can be found 
in the Technical Support Document for the California Plan (8/99).

II. Review of the California MSW Landfill Plan

    EPA has reviewed the California section 111(d) plan for existing 
MSW landfills against the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B 
and Cc, as follows:

A. Identification of Enforceable State Mechanism for Implementing the 
EG

    Subpart B at 40 CFR 60.24(a) requires that the section 111(d) plan 
include emissions standards, defined in 40 CFR 60.21(f) as ``a legally 
enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions 
into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications for 
control of air pollution emissions.'' In the State of California, local 
air quality management and air pollution control districts (districts) 
have primary responsibility for control of stationary air pollution 
sources, such as MSW landfills. Therefore, each district with 
designated facilities is required to develop a regulation or other 
enforceable mechanism to implement the EG. The districts in the 
following table have adopted local rules to control air emissions from 
existing landfills in their jurisdictions and thus, have met the 
requirement of 40 CFR 60.24(a) to have legally enforceable emission 
standards:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 District name                       Rule No.                     Date of adoption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amador County APCD.............................              1000  February 25, 1997.
Butte County AQMD..............................               246  January 15, 1998.
Feather River AQMD.............................              3.18  June 2, 1997.
Glenn County APCD..............................               104  May 18, 1999.
Kern County APCD...............................             422.1  January 8, 1998.
Lake County AQMD...............................               411  October 15, 1996.
Monterey Bay Unified APCD......................               437  October 16, 1996.
Placer County APCD.............................               237  August 14, 1997.
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD...................               485  November 6, 1997.
San Diego County APCD..........................              59.1  June 17, 1998.
Santa Barbara County APCD......................               341  September 18, 1997.
Shasta County AQMD.............................              3.29  February 25, 1997.
South Coast AQMD...............................            1150.1  April 10, 1998.
Tehama County APCD.............................              4.33  June 3, 1997.
Ventura County APCD............................           74.17.1  March 10, 1998.
Yolo-Solano AQMD...............................              2.38  March 12, 1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 51449]]

B. Demonstration of Legal Authority

    Subpart B at 40 CFR 60.26 requires that the section 111(d) plan 
demonstrate that the State has legal authority to adopt and implement 
the emission standards and compliance schedules. The State's Attorney 
General has certified that the districts have sufficient legal 
authority to adopt and enforce rules governing MSW landfills and that 
CARB has sufficient legal authority to develop this MSW landfill plan. 
The State statutes providing such authority are contained in the 
California Health and Safety Code (H&SC).

C. Inventory of Existing MSW Landfills in the State Affected by the 
State Plan

    Subpart B at 40 CFR 60.25(a) requires that the section 111(d) plan 
include a complete source inventory of all designated facilities 
regulated by the EG: existing MSW landfills (i.e., those MSW landfills 
that constructed, reconstructed, or modified prior to May 30, 1991) 
that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987 or have additional 
capacity for future waste deposition (see 40 CFR 60.32c(a)(1)). CARB 
has submitted an inventory of all existing MSW landfills in California 
as part of the State Plan.

D. Inventory of Emissions From Existing MSW Landfills in the State

    Subpart B at 40 CFR 60.25(a) requires that the 111(d) plan include 
an emissions inventory that estimates emissions of the designated 
pollutant regulated by the EG: NMOC. CARB has submitted an estimate of 
annual NMOC emissions from the landfills in the source inventory as 
part of the State Plan. CARB used the Landfill Air Emissions Estimation 
Model and AP-42 emission factors to estimate the NMOC emissions.

E. Emission Standards for MSW Landfills

    Subpart B at 40 CFR 60.24(c) specifies that the State plan must 
include emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG 
(except as specified in 40 CFR 60.24(f) which allows for less stringent 
emission limitations on a case-by-case basis if certain conditions are 
met). In general, the districts' regulations require existing MSW 
landfills to comply with the same equipment design criteria and level 
of control as prescribed in subpart Cc. In some cases, district rules 
contain emission standards that are more stringent than subpart Cc, as 
allowed by 40 CFR 60.24(g). These requirements are discussed in more 
detail in EPA's evaluation report.
    In addition, most of the rules in the California State Plan 
incorporate the wording in 40 CFR 60.33c(a)(2) as published on March 
16, 1996 and, therefore, may be construed as more stringent than 
Subpart Cc, as amended. The June 16, 1998 amendments changed the 
wording ``or'' in 40 CFR 60.33c(a)(2) to ``and'' to clarify that if a 
landfill design capacity is less than either 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 
million cubic meters, the landfill is exempt from all provisions of 
subpart Cc except the requirement to submit a design capacity report. 
This issue is discussed in more detail in EPA's evaluation report.
    Because the California State Plan contains emission standards that 
are no less stringent than the EG, EPA has determined that the Plan 
meets the requirements of 60.24(c).

F. A Process for State Review and Approval of Site-Specific Gas 
Collection and Control System Design Plans

    Subpart Cc at 40 CFR 60.33c(b) requires State plans to include a 
process for State review and approval of site-specific design plans for 
required gas collection and control systems. The process for district 
review and approval of site-specific gas collection and control systems 
is specified in the State Plan. Thus, California's section 111(d) plan 
adequately addresses this requirement.

G. Compliance Schedules

    The State's section 111(d) plan must include a compliance schedule 
that owners and operators of affected MSW landfills must meet in 
complying with the requirements of the plan. Subpart Cc at 40 CFR 
60.36c provides that planning, awarding of contracts, and installation 
of air emission collection and control equipment capable of meeting the 
EG must be accomplished within 30 months of the date on which the NMOC 
emission rate equals or exceeds 50 megagrams per year. The district 
regulations contain the same compliance schedule as subpart Cc.

H. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    Subpart Cc at 40 CFR 60.34c specifies the testing and monitoring 
provisions that State plans must include (60.34c specifically refers to 
the requirements found in 40 CFR 60.754 to 60.756), and 40 CFR 60.35c 
specifies the reporting and recordkeeping requirements (60.35c refers 
to the requirements found in 40 CFR 60.757 and 60.758). The California 
district landfill regulations incorporate by reference the requirements 
found in 40 CFR 60.754 to 60.758. Thus, the State Plan satisfies the 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.34c and 60.35c.

I. A Record of Public Hearings on the State Plan

    Subpart B at 40 CFR 60.23 contains the requirements for public 
hearings that must be met by the State in adopting a section 111(d) 
plan. California fulfilled the public process requirements for section 
111(d) State Plans through the district rulemaking procedures. CARB 
included documents in the Plan submittal demonstrating that the 
districts complied with these requirements, as well as the State's 
administrative procedures. Therefore, EPA finds that California has met 
this requirement.

J. Submittal of Annual State Progress Reports to EPA

    Subpart B at 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) requires States to submit to 
EPA annual reports on the progress of plan enforcement. The first 
progress report must be submitted by the State one year after EPA 
approval of the State plan. California committed in its section 111(d) 
plan to submit annual progress reports to EPA through the reporting of 
data to CEIDARS II and AIRS/AFS. Therefore, EPA finds that California 
has adequately met this requirement.
    In summary, EPA finds that the California State Plan meets all of 
the requirements applicable to such plans in 40 CFR part 60, subparts B 
and Cc.

III. Final Action

    Based on the rationale discussed above, EPA is approving the State 
of California section 111(d) plan for the control of landfill gas 
emissions from existing MSW landfills.1 As provided by 40 
CFR 60.28(c), any revisions to the California State Plan or associated 
regulations will not be considered part of the applicable plan until 
submitted by the CARB 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The State did not 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action 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 111(d) plan should 
relevant adverse or critical comments be filed. This rule will be 
effective November 22, 1999 without

[[Page 51450]]

further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by 
October 25, 1999.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document 
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule did 
not take effect. All public comments received will be addressed in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If 
no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action 
will be effective on November 22, 1999 and no further action will be 
taken on the proposed rule.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any section 111(d) plan. Each request for revision to the 
section 111(d) plan shall be considered separately in light of specific 
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to 
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 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, Executive Order 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, Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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, Executive Order 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 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 Executive Order 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 State Plan approvals under 
section 111(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 State Plan 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 State Plans 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

[[Page 51451]]

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 November 22, 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, Non-methane organic 
compounds, Methane, Municipal solid waste landfills, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 10, 1999.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. The heading of subpart F is revised to read as follows:

Subpart F--California

    3. Subpart F is amended by adding a new undesignated center heading 
preceding Sec. 62.1100 to read as follows:

Plan for the Control of Designated Pollutants From Existing 
Facilities (Section 111(d) Plan)

    4. Section 62.1100 is amended by adding and reserving paragraphs 
(b)(4) and (c)(4) and by adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(5) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 62.1100  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) [Reserved]
    (5) State of California's Section 111(d) Plan For Existing 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, submitted on September 26, 1997, June 
26, 1998, November 9, 1998, and July 14, 1999 by the California Air 
Resources Board.
    (c) * * *
    (4) [Reserved]
    (5) Existing municipal solid waste landfills.
    5. Subpart F is amended by adding a new undesignated center heading 
and Sec. 62.1115 to read as follows:

Landfill Gas Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills


Sec. 62.1115  Identification of sources.

    The plan applies to existing municipal solid waste landfills for 
which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced 
before May 30, 1991, as described in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

[FR Doc. 99-24257 Filed 9-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P