[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8857-8859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4043]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[TN-219-2-200008a; FRL-6539-6]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants; Tennessee: Approval of 111(d) Plan for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Chattanooga-Hamilton County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the section 111(d) Plan for Chattanooga-
Hamilton County submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) on April 26, 
1999, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines (EG) 
applicable to existing Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills. The Plan 
meets all requirements applicable to such plans.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective April 24, 2000 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 24, 2000. 
If adverse comment is received, EPA 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: All comments should be addressed to: Allison Humphris at the 
EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303.
    Copies of the State submittal are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Allison Humphris, 404/
562-9030. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 
Division of Air Pollution Control, L & C Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church 
Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531. 615/532-0554. Chattanooga-
Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, 3511 Rossville Boulevard, 
Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37407-2495. 423/867-4321.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Humphris at 404/562-9030 
(email address: [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (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 new source performance standard (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 was involved in litigation over the requirements of the MSW 
landfill EG and NSPS beginning in 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 settlement did not vacate or void the 
existing MSW landfill EG or NSPS. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, 
EPA published a direct final rulemaking on June 16, 1998, in which EPA 
amended 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW, to add clarifying 
language, make editorial amendments, and to correct typographical 
errors. See 63 FR 32743-32753, 32783-32784. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 
60.23(a)(2) provide that a State has nine months to adopt and submit 
any necessary State Plan revisions after publication of a final revised 
emission guideline document. The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air 
Pollution Control Bureau (APCB) has amended their rules for MSW 
landfills in the Chattanooga City Code, Part II, Section 4-41, Rule 
15.3 (effective date of October 21, 1998), to

[[Page 8858]]

reflect the June 16, 1998, amendments to subparts Cc and WWW. 
Accordingly, the MSW landfill EG published on March 12, 1996, and 
amended on June 16, 1998, was used as the basis by EPA for review of 
this section 111(d) Plan submittal.
    This action approves the section 111(d) Plan submitted by the State 
of Tennessee for the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB to implement and 
enforce subpart Cc.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    The State of Tennessee, on behalf of the Chattanooga-Hamilton 
County APCB, submitted to EPA on April 26, 1999, the following in their 
section 111(d) Plan for implementing and enforcing the emission 
guidelines for existing MSW landfills in Chattanooga-Hamilton County, 
Tennessee: Enforceable Mechanisms; Legal Authority; Emission Limits; 
Review and Approval Process for Collection and Control System Design 
Plans; Compliance Schedules; MSW Landfill Source and Emission 
Inventory; Test Methods and Procedures; Source Surveillance, Compliance 
Assurance, and Enforcement; Demonstration That the Public Had Adequate 
Notice and Public Hearing Record; Submittal of Progress Reports to EPA; 
and applicable statutes and rules of the State of Tennessee and 
ordinances of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB.
    The approval of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB Plan is based 
on finding that: (1) the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB provided 
adequate public notice of public hearings for the proposed rulemaking 
which allows the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB to implement and 
enforce the EG for MSW landfills; and (2) the Chattanooga-Hamilton 
County APCB 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 the Plan submittal, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB cites 
the following references for the legal authority: the State of 
Tennessee Air Quality Act (Tennessee Code Annotated 68-210-115, ``Local 
Pollution Control Programs''); Chattanooga-Hamilton County Ordinance 
No. 10786; and the Tennessee Certificate of Exemption for Chattanooga-
Hamilton County. On the basis of these statutes and rules for Tennessee 
and Chattanooga-Hamilton County, the Plan is approved as being at least 
as protective as the Federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.
    In the Plan submittal, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB cites 
the enforceable mechanism for implementing the EG for existing MSW 
landfills. The enforceable mechanisms are the regulations adopted by 
the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB in the Chattanooga City Code, Part 
II, Chapter 4, Section 4-41, Rule 15.3, ``Emissions Standards for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.'' The County's regulations meet the 
Federal requirements for an enforceable mechanism and are approved as 
being at least as protective as the Federal requirements contained in 
Subpart Cc for existing MSW landfills.
    In the Plan submittal, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB cites 
all emission limitations for the major pollutant categories related to 
the designated sites and facilities. These limitations in Rule 15.3 are 
approved as being at least as protective as the Federal requirements 
contained in Subpart Cc for existing MSW landfills.
    In the Plan submittal, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB 
included a source and emission inventory of all designated pollutants 
for each MSW landfill in Chattanooga-Hamilton County. This portion of 
the Plan has been reviewed and approved as meeting the Federal 
requirements for existing MSW landfills.
    The Plan submittal describes the process the Chattanooga-Hamilton 
County APCB will utilize for the review of site-specific design plans 
for gas collection and control systems. The process outlined in the 
Plan meets the Federal requirements contained in Subpart Cc for 
existing MSW landfills.
    In the Plan submittal, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB cites 
the compliance schedule adopted in Rule 15.3 for each existing MSW 
landfill to be in compliance by December 12, 1997. These compliance 
times for affected MSW landfills address the required compliance time 
lines of the EG. This portion of the Plan has been reviewed and 
approved as being at least as protective as Federal requirements for 
existing MSW landfills.
    The Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB Plan submittal 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 the agency to judge the compliance status of the facilities. 
The Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB 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 of 
Tennessee, on behalf of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB, submitted 
regulations to support the requirements of monitoring, recordkeeping, 
reporting, and compliance assurance in the Plan submittal. These 
Chattanooga-Hamilton County regulations in Rule 15.3 have been reviewed 
and approved as being at least as protective as Federal requirements 
for existing MSW landfills.
    The Plan submittal outlines how the Chattanooga-Hamilton County 
APCB will provide progress reports of Plan implementation to the EPA on 
an annual basis. These progress reports will include the required items 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 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 Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB 
Plan meets all of the requirements applicable to such plans in 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts B and Cc. The State of Tennessee, on behalf of 
Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB, 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.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Chattanooga-Hamilton County APCB section 
111(d) Plan, submitted by the State of Tennessee on April 26, 1999, 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 are addressed in separate 
rulemakings. 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.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the

[[Page 8859]]

Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal 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 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective April 24, 2000 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
March 24, 2000.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document 
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. 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 April 24, 2000 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, 
this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 
13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).
    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. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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 April 24, 2000. 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, Methane, Municipal 
solid waste landfills, Nonmethane organic compounds, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 3, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
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. Section 62.10626, is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 62.10626  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau Clean 
Air Act Section 111(d) Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 
submitted on April 26, 1999, by the State of Tennessee Department of 
Environment and Conservation.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-4043 Filed 2-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P