[Federal Register: September 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 174)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53271-53293]
[DOCID:fr08se06-32]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 60, 62, and 63

Standards of Performance, Emission Guidelines, and Federal Plan for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Proposed
Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60, 62, and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215; FRL-8217-6]
RIN 2060-AJ41 and A2060-AH13

Standards of Performance, Emission Guidelines, and Federal Plan
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the ``Standards of Performance
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (Landfills NSPS), to the
``Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills'' (landfills emission guidelines), to the ``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills'' (Landfills NESHAP), and to the ``Federal Plan Requirements
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills that Commenced Construction Prior
to May 30, 1991 and Have Not Been Modified or Reconstructed since May
30, 1991'' (landfills Federal plan). The proposed amendments to the
Landfills NSPS are supplemental amendments to those proposed on May 23,
2002. Based on public comments on the proposed amendments and
additional analysis, we are proposing supplemental amendments to the
Landfills NSPS to clarify what constitutes treated landfill gas. We are
also proposing amendments to the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines,
Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP to clarify who is responsible for
compliance activities where multiple parties are involved in the
ownership or operation of a landfill and the associated landfill gas
collection, control, and/or treatment systems. In addition, we are
proposing revisions to both the Landfills NSPS and the Landfills NESHAP
regarding startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine maintenance.
    The proposed amendments to the Landfills NSPS would also serve to
amend the emission guidelines and the Federal plan for existing
municipal solid waste landfills because these rules incorporate the
provisions of the ``Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills.'' We are proposing changes to the emission guidelines and
Federal plan themselves to reflect the proposed changes to the
Landfills NSPS where these rules did not directly incorporate the
provisions of the Landfills NSPS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 7, 2006.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by September 28, 2006
requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing
on October 10, 2006. If you are interested in attending the public
hearing, contact Karen Rackley at<PHONE_NUMBER> to verify that a
hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0215, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215.

     Fax: Fax your comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215.
     Mail: By U.S. Postal Service, send your comments to: EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Please include a total of two
copies. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact
person identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver your
comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room B-108,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Such deliveries are accepted only during the
normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays), and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006), or the EPA Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the

flooding and will remain the same.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0215. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA Facility Complex located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room
B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,

and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Rackley, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by the proposed amendments include municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills and owners/operators of combustion devices that burn
untreated landfill gas, which may include the following entities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category               NAICS* code      regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry: Air and water                  924110  Solid waste landfills.
 resource and solid waste
 management.
Industry: Refuse systems--solid          562212  Solid waste landfills.
 waste landfills.
State, local, and tribal                 562212  Solid waste landfills;
 government agencies.                    924110   Air and water resource
                                                  and solid waste
                                                  management.
Any industry, commercial                   4911  Electric power
 business, or institution or                      generation,
 utility that burns untreated                     transmission, or
 landfill gas in a                                distribution.
 reciprocating engine, turbine,
 boiler, or other combustion
 device (e.g., for energy
 recovery).
                                             49  Electric, gas, and
                                                  sanitary services.
                                             37  Manufacturers of motor
                                                  vehicle parts and
                                                  accessories.
                                             82  Educational services.
                                             29  Petroleum refineries
                                                  and manufacturers of
                                                  coal products.
                                             28  Chemical manufacturers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed amendments. To determine whether your facility would be
regulated by the proposed amendments, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.32c of subpart Cc, 40 CFR 60.750 of
subpart WWW, 40 CFR 62.14352 of subpart GGG, or 40 CFR 63.1935 and 40
CFR 63.1940 of subpart AAAA. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity,
contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
    Docket. The docket number for the proposed amendments to the
Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW), emission guidelines (40
CFR part 60, subpart Cc), Federal plan (40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG),
and Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) is Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Docket ID No. A-88-09 contains supporting
information for the landfills NSPS and emission guidelines and Docket
ID No. EPA-OAR-2002-0047 and Docket ID No. A-98-28 contain the
supporting information for the Landfills NESHAP. Docket ID No. A-98-03
and Docket ID No. A-88-09 contain supporting information for the
landfills Federal plan.
    WorldWide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the proposed amendments is available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network Website (TTN). Following
signature, EPA will post a copy of the proposed amendments on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and

technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
    A. What rules affect MSW landfills?
    B. What is the purpose of the proposed amendments?
II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
    A. What changes did we propose to the Landfills NSPS on May 23,
2002?
    B. What supplemental amendments are we proposing to the
Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, and Federal plan?
    C. What changes are we proposing to the Landfills NSPS and
Landfills NESHAP regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    D. What other corrections and clarifications are we proposing?
    E. Are we requesting public comment on any other issues?
III. Rationale for the Proposed Supplemental Amendments
    A. Definition of Landfill Owner/Operator and Allowance for Off-
site Control or Treatment Option
    B. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and
Clarification to the Treatment Option
IV. Rationale for Proposed Landfills NSPS and Landfills NESHAP
Amendments Regarding Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
    A. Proposed Landfills NSPS Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Provisions
    B. Proposed Landfills NESHAP Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Provisions
V. Rationale for Other Proposed Corrections and Clarifications
    A. Clarification of Temperature Monitoring for Enclosed
Combustors
    B. Correction of Cross-Reference in the Landfills NSPS
    C. Clarification of Bioreactor Moisture Content Determination
for the Landfills NESHAP
    D. Correction of Date in the Landfills NESHAP
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What rules affect MSW landfills?

    On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), we promulgated the emission
guidelines for existing MSW landfills and the NSPS for new or modified
MSW landfills under authority of section 111 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The goal of the emission guidelines and NSPS is to control
landfill gas emissions to the level achievable through the application
of the best system of emissions reductions which (taking into account
the cost of such reduction and any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) we determine has been
adequately demonstrated. This is termed the Abest demonstrated
technology.'' On

November 8, 1999 (64 FR 60689), we promulgated the landfills Federal
plan requirements for the purpose of implementing the landfills
emission guidelines in States without approved State plans.
    The control of landfill gas based on the requirements of the
Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, and Federal plan results in
emissions reductions of over 30 volatile organic compounds and air
toxics such as toluene, benzene, and vinyl chloride. The reduction of
these emissions has direct and indirect health benefits as well as
environmental benefits. In addition, the control of landfill gas
results in reductions of methane gas emissions, which reduces the
potential for fires and explosions near landfills. Control of landfill
gas reduces odor problems, which reduces the potential for local
property de-valuation and poorer quality of life for local residents.
Some landfills control landfill gas by combusting it in a boiler,
engine, or turbine to produce steam or electricity, taking advantage of
landfill gas as a renewable energy source.
    The landfills emission guidelines, as implemented through an
approved State plan or the landfills Federal plan, and the Landfills
NSPS require large landfills (at least 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and
2.5 million cubic meters in size) with estimated nonmethane organic
compound (NMOC) emissions of at least 50 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) to
collect and control or treat landfill gas. The Landfills NSPS and
emission guidelines provide landfill owners or operators with some
degree of flexibility to achieve compliance, allowing them to
incorporate site-specific factors into the design of the collection and
control or treatment systems, as long as the systems meet specific
performance standards. On January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2227), we promulgated
the Landfills NESHAP under authority of section 112 of the CAA. The
Landfills NESHAP apply to both major and area sources and contain the
same requirements as the landfills emission guidelines and Landfills
NSPS, but add requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM), add operating condition deviations for out-of-bounds monitoring
parameters, require timely control of bioreactor landfills, and change
the reporting frequency for one type of report.
    On May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36476), we proposed amendments to the
Landfills NSPS because implementation activity showed a need for
clarification of some issues. Consideration of the public comments
received and additional implementation activity has shown the need for
even further clarification on implementing the Landfills NSPS, emission
guidelines, and Landfills NESHAP.

B. What is the purpose of the proposed amendments?

    We are proposing supplemental amendments to the May 23, 2002
proposed amendments to the Landfills NSPS. While today's proposed
supplemental amendments would, for the most part, specifically amend
the Landfills NSPS, they would also serve to amend the landfills
emission guidelines for existing MSW landfills because the emission
guidelines incorporate many of the provisions of the Landfills NSPS. In
addition, today's proposed supplemental amendments include conforming
changes to certain provisions of the landfills emission guidelines that
do not directly incorporate the provisions of the Landfills NSPS; make
conforming changes to the landfills Federal plan for existing MSW
landfills; and would affect changes to the Landfills NESHAP for MSW
landfills. The supplemental proposed amendments would, in conjunction
with the previously proposed amendments, further clarify the definition
of landfill owners/operators; clarify compliance responsibilities in
situations where multiple entities own/operate a landfill and the gas
collection, control, or treatment systems (either at the landfill or
off site); and clarify the definition of treated landfill gas. Today's
proposed supplemental amendments do not change how you determine
whether a landfill is ``new'' or ``existing,'' and accordingly subject
to the Landfills NSPS or emission guidelines. The determination of
whether an affected facility is new or existing is still based on the
date of construction or modification of the landfill itself and not the
date of installation of the gas collection, control, or treatment
system.
    In allocating certain responsibilities to the landfill owners/
operators and others to the gas collection, control, and/or treatment
system owners/operators, it is not our intent to establish a precedent
for any other NSPS or NESHAP. We are proposing this compliance approach
specifically for landfills because of the unique nature of landfill
operations and to encourage energy recovery. Landfill gas is commonly
collected and combusted to produce electricity, steam, or other useful
energy; combustion for energy recovery often occurs miles away from the
landfill itself at a separate industrial, commercial, or institutional
facility. Combusting landfill gas for energy recovery is a reasonable
approach to meeting the control requirements of the Landfills NSPS and
also makes use of a renewable energy resource and reduces combustion of
scarce fossil fuels and emissions produced during their combustion.
This unique situation raises unique issues on the respective
responsibilities of landfill owners/operators and gas collection,
control, and/or treatment system owners/operators for complying with
the Landfills NSPS.
    Although today's proposed supplemental amendments allocate
responsibility for complying with certain specified requirements to the
owners/operators of the MSW landfill and responsibility for complying
with other specified requirements to the owners/operators of gas
collection, control and/or treatment systems used to comply with the
Landfills NSPS, they do not alter compliance responsibilities where
affected sources \1\ are under common control.\2\ (Today's proposed
supplemental amendments also continue to recognize that the owner/
operator of the MSW landfill may also be the owner/operator of the gas
collection, control, and/or treatment system.) The question of whether
affected sources are under common control may be determined as part of
permitting activities. In a common control determination, various
affected sources are aggregated together, and the owner/operator of the
resulting single source is ultimately responsible for ensuring
compliance with all applicable requirements (including requirements
applicable to each of the affected sources/emissions units that make up
the single source). To ensure that the proposed amendments to the
Landfills NSPS allocating various compliance responsibilities among the
owners/operators of affected sources do not conflict with determining
compliance responsibilities when the affected sources are under common
control, 40 CFR 60.750(a) of the Landfills NSPS, related sections of
the landfills emission guidelines, the landfills Federal plan, and the
Landfills NESHAP specify that responsibility for compliance cannot be
allocated where landfills and associated

gas collection, control, and/or treatment systems are under common
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Landfills NSPS define the affected sources subject to
the NSPS and the requirements to which these affected sources are
subject. However, a single source is defined by the program in
question, e.g., title V, new source review, and in many cases,
requires the aggregation of emissions units, including affected
sources.
    \2\ Common control is a key element in defining whether and how
activities at a site are to be aggregated in determining whether
they constitute a single source. See, for example, Alabama Power v.
Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (District of Columbia Circuit, 1979), section
112(a)(1) of the CAA, 40 CFR 70.2, and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(5) and (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that in cases of common control, although
the owner/operator of the single source (e.g., the owner/operator of
the landfill and/or gas collection, control, and/or treatment system)
is ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance at the source,
enforcement action could be taken by EPA or a State against the owners/
operators of individual affected sources/emissions units in addition to
the owner/operator of the single source. This is because enforcement
action is not limited by the determination of who is ultimately in
control of a single source, but rather can be taken against the owners/
operators of each individual affected source/emissions unit comprising
that source.
    Additionally, regardless of the various regulatory approaches that
are discussed in today's package, all landfills that are at least 2.5
Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters in size, and all stationary equipment
that is required by the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal
plan, and Landfills NESHAP to collect, control, and/or treat landfill
gas from MSW landfills of this size, continue to be subject to the
requirement to apply for and obtain a title V permit. This is because
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 a title V permits program. Thus, regardless of the
number of affected sources or owner/operators that are relevant in a
particular MSW landfill situation, all affected sources are required to
be covered by a title V operating permit. The final regulatory language
will provide additional clarification on this point after a regulatory
approach is selected.
    We are proposing further clarifications to the landfill gas
treatment compliance option, including more specific definitions of
``treated landfill gas'' and ``treatment system'' in the Landfills
NSPS.
    We are proposing clarifications that would amend the time allowed
for malfunction events in the Landfills NSPS. The amendments would also
clarify the SSM plan requirements and reports and the incorporation of
maintenance activities in those plans in the Landfills NESHAP.
    The proposed supplemental amendments would correct a test method
citation in the Landfills NSPS; clarify Landfills NSPS temperature
monitoring for enclosed combustors; clarify that bioreactor moisture
content should be determined on a wet weight basis for the Landfills
NESHAP; and correct a compliance date in the Landfills NESHAP.
    As stated earlier, the proposed supplemental amendments to the
Landfills NSPS would also serve to amend the landfills emission
guidelines and Federal plan for MSW landfills where these rules
specifically incorporate the provisions of the Landfills NSPS. We are
also proposing direct changes to the landfills emission guidelines to
maintain consistency with the proposed changes to the Landfills NSPS
where the emission guidelines did not directly incorporate the
provisions of the Landfills NSPS. Changes to the landfills Federal plan
implementing the landfills emission guidelines are being proposed to
ensure the plan remains consistent with the landfills emission
guidelines.

II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments

A. What changes did we propose to the Landfills NSPS on May 23, 2002?

    On May 23, 2002, EPA proposed amendments to the Landfills NSPS to
clarify who is responsible for compliance activities where multiple
entities are involved in the ownership/operation of a landfill and the
associated landfill gas collection, control, and/or treatment systems;
clarify what constitutes treated landfill gas; and correct the omission
of an exemption for specific boilers and process heaters from the
initial performance test.
    To be specific, we proposed to amend 40 CFR 60.751 of subpart WWW
by adding a landfill-specific definition for MSW landfill owners/
operators. This landfill-specific definition would identify MSW
landfill owners/operators as entities that own or operate the landfill
or any stationary equipment located on the landfill property that is
used in the collection, control, and/or treatment of landfill gas. We
also proposed to amend 40 CFR 60.752 of subpart WWW to allow landfill
owners/operators to transfer untreated landfill gas off site for
control or treatment, provided the transferee certifies to us (and
provides a copy to the landfill owner/operator) that it will control or
treat the landfill gas in accordance with the Landfills NSPS
provisions.
    We further proposed to amend 40 CFR 60.751 of subpart WWW by adding
a definition for treatment system. The May 23, 2002 proposed definition
for treatment system specified that the system must filter, de-water,
and compress landfill gas.
    We proposed to amend 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C) of subpart WWW to
specify that to achieve compliance with this section, landfill gas must
be processed in a system that meets the treatment system definition in
the proposed amendment. We also proposed to amend this section to
clarify that venting of treated landfill gas to the ambient air is not
permitted.
    We proposed to amend 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B) of subpart WWW to
exempt owners/operators of boilers and process heaters with design
input capacities of 44 megawatts (MW) or greater from the requirement
to conduct an initial performance test.

B. What supplemental amendments are we proposing to the Landfills NSPS,
emission guidelines, and Federal plan?

    Public comments on the May 23, 2002 proposed amendments raised new
questions and caused us to reconsider the approach we had taken on
several proposed amendments. Based on further analysis, we are
proposing supplemental amendments that we expect to help owners/
operators to comply with the Landfills NSPS. As mentioned previously,
the proposed supplemental amendments clarify: The definition of
landfill owner/operator; compliance responsibilities when multiple
entities own/operate a landfill and the associated landfill gas
collection, control, and/or treatment systems; and what constitutes
treated landfill gas. Additional proposed amendments, including SSM
provisions, and other corrections are discussed later in this section
of this preamble.
    To address compliance responsibilities at landfills where multiple
entities own/operate the landfill and the associated landfill gas
collection, control, or treatment systems, we are proposing to add a
specific definition of ``landfill gas collection, control, or treatment
system owner/operator'' and to revise the May 2002 proposed definition
of ``landfill owner/operator'' by removing references to stationary gas
collection, control, or treatment systems. We are also proposing to
revise the applicability section to clarify compliance
responsibilities. We are proposing that the landfill owners/operators
would be responsible for complying with the requirements of the
Landfills NSPS that apply to the landfills and any portion of the
collection, control, or treatment system that they own or operate. The
owners/operators of the landfill gas collection, control, or treatment
systems would be responsible for complying with the requirements of the
Landfills

NSPS that apply to the portion of the landfill gas collection, control,
or treatment system that they own or operate. To maintain consistency
between the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal plan, and
Landfills NESHAP with regard to owner/operator responsibilities, we are
also proposing similar revisions to the landfills emission guidelines,
Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP. As discussed later in this
preamble, we are requesting comment on this approach, as well as an
alternative approach regarding compliance responsibilities.
    To clarify what constitutes landfill gas treatment, we propose to
refine the May 23, 2002 proposed definitions of ``treated landfill
gas'' and ``treatment system'' in the Landfills NSPS. For filtration
and de-watering, the refined proposed definitions contain specific
numerical values that would provide long-term protection of the
combustion equipment, which would support good combustion. For
particulate matter filtration, a filter system would be required to
have an absolute rating no greater than 10 microns. For de-watering,
the system would be required to reduce the dew point by at least 20
degrees Fahrenheit.
    We are also clarifying the monitoring requirements for treatment
systems. To ensure that treatment systems are operating properly to
achieve the filtration and de-watering levels specified in the revised
proposed treatment system definition, we are proposing more specific
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for treatment
systems used to comply with the Landfills NSPS. We are proposing that
owners/operators of treatment systems monitor pressure drop across the
filtration system and temperature or dew point for de-watering systems,
depending on the type of de-watering system. However, we are proposing
to allow owners/operators to use other monitoring parameters if they
demonstrate that such parameters would effectively monitor filtration
or de-watering system performance. We are clarifying that owners/
operators must develop operating ranges for each monitored operating
parameter based on manufacturer's recommendations or engineering
analysis and submit those ranges, along with justification, for
approval in the design plan required by 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2) of subpart
http://WWW. Then, owners/operators would be required to monitor the required

parameters and keep them within the ranges specified in their approved
design plan. For recordkeeping and reporting purposes, we are
clarifying that owners/operators would continuously monitor treatment
system operating parameters and calculate 24-hour block averages. The
24-hour block averages would be compared with the operating ranges
justified in the design plan to determine compliance. The specific
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for treatment systems would be
similar to those for control device temperature monitoring requirements
already detailed in the Landfills NSPS. Owners/operators of treatment
systems installed prior to today's proposed supplemental amendments
would be required to comply with the revised treatment system
requirements as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 1 year
after the date the final amendments are promulgated. We are also
proposing clarifications to various sections of the Landfills NESHAP
that cross-reference the Landfills NSPS treatment system and monitoring
requirements to maintain consistency.
    We are not altering the May 23, 2002 proposal to amend 40 CFR
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B) of subpart WWW to exempt owners/operators of
boilers and process heaters with design capacities of 44 MW or greater
from the requirement to conduct an initial performance test.

C. What changes are we proposing to the Landfills NSPS and Landfills
NESHAP regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    The current Landfills NSPS limit the duration of SSM events to 5
days for the landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for treatment or
control devices. Since promulgation of the Landfills NSPS, we have
become aware that some malfunctions cannot be corrected within these
time frames. Therefore, we propose to revise 40 CFR 60.755(e) of
subpart WWW to remove the 5 day and 1 hour time limitations. The
proposed revisions would clarify that the NSPS General Provisions in 40
CFR 60.11(d) of subpart A continue to apply during malfunctions, and
that routine maintenance activities must be completed and malfunctions
must be corrected as soon as practicable after their occurrence in
order to minimize emissions. To prevent free venting of landfill gas to
the atmosphere during control device malfunctions or maintenance, we
would retain the requirement in 40 CFR 60.753(e) of subpart WWW which
states that in the event the collection or control system is
inoperable, the gas mover system shall be shut down and all valves in
the collection and control system contributing to venting of gas to the
atmosphere shall be closed within 1 hour.
    The Landfills NESHAP have no allowance for shutdown of control
devices for routine maintenance. Furthermore, after the Landfills
NESHAP were promulgated, there were revisions to the SSM requirements
in the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. The
revised General Provisions contain some changes that are not relevant
or can be difficult to interpret for landfills. We are, therefore,
proposing revisions to the Landfills NESHAP that require routine
maintenance of landfill gas collection, control, and treatment systems
to be included in the SSM plan. We are also clarifying SSM reporting
requirements for landfills and the applicability of SSM sections of the
General Provisions to the Landfills NESHAP.

D. What other corrections and clarifications are we proposing?

    We propose to amend 40 CFR 60.758(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR
60.758(c)(1)(i) of subpart WWW by removing the term ``combustion'' from
the requirement to monitor temperature of enclosed combustors.
Temperature monitoring is required for enclosed combustors, including
enclosed flares, turbines, reciprocating engines, and boilers less than
44 MW. For some enclosed combustors, it is not possible to monitor
temperature inside the combustion chamber to determine combustion
temperature. The proposed amendment clarifies that the ``combustion''
temperature does not have to be monitored. Temperature could be
monitored at another location, as long as the monitored temperature
relates to proper operation of the enclosed combustor.
    We propose to correct a test method cross-reference in 40 CFR
60.755(c)(3) of subpart WWW necessitated by the reorganization of
Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
    In the Landfills NESHAP, we propose to correct 40 CFR 63.1990 of
subpart AAAA to clarify that the 40 percent moisture content in the
definition of ``bioreactor'' is determined on a wet weight basis.
    The proposed supplemental amendments would also correct a Landfills
NESHAP compliance date for existing major sources to read January 16,
2004 instead of January 13, 2004 in 40 CFR 63.1945(d) of subpart AAAA.
    We propose to amend the definition of ``household waste'' and add a
definition of ``segregated yard waste'' in 40 CFR 60.751 of subpart WWW
to clarify our intent regarding the applicability of the Landfills
NSPS,

emission guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP to landfills
that do not accept household waste, but accept segregated yard waste.
We intended the rules to apply to municipal solid waste landfills that
accept general household waste (including garbage, trash, sanitary
waste), as indicated in the definitions sections of these rules. Our
regulatory analyses for the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, and
Landfills NESHAP were based on landfills containing mixed household
waste steams. A question has recently arisen on whether a landfill that
accepts only construction and demolition waste and segregated yard
waste would be subject to the municipal solid waste Landfills NSPS. We
did not intend these rules to apply to landfills that accept only
segregated yard waste or that accept a combination of segregated yard
waste and non-household waste (such as construction and demolition
waste or industrial waste). The proposed definition changes in the
Landfills NSPS would also affect the emission guideline, Federal plan,
and Landfills NESHAP because they reference the definitions in the
Landfills NSPS.

E. Are we requesting public comment on any other issues?

    We are requesting public comment on alternative approaches for
addressing three issues the landfill industry and regulatory agencies
face in implementing the Landfills NSPS, emission guideline, Federal
plan, and Landfills NESHAP.
    The first issue deals with closed areas of landfills and when they
are allowed to remove controls. The current Landfills NSPS define an
MSW landfill as: ``* * * an entire disposal facility in a contiguous
geographical space where household waste is placed in or on land * *
*.'' We have clearly stated in previous documents that the entire
contiguous area, including both closed landfill sections and new
landfill sections, is considered a single landfill, even if the
landfill is bisected by a road, right of way, golf course, etc. Our
intent has always been to consider the entire contiguous area in
determining whether a landfill meets the design capacity and emission
rate criteria for applying controls. Similarly, to remove controls, the
entire area would need to meet the control removal criteria in the
Landfills NSPS (e.g., the entire landfill must emit less than 50 Mg
NMOC per year, must be closed, and the control system must have been in
operation for at least 15 years). Also, 40 CFR 60.759(a)(3)(ii) allows
landfill owners/operators to stop collecting gas from ``nonproductive''
areas of the landfill if they demonstrate that the excluded areas emit
less than 1 percent of total NMOC emissions from the landfill.
    It has come to our attention that in many cases, a contiguous area
will contain unconnected landfill sections that were developed
sequentially over time. An initial landfill is constructed, filled,
closed, and capped. Then a new one with a separate liner opens on
contiguous property. Under the Landfills NSPS, these are part of the
same landfill and controls cannot be removed from the closed and capped
area until it emits less than 1 percent of the total NMOC, or until the
entire contiguous landfill is closed and meets the control system
removal criteria. In some cases, gas production from the separate
section that closed many years ago has declined, and the gas
composition has changed to the point where it is difficult to
continuously collect and combust the gas. However, the closed area may
not meet the 1 percent NMOC criteria that would allow removal of the
control system from that section of the landfill. We request comments
on any approaches for dealing with such a situation, and the specific
criteria that could be applied to determine which areas warrant control
and which may remove control.
    The second issue deals with approval of collection and control
system design plans. The Landfills NSPS and emission guidelines require
landfill owners/operators to submit a gas collection and control system
design plan within 1 year of when their calculated uncontrolled NMOC
emissions reach 50 Mg/yr. The plan may include requests for alternative
designs, alternative operational standards, and alternative monitoring
and recordkeeping. The plan is submitted to the regulatory authority
that implements the Landfills NSPS or emission guidelines (usually a
State agency) for approval. The Landfills NSPS and emission guidelines
require that landfill gas collection and control systems must be
installed and begin operation within 30 months of the report that
calculated NMOC emissions have reached 50 Mg/yr, which is 18 months
after the design plan is submitted. In the 1999 document ``Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 1: Summary of Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills'' (EPA-453R/96-004), we stated that EPA expected that
implementing agency review and approval of the design plan would take
approximately 6 months, leaving approximately 12 months for the
landfill to install the gas collection and control system. It has come
to our attention that some design plans have been submitted but have
not been approved or disapproved for a year or even 2 years. As a
result, some landfills may be faced with the prospect of installing a
gas collection and control system that they are not sure will be
approved or may be implementing monitoring approaches that might later
be disapproved.
    While there must always be an opportunity for the implementing
agency to review and approve or disapprove each design plan, one
approach would be that if the implementing agency chooses not to review
or act on a design plan within a specified amount of time, then the
design plan would have de facto approval. This would be one way to
allow the landfill to move ahead to meet the gas collection and control
provisions within the time allowed by the Landfills NSPS and emission
guidelines. Note that all design plans must be certified by a
registered Professional Engineer (P.E.). Also, after the collection and
control system is installed, quarterly monitoring of the landfill
surface methane concentration is required to verify that the collection
system is working properly, and testing and monitoring of control
devices is also required. Thus, even if a design plan was not reviewed
and approved, the system will be professionally designed and there will
still be proof that the collection and control system is achieving the
level of control required by the Landfills NSPS and emission
guidelines. We request comment on this approach or other alternative
approaches to address the issues surrounding timeliness of design plan
approvals. We also request comment on what period of time would be
appropriate for review and approval of initial design plans, and
whether the time period should be different for review and approval of
amendments or updates to design plans.
    The third issue deals with surface monitoring locations. The intent
of the rule is to maintain a tight cover that minimizes any emissions
of landfill gas through the surface. The Landfills NSPS and emission
guidelines require quarterly surface monitoring to demonstrate that the
cover and gas collection system are working properly. The operational
requirements in 40 CFR 60.753(d) of the Landfills NSPS specify that the
landfill must ``* * * operate the collection system so that the methane
concentration is less than 500 parts per million above background at
the surface of the landfills. To determine if this level is exceeded,
the owner or operator shall conduct surface testing around the
perimeter of the

collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30
meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated
concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and
cracks or seeps in the cover.'' The issue has arisen as to whether the
quarterly monitoring path should include monitoring of every cover
penetration. Cover penetrations can be observed visually and are
clearly a place where gas would be escaping from the cover, so
monitoring of them would be required by the regulatory language. The
regulatory language gives distressed vegetation and cracks as an
example of a visual indication that gas may be escaping, but this
example does not limit the places that should be monitored by landfill
staff or by enforcement agency inspectors. Thus, under the current
language, the landfill should monitor any openings that are within an
area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas collection
system is required. However, monitoring of every cover penetration
every quarter could substantially increase monitoring time relative to
monitoring only along a path at 30 meter intervals and may not be
necessary every quarter. We request comment on this rule interpretation
and alternatives for monitoring cover penetrations that do not show
distressed vegetation, cracks, or similar indications of high landfill
gas levels.

III. Rationale for the Proposed Supplemental Amendments

A. Definition of Landfill Owner/Operator and Allowance for Off-Site
Control or Treatment Option

    Amendments were proposed in 2002 to clarify which entities are
considered landfill owners/operators and are subject to the Landfills
NSPS, and to clarify compliance responsibilities when landfill gas is
sent off site for treatment or control. The May 2002 proposed
amendments and today's proposed supplemental amendments recognize the
unique natures of the landfills source category and landfill gas.
Because landfill gas contains methane and can be used as a renewable
resource to produce useful energy, it is common for landfill gas to be
sold to entities, other than the landfill, that combust the gas for
energy recovery. These entities often own and/or operate portions of
the gas collection system and the control or treatment systems required
by the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills
NESHAP. Control or treatment systems may be located on or adjacent to
the landfill, or they may be located miles away at a business,
institution, or industrial plant that is using landfill gas to fuel a
boiler or other combustion device. This situation is different from
most source categories where the same entity that generates emissions
typically controls the emissions within their facility. We recognize
and encourage beneficial use of landfill gas, but we also want to
clarify that entities collecting, controlling, or treating the gas are
responsible for complying with the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines,
Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP.
    Based on a review of the comments that we received on our May 23,
2002 proposed amendments to clarify the owner/operator definition and
responsibilities, we have determined that a new approach and further
revisions are needed to effectively address compliance responsibilities
in situations where multiple entities own/operate the landfill and
associated gas collection, control, and/or treatment systems. In May
2002, we proposed to define ``landfill owner/operator'' as ``* * * any
entity that owns or operates a MSW landfill or any stationary equipment
located on the same property as the MSW landfill facility that is used
to collect, control, or treat landfill gas.'' We also proposed an
allowance for off-site control or treatment by another entity if that
entity accepted compliance responsibility through a certification
process. The certification process would have allowed transfer of
control or treatment responsibility in specified circumstances without
holding the landfill owners/operators responsible for the actions of
the off-site entity.
    However, many commenters stated that the revised definition of
``landfill owner/operator'' was too broad. Some argued that the
inclusion of ``* * * any stationary equipment located on the same
property as a MSW facility that is used to collect, control, or treat
landfill gas * * *'' would result in ``confusion'' as to who is
responsible for compliance at a landfill where one or more entities
operate on the landfill site or in conjunction with the landfill owner/
operator. The commenters explained that the proposed definition was so
broad that it potentially included entities that act in a supportive
role on a landfill site. Some commenters also objected to the ``joint
and several liability'' they believe is inherent in this definition.
Some commenters cited an example where a developer who may own only a
portion of the landfill gas collection system and has no rights to gas
from other sections of the landfill could be considered responsible for
all NSPS compliance issues at the landfill under the proposed
definition. Another example cited was a gas collection system operator
who has a contract with a landfill to perform specific activities, such
as monitoring and adjusting the gas collection system to maintain
compliance with the temperature, nitrogen, and oxygen requirements of
the Landfills NSPS could now be considered a landfill owner/operator
and held liable for compliance with NSPS requirements beyond their
contract authority and control. Similarly, a company that owned/
operated only the gas control device could be held responsible for
landfill and collection system operation activities over which they
have no control.
    Several of the commenters suggested that compliance responsibility
at a landfill that operates with multiple on-site entities be
established, on a voluntary basis, through a certification process
similar to the off-site certification process proposed in the May 2002
Landfills NSPS amendments. Ownership and operation of on-site landfill
gas collection, control, or treatment systems by another entity is a
common practice, and the commenters wanted the owner/operator of the
landfill and the on-site entity to have the flexibility to determine
any division of compliance responsibility. The commenters suggested
that the landfill owner/operator and the additional entity provide EPA
with a written certification and an outline of compliance
responsibilities for the various compliance assurance activities. Other
commenters noted that limiting the compliance certification option to
off-site entities would unnecessarily inhibit the flexibility EPA seeks
to create and would impose an artificial distinction between on-site
and off-site recipients of untreated landfill gas.
    Based on further consideration, we are proposing supplemental
amendments that would replace the May 23, 2002 proposed definition of
``landfill owner/operator'' and the proposed off-site certification
approach. We recognize that many landfills accomplish control of their
untreated landfill gas by providing the gas to a business, industry, or
institutional facility that combusts the untreated gas in a
reciprocating engine or gas turbine to produce electricity or in a
boiler, process heater, or furnace to produce steam or heat for a
useful purpose. This may occur at the landfill or at another location.
The beneficial use of landfill gas, a renewable energy source, offsets
the use of fossil fuels that can generate greater emissions. To
facilitate the beneficial use of landfill gas, we propose to clarify
compliance

responsibilities in cases where multiple entities are involved in a way
that will ensure Landfills NSPS compliance and enforceability, but will
not discourage beneficial use of the gas.
    We are now proposing that compliance responsibility at landfills
that operate with multiple entities be divided based on which entity
owns/operates each specific collection, control, or treatment system,
or a portion thereof. To retain consistency between the Landfills NSPS,
emission guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP, the same
approach is proposed for all four rules. The proposed supplemental
amendments state that the landfill owners/operators are responsible for
complying with the requirements of the NSPS for the landfill and any
portion of the landfill gas collection, control, or treatment system
that they own/operate. The owners/operators of the gas collection,
control, and/or treatment system(s) would be responsible for complying
with the requirements for the portion of the landfill gas collection,
control, or treatment system that they own/operate.
    We are proposing to accomplish this division of responsibility
through the addition of a definition of ``landfill gas collection,
control, or treatment system owner/operator,'' and by revising the May
2002 proposed definition of ``landfill owner/operator'' to remove any
reference to landfill gas collection, control, or treatment systems. We
are placing responsibility for compliance with the Landfills NSPS with
the owner/operator of the various equipment used to achieve compliance
by making landfill gas collection, control, or treatment systems (as
well as the landfill itself) affected sources under the Landfills NSPS
and assigning responsibility for compliance with requirements
applicable to such systems to the owners/operators of the landfill gas
collection, control, and/or treatment system located on or off the
landfill property. In the proposed supplemental amendments, we are
revising the applicability requirements of the Landfills NSPS to
indicate that responsibility for compliance with the provisions of the
Landfills NSPS is based on which portions of the landfill gas
collection, control, and/or treatment system each entity owns or
operates. The owner/operator of the landfill itself is responsible for
determining when control is required, ensuring that the equipment
necessary to comply with the Landfills NSPS is properly installed, and
complying with other regulatory requirements that apply to the landfill
itself and to any portions of the gas collection, control, and/or
treatment system that the landfill itself owns/operates. Furthermore,
we are proposing a default compliance provision in the applicability
section of the Landfills NSPS that would automatically shift all future
responsibilities, including compliance responsibilities, to the
landfill owner/operator if another entity that owns/operates the gas
collection, control, or treatment system ceases to accept the landfill
gas for any reason (e.g., bankruptcy, abandonment of operation).
    We believe that this is a reasonable approach to addressing
compliance issues at landfills where multiple entities are involved in
the emission control infrastructure (regardless of whether treatment or
control of the landfill gas is accomplished at the landfill or at
another location). This approach enables direct enforcement of the
Landfills NSPS on the responsible entity in all cases and is consistent
with the original intent of the Landfills NSPS. In many cases, landfill
gas control system owners/operators (for example) are different
entities from the landfill owners/operators, and the landfill owners/
operators have no direct control over the operation of the control
system. Because they are distinct entities, it may be impractical and
may not be good policy to require the landfill owners/operators to
retain responsibility for all aspects of the Landfills NSPS compliance.
Landfill owners/operators may not have unrestricted access to the
location where the treatment or control of the landfill gas is
occurring (e.g., an industrial plant using the gas in a boiler several
miles away from the landfill) and often do not have direct control of
the daily operation of the treatment or control system. Furthermore,
clarification of the division of responsibilities is a practical means
to encourage the use of landfill gas for energy recovery and is
consistent with EPA policy to foster the use of landfill gas as a
renewable energy resource, thereby reducing the use of scarce fossil
fuels and associated emissions.
    We are also proposing that all entities keep a list documenting
which aspects of the Landfills NSPS requirements (by paragraph and
section number) each entity will comply with. The list would have to
include all requirements of the Landfills NSPS, and would be required
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 1 year after the
final rule amendments are promulgated. The list would help assure that
all required compliance activities are considered and will be performed
by the responsible entity. The Landfills NSPS would require that the
list be kept up-to-date and that all owners/operators maintain a copy
of the list onsite and comply with the responsibilities in the list
that are assigned to them. The compliance responsibilities of each
entity will be incorporated in title V permits if the entities are
subject to title V.
    Because the landfills emission guidelines and Federal plan cross-
reference the Landfills NSPS, the changes to the Landfills NSPS would
automatically affect the landfills emission guidelines and Federal
plan. However, to be consistent and clear, we are proposing similar
language on the responsibilities of the landfill owners/operators and
the owners/operators of the gas collection, control, or treatment
system to 40 CFR 60.32c of subpart Cc and to 40 CFR 62.14352 of subpart
GGG. Because the landfills emission guidelines are implemented through
CAA section 111(d) State plans, the States would be required to adopt
revisions to their landfills State plans and submit them to EPA for
approval within 9 months after the final amendments to the emission
guidelines are promulgated. The 9-month time frame is consistent with
40 CFR part 60 subpart B, which establishes procedures for State plans
to implement section 111(d) emission guidelines. Similarly, EPA is
proposing to amend the landfills Federal plan that implements the
landfills emission guidelines in areas where there is no approved State
plan.
    In addition, we are proposing similar amendments to the Landfills
NESHAP. The proposed amendments include revising the sections of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart AAAA, that define affected sources and describe who is
subject to the Landfills NESHAP, to include owners/operators of gas
collection, control, and/or treatment systems. The proposed revisions
to the Landfills NESHAP contain similar language on responsibilities
and the requirement for all entities to keep a list documenting which
aspects of Landfills NESHAP compliance each entity will comply with.
    Given the proposed revisions to the definitions and the rule
applicability sections describing responsibilities, we believe that
compliance responsibilities would be clearly delineated among the
entities involved, and EPA would retain clear enforcement ability for
all entities subject to compliance with the Landfills NSPS, emission
guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP. The entities that own/
operate the collection, control, and/or treatment equipment needed to
comply with the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal plan, and
Landfills NESHAP, and are

performing the activities needed to comply with them, would be held
directly responsible for compliance.
    The proposed approach previously discussed contains a provision
that immediately shifts all future compliance responsibilities to the
landfill owners/operators if another entity that owns/operates the gas
collection, control, or treatment system ceases to accept the landfill
gas (e.g., due to bankruptcy, abandonment of operation). We are
considering an alternative approach (called alternative approach
1) that would retain this provision and would further require
the landfill owners/operators to assume responsibility for future
compliance in some situations where the owners/operators of a gas
collection, control, or treatment system fail to comply with the
Landfills NSPS requirements for which they are responsible. The intent
of this approach would be to address situations where the owners/
operators of the gas collection, control, or treatment system do not
achieve the required levels of collection, control, or treatment, or
repeatedly violate other requirements of the Landfills NSPS, and do not
correct these violations and come into compliance in a timely manner.
In such circumstances, responsibility for future compliance would
automatically shift to the landfill owners/operators. As a result, the
landfill owners/operators would need to find a way to immediately start
meeting all Landfill NSPS requirements. Such a provision would ensure
that the landfill owners/operators could not knowingly send landfill
gas to entities that flagrantly violate the Landfill NSPS, thereby
inflicting potential harm on the environment, and still avoid
responsibility for fully complying with the Landfills NSPS. It is not
our intent for this approach to shift responsibility to the landfill
owners/operators for isolated or minor violations that the collection,
control, or treatment system owners/operators timely corrects. We
solicit comments on this alternative approach and suggestions for how
to make clear within what time frame and under what circumstances
responsibility shifts to the landfill owners/operators.
    We are also considering a different alternative approach to
compliance responsibility (called alternative approach 2) that
would add the same definitions of ``landfill owner/operator'' and
``landfill gas collection, control, or treatment system owner/
operator'' as the proposed approach. Both entities would be subject to
the Landfills NSPS. This approach would differ in that the alternative
approach would make the landfill owner/operator responsible for
compliance with all aspects of the Landfills NSPS. Like the proposed
approach, the alternative approach would make the landfill gas
collection, control, and/or treatment system owners/operators
responsible for complying with only the Landfills NSPS requirements
applicable to the portion of the landfill gas collection, control, and/
or treatment system they own/operate. Thus, a violation of gas
collection, control or treatment requirements could be enforced against
both the landfill owners/operators and the collection, control, or
treatment system owners/operators. This approach would also include the
requirement to document which aspects of the Landfills NSPS
requirements (by paragraph and section number) each entity will accept
compliance responsibility.
    The regulatory language for the alternative approach would be very
similar to the regulatory language shown for the proposed approach,
except that 40 CFR 60.750(a)(1) of subpart WWW, 40 CFR 60.32c of
subpart Cc, 40 CFR 62.14352 of subpart GGG, and 40 CFR 63.1935(d)(1) of
subpart AAAA might read as follows: ``Municipal solid waste landfill
owners/operators are responsible for complying with all requirements of
this subpart.''
    Alternative approach 2 would be consistent with the
division of responsibilities in many single source (i.e., common
control) determinations for landfills and associated gas collection,
control, and/or treatment systems. It would also encourage landfill
owners/operators who contract with other companies to collect, control,
or treat the landfill gas to be sure to do business only with reliable
companies that will meet the Landfills NSPS requirements.
    There are some concerns that this alternative approach could
inhibit the beneficial use of landfill gas. Landfill owners/operators
may choose to flare the gas themselves rather than enter into
agreements that allow other entities to combust the untreated landfill
gas for energy recovery purposes if the landfill owners/operators are
held legally and financially liable for the actions of a separate
entity over which they have no control. Landfill owners/operators may
be particularly reluctant to enter into such agreements in cases where
the landfill gas is used at a separate industrial or commercial
facility located several miles away from the landfill and the landfill
owners/operators do not have access to the facility or control over its
operation.
    We specifically request comment on the alternative approach. Based
on the public comments, the final Landfills NSPS may incorporate the
proposed approach, one of the two alternative approaches, or another
similar approach that is a logical outgrowth of the public comments.
If, after consideration of comments, we select an alternative approach
for the Landfills NSPS, we would use a consistent approach for the
emission guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP.

B. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and
Clarification to the Treatment Option

    In the May 23, 2002 proposed amendments, we proposed a definition
for ``treatment system'' that would be used to determine if a facility
qualifies for the treatment option provided in 40 CFR
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C) of subpart http://WWW. The purpose of this definition was

to provide consistency as to what would qualify as a treatment system
and to reduce the burden on State and local agencies and EPA Regions
currently performing case-by-case determinations related to the
adequacy of treatment options being employed across the Nation. The
proposed definition of treatment system was ``a system that filters,
de-waters, and compresses landfill gas.''
    Following proposal of the treatment system definition, several
commenters requested further clarification as to what levels of
filtration and de-watering would be considered acceptable to meet the
definition of treatment. Some commenters noted that given the different
specifications for landfill gas-derived fuels and the different levels
of treatment currently practiced, any lack of clarity may result in
inconsistent case-by-case determinations by local permitting
authorities. Some commenters requested that EPA allow owners/operators
to treat their gas such that it would meet the end-use combustion
equipment ``manufacturer's requirements'' for fuel quality as the
benchmark for what qualifies as a treatment system. Commenters
requested that we link the phrase ``refer to manufacturer
requirements'' to the combustion device's specific level of gas
treatment to ensure complete combustion. Other commenters requested
that EPA develop specific particulate, moisture, and compression
targets that demonstrate ``treated landfill gas.''
    We agree with commenters that the definition of treatment system
needs additional detail. We contacted manufacturers of combustion
devices that are used to recover energy from landfill gas, and we
obtained their written specifications and

recommendations for fuel quality. As suggested by the commenters, we
reviewed the available manufacturers' specifications for acceptable
moisture and particulate levels. Because different manufacturers have
different specifications, our proposed definition of ``treatment
system'' does not refer directly to the manufacturers' requirements.
Instead, we developed specific filtration and de-watering targets based
on those requirements.
    The selected levels of de-watering and filtration are consistent
with most manufacturers' specifications for landfill gas burned in
energy recovery devices such as reciprocating engines, gas turbines,
and boilers; they are protective of the combustion equipment and
promote good combustion. The supplemental proposed definition of
treatment system is:

    * * * a system that has an absolute filtration rating of 10
microns or less, lowers the water dew point of the landfill gas by
at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit with a de-watering process, and
compresses the landfill gas.

    The term ``absolute filtration rating'' used in the above
definition means the diameter of the largest hard spherical particle
that would pass through the filter. The supplemental proposed
definition would specify treatment levels that will minimize
degradation of the combustion device and promote proper destruction of
NMOC.
    To ensure continuous compliance with the treatment option, we are
clarifying monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
treatment systems that are used to comply with the Landfills NSPS.
Owners/operators of treatment systems used to comply with the Landfills
NSPS would be required to establish, monitor, and record operating
parameters that indicate proper operation of the various treatment
system components, consistent with the proposed revised definition of
treatment system. These requirements would ensure that the treatment
system is continuously operating in the manner in which it was designed
to operate to achieve the specific filtration, de-watering, and
compression targets that define a treatment system for the purposes of
the Landfills NSPS. Owners/operators who installed treatment systems
prior to today's proposed amendments would be required to comply with
the amended treatment system requirements as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 1 year after the date the final
amendments are promulgated. This provides time needed to upgrade the
treatment system (if necessary), submit design information, install
monitoring equipment, and establish operating parameter levels.
    The proposed amendments would require that owners/operators of
treatment systems monitor and maintain specified operating parameters
or apply to monitor alternative parameters. For filtration systems, the
pressure drop (24-hour average) across the filter would be continuously
monitored and maintained above the minimum pressure drop established by
engineering analysis or manufacturer's specifications. Alternatively,
the owners/operators could get approval to monitor another parameter
that indicates proper performance of the filtration system. Pressure
drop was selected as a monitoring parameter because it is a good
indicator of proper filter operation. A noticeable reduction in
pressure drop across the filter indicates a breach of the filter
material.
    Continuous monitoring of temperature reduction for a chiller-based
de-watering system, dew point from a de-watering system that is not
chiller-based, or another approved parameter that is indicative of
proper performance of the de-watering system, would also be required.
The monitored parameter (24-hour average) would have to be kept within
the operating range established by engineering analysis or
manufacturer's specifications. The owners/operators would submit the
treatment system design and justification for the operating parameter
ranges for approval in the design plan required by 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)
of subpart http://WWW.

    For chiller-based de-watering systems, temperature was selected as
a monitoring parameter because it indicates that the chiller is
operating properly and the desired reduction in dew point is occurring.
Untreated landfill gas is saturated with moisture as it comes out of
the landfill (i.e., the relative humidity is 100 percent, and the dew
point temperature equals the landfill gas temperature). Therefore, if
the gas is chilled by at least 20 degrees, the dew point has been
correspondingly reduced, and moisture removal has occurred through
condensation. Continuous measurement of the gas temperature at the
treatment system inlet and the chiller outlet would be required unless
the owners/operators demonstrate that monitoring the temperature at a
single location (e.g., the chiller outlet) is sufficient to indicate
that the temperature of the gas, and thus, the dew point, has been
reduced by at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The owners/operators would
be required to submit, as part of the design plan, treatment system
design specifications that demonstrate the treatment system meets the
definition (including the 20 degree dew point reduction) and a
justification that their proposed temperature monitoring location(s)
are adequate to demonstrate that the gas temperature, and thus, the dew
point, has been reduced by at least 20 degrees. For example, owners/
operators might submit information demonstrating that the lowest
landfill gas temperature at their treatment system inlet during the
coldest month of the year is 85 degrees Fahrenheit. They might elect to
operate their chiller to reduce the gas temperature to, for example, 60
degrees Fahrenheit, and apply to continuously monitor only chiller
outlet temperature and maintain it at or below 60 degrees. Because the
design and operation of this system results in a minimum temperature
reduction of at least 25 degrees below the site-specific coldest
treatment system inlet temperature, the regulatory authority might
approve the continuous monitoring of chiller outlet temperature in this
case, rather than requiring continuous monitoring at both the treatment
system inlet and the chiller outlet. Temperature monitors are readily
available, commonly used, reliable, and less expensive than alternative
monitoring systems.
    If a de-watering system that is not based on chilling, for example,
a desiccant system, is used, then temperature would not be an
appropriate parameter to monitor. In such cases, monitoring of the dew
point would indicate whether the system is operating properly to reduce
the dew point by 20 degrees. As with temperature, the dew point would
be monitored at the inlet and outlet of the treatment system, unless
the owner/operator demonstrates that monitoring at a single location
(e.g., the treatment system outlet) is sufficient to indicate that the
dew point has been reduced by at least 20 degrees. Dew point monitors
are available and suitable for landfill gas applications.
    We are proposing continuous monitoring with a 24-hour averaging
period for treatment system monitoring parameters for several reasons.
Monitoring is needed to assure continuous compliance. Continuous
monitoring systems are available for the selected treatment system
operating parameters. Data collection would be required at 15-minute
intervals, consistent with current Landfills NSPS requirements for
flare pilot flame monitoring and enclosed combustor temperature
monitoring that apply to landfills that opt to comply with the control
options rather than the

treatment option. A 24-hour block average for determining compliance
with the treatment system operating parameter limits is sufficient to
indicate any significant change in treatment system operation and would
be less burdensome than more frequent averaging. Owners/operators of
treatment systems would be required to report periods when the 24-hour
block average for a monitored parameter (e.g., pressure drop,
temperature, dew point) is outside the operating range established in
the approved design plan.

IV. Rationale for Proposed Landfills NSPS and Landfills NESHAP
Amendments Regarding Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

A. Proposed Landfills NSPS Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Provisions

    The Landfills NSPS specify in 40 CFR 60.755(e) of subpart WWW, that
the emission standards do not apply during SSM events, but they limit
the duration of SSM events to 5 days for the landfill gas collection
system and 1 hour for treatment or control devices. At the time we
developed this provision, we believed that malfunctions could be
corrected within these time frames. Since promulgation of the Landfills
NSPS, we have learned that many malfunctions cannot be corrected within
these time limits. This causes landfills that do not have back-up
control devices to have unavoidable violations of the Landfills NSPS.
Most landfills use flares to control landfill gas emissions and do not
have back-up control devices. In developing NSPS, EPA is required by
CAA section 111 to consider cost and other impacts. In developing the
Landfills NSPS, we did not consider any costs for requiring back-up
controls for flares in our determination that the selected requirements
were reasonable. We did not intend for the Landfills NSPS to require
back-up control devices for flares. For these reasons, we conclude that
the 1-hour and 5-day time limitations are not feasible and should be
changed. Furthermore, most NSPS do not set specific limits on the
duration of SSM events. Most NSPS rely on the NSPS General Provisions
(40 CFR part 60, subpart A), which require owners/operators, to the
extent practicable, to operate in a manner that minimizes emissions
during SSM events.
    The Landfills NSPS also has no allowance for shutdown of
collection, control, or treatment systems for routine preventive
maintenance. Periodic maintenance is needed to provide continued good
operation of the gas collection and control systems and to avoid
malfunctions, but shutdowns for maintenance could result in a
violation. This issue arises because of the unique nature of landfills.
Most NSPS regulate manufacturing processes that can be stopped when a
control device needs to be maintained or repaired. For example,
chemical plants typically shut down their processes on a regular
schedule (e.g., for 1 week each year) and maintain their control
devices at the same time, when no emissions are being generated from
the production process. Landfills are a biological process, and once
waste is deposited in the landfill, gas is continuously generated and
cannot be stopped. Routine control device maintenance procedures often
cannot be completed in 1 hour, and some types of maintenance take days.
    Therefore, we propose to amend 40 CFR 60.755(e) of subpart WWW to
remove the 1-hour and 5-day time limits on SSM events, and to allow
routine maintenance of collection, control, and treatment systems. The
proposed amendments also clarify that the NSPS General Provisions in 40
CFR 60.11(d) of subpart A continue to apply during maintenance and
malfunctions, and that routine maintenance activities must be completed
and malfunctions must be corrected as soon as practicable after their
occurrence in order to minimize emissions. To prevent free venting of
landfill gas to the atmosphere during control device malfunctions or
maintenance, we propose to retain the current requirement in 40 CFR
60.753(e) of subpart http://WWW. This section requires that in the event the

collection or control system is inoperable, the gas mover system must
be shut down and all valves in the collection and control system
contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere must be closed within
1 hour.

B. Proposed Landfills NESHAP Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Provisions

    The Landfills NESHAP has no allowance for shutdown of control
devices for routine maintenance. Periodic maintenance is needed to
provide continued good operation of the gas collection and control
systems and to avoid malfunctions, but shutdowns for maintenance could
result in a violation. As explained previously, this issue arises
because of the unique nature of landfills. Most NESHAP regulate
manufacturing processes that can be stopped when a control device needs
to be maintained or repaired. Landfills are a biological process, and
once waste is deposited in the landfill, gas is continuously generated
and cannot be stopped. To allow for routine maintenance of gas
collection, control, and treatment systems, while ensuring that
emissions are minimized during routine maintenance events, we propose
to amend the Landfills NESHAP to require owners/operators to include
routine maintenance in their SSM plans. The Landfills NESHAP already
require owners/operators to develop an SSM plan. The plan must
describe, in detail, procedures for operating and maintaining the
source during SSM events and a program of corrective action for
malfunctioning air pollution control and monitoring equipment used to
comply with the Landfills NESHAP. The purpose of the SSM plan is to
ensure that owners/operators have fully considered how best to comply
with the general duty to minimize emissions during SSM events. While
the requirements of the SSM plan are not themselves applicable
requirements, the SSM plan is a useful tool for sources to demonstrate,
and for permitting authorities to confirm that the general duty to
minimize emissions is met. We propose to add a requirement that the SSM
plan must include a plan for conducting routine maintenance on the
landfill gas collection, control, and treatment systems. The routine
maintenance plan must include maintenance procedures and actions that
will be taken to minimize emissions during maintenance, shutdown
frequency, shutdown duration, and procedures for minimizing emissions
during startup and shutdown of the collection, control, and/or
treatment systems for routine maintenance. A copy of the SSM plan would
be maintained on site. Failure to prepare or maintain a copy of the SSM
plan on site would be a deviation from the requirements of the
Landfills NESHAP.
    We are also proposing changes to the periodic reporting and
immediate reporting requirements for SSM events. After the Landfills
NESHAP were promulgated, there were revisions to the SSM reporting
requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Because of the unique nature of landfills, some sections of
the revised General Provisions are not relevant to landfills or can be
difficult to interpret for landfills. We propose to revise the
Landfills NESHAP to clarify the SSM reporting requirements for
landfills. We propose to remove the Landfills NESHAP cross-reference in
table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA to the periodic and immediate
SSM reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) of subpart A (the
General Provisions), and to instead include similar SSM reporting
provisions that apply specifically to landfills in 40 CFR 63.1980 of
subpart AAAA.

    The Landfills NESHAP and the General Provisions require periodic
(semiannual) reporting when actions taken during a startup or shutdown
causing an exceedance of an applicable emission limit or a malfunction
are consistent with the procedures specified in the SSM plan. Because
we are proposing that the landfills SSM plan must include routine
maintenance of landfill gas collection, control, and treatment systems,
we are proposing to add a requirement in 40 CFR 63.1980 of subpart AAAA
that the semiannual SSM report include a description of routine
maintenance activities that were conducted during the period. We
propose that the landfills periodic SSM report include the date,
duration, and identification of each SSM event (including shutdowns of
the landfill gas collection, control, or treatment system for routine
maintenance) that occurred during the reporting period. For landfills,
the duration of such events is particularly important, because, unlike
traditional industrial sources, there is no way to stop the biological
processes that result in landfill emissions. While collection system
blowers can be turned off and vents to the atmosphere closed for a
period of hours to a couple of days to retain most gas within the
landfill, eventually the pressure in the landfill will build up and the
gas will be released uncontrolled through vents or as fugitive
emissions. We expect that there will be few malfunction or maintenance
events during a 6-month period, and all such events must already be
recorded under the Landfills NESHAP and the General Provisions (40 CFR
63.6(e)(3) of subpart A), so including the date and duration of each
event in the periodic report is not a burden. If the owners/operators
follow their SSM plan during all SSM and routine maintenance events,
then no further information is required in the periodic report. This
will minimize the reporting burden for owners/operators who follow
their SSM plans.
    The Landfills NESHAP periodic report would also require a brief
description of any actions taken during a malfunction or routine
maintenance event that are inconsistent with the SSM plan. This was a
requirement of the NESHAP General Provisions at the time the Landfills
NESHAP were developed. The General Provisions have since been changed
to require sources to ``identify'' any instance where an action was
taken that was inconsistent with the SSM plan but the source did not
exceed any applicable emissions limitations. A ``description'' is
required only if an emissions limitation was exceeded. For landfills,
it is unclear how to determine if any emissions limitation was exceeded
because the Landfills NESHAP do not require continuous emissions
monitoring. They require continuous parametric monitoring of control
devices, quarterly monitoring of surface methane concentrations, and
monthly monitoring of collection system well head parameters. If there
is a malfunction or shutdown of a control device for routine
maintenance, the collection system blowers must be turned off and vents
to the atmosphere must be closed. However, despite these precautions,
landfill gas continues to be generated and can escape the landfill as
fugitive emissions, potentially increasing landfill NMOC emissions
above the level achieved when the control device is operating and
increasing surface methane concentrations. To avoid having to make
subjective judgments on whether emissions limitations were exceeded, we
propose that landfills provide a brief description of any malfunction
or maintenance event where actions are taken that are inconsistent with
the SSM plan. This is consistent with the intent during development of
the Landfills NESHAP, and was already accounted for in the estimates of
the recordkeeping and reporting burden for the final rule. Events where
the SSM plan is not followed should be infrequent and would not occur
during most semiannual reporting periods.
    We are proposing revisions in 40 CFR 63.1980 of subpart AAAA to
clarify immediate SSM reporting requirements for landfills. We propose
that immediate reports be required if actions taken during a startup or
shutdown (including shutdown of the collection, control, or treatment
system for routine maintenance) that caused an exceedance of an
applicable emission limit, or during a malfunction are inconsistent
with the SSM plan. Such events would be reported by telephone or fax
within 2 days, followed by a letter within 7 days of the end of the
event. This is the same timing and method of submission contained in
the NESHAP General Provisions requirements for immediate SSM reports.
We also propose immediate reports if the duration of a shutdown or
malfunction (including shutdown of the landfill gas collection,
control, or treatment system for routine maintenance) exceeds 5 days.
The Landfills NESHAP compliance provisions have always referred to the
Landfills NSPS, which require that control system malfunctions not
exceed 1 hour and collection systems malfunctions not exceed 5 days.
For the reasons described earlier in this preamble, we are proposing to
remove these time limits from the Landfills NSPS, so the Landfills
NESHAP would no longer include these time limits by reference. Instead
of limiting the duration of malfunction and routine maintenance events
to no more than 5 days, we propose to require landfills to report, as
part of their Landfills NESHAP immediate SSM reports, any events that
last longer than 5 days. This will allow the enforcement agency and the
landfill to discuss the specific situation, the reason that more than 5
days is needed, and any actions that can be taken to minimize emissions
during the event and complete repairs or maintenance as expeditiously
as practicable in the given situation. It should be noted that the
Landfills NESHAP already refer to the SSM plan requirements in 40 CFR
63.6(e) of subpart A, which require sources to correct malfunctions as
soon as practicable after their occurrence.
    Finally, we propose a minor amendment in the calculation of 3-hour
block averages for control device operating parameters that are
continuously monitored. The proposed amendment would reduce burden,
improve consistency with other rules, and ensure that all the necessary
information is available for compliance determination. In particular,
40 CFR 63.1975 of subpart AAAA specifies that 3-hour averages are
calculated in the same way as the Landfills NSPS except that periods of
SSM should not be included. We have received comments that this
difference in the calculations requires landfills to keep two sets of
records that are similar, but not identical, creating an unnecessary
burden. Furthermore, other NESHAP require all operating parameter
deviations to be recorded, regardless of whether they occur during an
SSM event. For these reasons, we propose to amend the Landfills NESHAP
calculations to be more similar to the Landfills NSPS, and no longer
exclude periods of SSM. This amendment in the calculations will not
change the way in which compliance is determined or the NESHAP are
enforced. The enforcement agency still determines whether a deviation
is a violation. For example, if a parameter deviation occurred because
of a malfunction, and the source took appropriate actions to minimize
emissions during the malfunction and to correct the malfunction as soon
as practicable, then the enforcement agency may determine that the
deviation is not a violation.

V. Rationale for Other Proposed Corrections and Clarifications

A. Clarification for Temperature Monitoring for Enclosed Combustors

    Currently, the language in 40 CFR 60.758(b)(2)(i) and (c)(1)(i) of
subpart WWW (the Landfills NSPS) requires sources to keep records of
the combustion temperature in an enclosed combustion device that is
used to meet the NMOC destruction requirements in 40 CFR
60.752(b)(2)(iii) of subpart http://WWW. The definition of ``enclosed

combustor'' includes enclosed flares, boilers, reciprocating engines,
and turbines. The literal meaning of this requirement is that a
temperature monitor would be installed in the combustion zone of an
enclosed combustor. However, we realize that installing a temperature
monitor in the combustion zone of a reciprocating engine or turbine is
not feasible, and we did not intend for the Landfills NSPS to
specifically require monitoring of combustion chamber temperature. The
purpose of the temperature monitoring requirement is to ensure that the
enclosed combustor is operating in a manner similar to the conditions
at which it was operating during the most recent performance test,
thereby demonstrating continuous compliance with the NMOC reduction
requirements of the Landfills NSPS. Therefore, the temperature monitor
should be located in a place that provides a reasonable indication of
the operation of the enclosed combustor. For example, monitoring the
temperature at the cylinder exhaust port or in the exhaust manifold
before the turbocharger are acceptable temperature monitoring locations
for reciprocating engines. To minimize further confusion on this issue,
we are revising the language in 40 CFR 60.758(b)(2)(i) and (c)(1)(i) of
subpart WWW to remove the word ``combustion'' prior to ``temperature.''
The Landfills NSPS will continue to require that at least one
temperature measurement must be recorded every 15 minutes as specified
in 40 CFR 60.758(b)(2)(i) of subpart WWW, and any measurement frequency
that is longer than 15 minutes is not acceptable for compliance under
the Landfills NSPS. The Landfills NSPS also continue to allow landfill
owners/operators to propose site-specific alternatives to the
monitoring requirements, subject to Administrator approval, as
specified in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(i) of subpart http://WWW.

B. Correction of Cross-Reference in the Landfills NSPS

    We are proposing an amendment to a cross-reference in 40 CFR
60.755(c)(3) of subpart WWW (the Landfills NSPS) as a result of the
reorganization of EPA Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. The
Landfills NSPS reference section 4.3.1 of EPA Method 21. In 2001, the
wording that used to be in section 4.3.1 was moved to section 8.3.1, so
the Landfills NSPS need to be corrected to refer to section 8.3.1 of
EPA Method 21.

C. Clarification of Bioreactor Moisture Content Determination for the
Landfills NESHAP

    The Landfills NESHAP definition of bioreactors in 40 CFR 63.1990 of
subpart AAAA include a provision that the average moisture content of
the waste in the area into which liquid is added must be at least 40
percent (by weight) for the landfill or portion of the landfill to be
considered a bioreactor. It was not explicit that the 40 percent
moisture content should be determined on a wet weight basis. The
information EPA originally used to establish the 40 percent moisture
criteria was on a wet weight basis. To clarify this, we are amending
the bioreactor definition in 40 CFR 63.1990 of subpart AAAA by adding
the words ``wet weight basis.''

D. Correction of Date in the Landfills NESHAP

    We are proposing to amend a typographical error that appears in 40
CFR 63.1945(d) of subpart AAAA. The compliance date for existing major
sources should read January 16, 2004, instead of January 13, 2004.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information Collection Requests (ICR) were prepared for the
Landfills NSPS, the Landfills NESHAP, and the Federal plan that
implements the landfills emission guidelines, and all three ICR were
approved by OMB. A copy of the Landfills NSPS ICR (ICR No. 1557.04),
landfills Federal plan ICR (ICR No. 1893.01), and the Landfills NESHAP
ICR (ICR No. 1938.02) 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 e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
may also be downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.

    The proposed amendments to the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines,
Federal plan, and Landfills NESHAP will have no impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. The proposed
treatment monitoring system requirements are within the burden
estimated in the previous ICR for the Landfills NSPS, Federal plan, and
Landfills NESHAP. In the previous ICR burden estimates, we assumed that
all landfills meeting the NSPS and emission guidelines criteria would
install combustion control devices and would continuously monitor
control device operating parameters (e.g., presence of flare pilot
flame or temperature of an enclosed combustion device). Thus, the cost
of continuous monitoring systems and associated recordkeeping and
reporting were included for every landfill. Landfills that choose to
comply with the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal plan, or
Landfills NESHAP by using a treatment system instead of a control
device typically make that choice because it is a less expensive
compliance alternative. Therefore, the previous cost analysis and ICR
provide a conservatively high estimate of the costs of compliance,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, and the proposed treatment
system monitoring requirements would not result in a change to the ICR
burden estimates. The proposed amendments to clarify the inclusion of
control device shutdowns for maintenance in the SSM plan are consistent
with the original estimate of costs to prepare an SSM plan in the
Landfills NESHAP ICR, No. 1938.02. Consequently, the ICR have not been
revised.
    Burden means the 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
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small government jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of the proposed amendments,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is primarily
engaged in the collection and disposal of refuse in a landfill
operation as defined by NAICS codes 562212 and 924110 with annual
receipts less than $10 million; (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-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of the proposed amendments
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with the proposed amendments. The
proposed amendments clarify the applicability of control requirements
in the Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal plan, and Landfills
NESHAP and do not include provisions that create a new burden for
regulated entities.
    The proposed amendments do not increase the stringency of the
Landfills NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal plan, or Landfills NESHAP,
nor do the proposed amendments add additional control requirements. The
proposed amendments do not increase the control, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the promulgated Landfills
NSPS, emission guidelines, Federal plan, or Landfills NESHAP, and may
decrease these requirements under specific conditions for some
entities. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will
relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (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, EPA
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 EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, 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 EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publish with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that the proposed amendments do 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. Thus, the proposed amendments are not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, we have determined that the proposed amendments contain no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because they consist of new definitions and
clarifications and do not impose new costs on government entities or
the private sector. Therefore, the proposed amendments are not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. 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 proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They
do 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.
    The proposed amendments do not impose additional costs or result in
additional control requirements above those considered at promulgation
of the 1996 Landfills NSPS and emission guidelines and the 2003
Landfills NESHAP. In developing the 1996 Landfills NSPS and emission
guidelines, we consulted extensively with State and local governments
to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of those rulemakings. Because the control requirements of
the proposed amendments are the same as those developed in 1996, these
previous consultations still apply. In addition, State and local
government agencies participated in a conference call on the

Landfills NESHAP, and provided comments on the 2000 Landfills NESHAP
proposal and a 2002 supplemental 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 the Landfills
NSPS, emission guidelines, and Landfills NESHAP, see the preamble to
the 1996 Landfills NSPS (61 FR 9905, March 12, 1996). Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed amendments.
    On May 23, 2002, in the spirit of Executive Order 13132, we
specifically solicited comments on the proposed amendments from State
and local officials (67 FR 36479). We are again soliciting comments on
today's supplemental proposed amendments.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
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 proposed amendments do not have tribal implications as
specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the
Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes,
as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to the proposed amendments.
    On May 23, 2002, we specifically solicited comment from tribal
officials on the proposed amendments (67 FR 36479). None were received.
Information received from EPA Regional Offices during development of
the landfills Federal plan showed no landfills on tribal land large
enough to require control under the landfills emission guidelines/
Landfills NSPS.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, we
specifically solicit comment on the proposed amendments from tribal
officials.

G. 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 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.
    EPA interprets 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 proposed amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045
because they are not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866 and because they are 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.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The proposed amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    The proposed amendments do not involve new technical standards;
thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60, 62, and 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts
60, 62, and 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7601.

Subpart Cc--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.31c is amended by adding the definitions of
``Municipal solid waste landfill gas collection, control, or treatment
system owner/operator'' and ``Municipal solid waste landfill owner/
operator,'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  60.31c  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Municipal solid waste landfill gas collection, control, or
treatment system owner/operator means any entity that owns or operates
any stationary equipment that is used, as specified in Sec.  60.33c, to
collect, control, or treat landfill gas from an MSW landfill that is a
designated facility under Sec.  60.32c of this subpart, regardless of
the location of the control or treatment system.
    Municipal solid waste landfill owner/operator means any entity that
owns or operates a municipal solid waste landfill that is a designated
facility under Sec.  60.32c(a).
    3. Section 60.32c is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a); and
    b. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.32c  Designated facilities.

    (a) The designated facilities to which the guidelines apply are
each existing MSW landfill for which construction, reconstruction, or
modification was commenced before May 30, 1991 and/or the stationary
equipment used to collect, control, or treat the landfill gas from such
MSW landfills as required by Sec.  60.33c(c).
* * * * *
    (e) For approval, a State plan shall require each MSW landfill
owner/

operator and each MSW landfill gas collection, control, or treatment
system owner/operator, as defined in Sec.  60.31c, to be responsible
for compliance as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this
section; provided, however, that if the MSW landfill and the associated
gas collection, control, and/or treatment system are under common
control, the entity exercising such control shall be responsible for
complying with the requirements in both paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of
this section.
    (1) Municipal solid waste landfill owners/operators are responsible
for complying with the requirements of this subpart for the landfill
and any portion of the landfill gas collection, control, or treatment
system they own/operate. In addition, if another entity owns/operates
the gas collection, control, or treatment system used to comply with
the applicable requirements of this subpart and for any reason (e.g.,
bankruptcy, abandonment of operation) that entity ceases to accept the
landfill gas, responsibility for complying with all applicable
requirements to which that entity was subject under this subpart shall
immediately apply to, and be binding on, the landfill owner/operator.
The title V permits for landfill owner/operator must be written to
require that the requirements applicable to the owner/operator of the
landfill gas collection, control, and/or treatment system immediately
become applicable requirements of the landfill owners/operators
whenever the owners/operators of the landfill gas collection, control,
and/or treatment system cease to accept the landfill gas.
    (2) Municipal solid waste landfill gas collection, control, or
treatment system owners/operators are responsible for complying with
the requirements of this subpart for the portion of the landfill gas
collection, control, or treatment system they own/operate.
    4. Section 60.33c is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.33c  Emission guidelines for municipal solid waste landfill
emissions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) A control system designed and operated to reduce nonmethane
organic compounds (NMOC) by 98 weight percent, or, when an enclosed
combustion device is used for control, to either reduce NMOC by 98
weight percent or to reduce the outlet to less than 20 parts per
million by volume, dry basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen. The
reduction efficiency or parts per million by volume shall be
established by an initial performance test to be completed no later
than the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  60.36c. The
performance test is not required for boilers and process heaters with
design heat input capacities equal to or greater than 44 megawatts that
burn landfill gas for compliance with this subpart.
    (3) Route the collected gas to a treatment system that processes
the collected gas for subsequent sale as fuel for combustion or use as
a fuel for combustion. Landfill gas sold as fuel for combustion or used
as a fuel for combustion shall be treated in a treatment system as
defined in Sec.  60.751 that meets the requirements of Sec.
60.752(b)(2)(i)(D) and the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements listed in Sec. Sec.  60.756, 60.757, and 60.758 that apply
to treatment systems. All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the
gas treatment system shall be subject to the requirements of paragraph
(c)(1) or (2) of this section. For purposes of this subpart,
atmospheric vents located on the condensate storage tank are not part
of the treatment system and are exempt from the requirements of
paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section. The owners/operators of the
landfill gas treatment system must ensure compliance with these
requirements. The owner/operators of a combustion device who use
treated landfill gas as fuel in a combustion device or purchase treated
landfill gas for fuel in a combustion device shall be exempt from
further compliance with this subpart. The treated gas must be used as a
fuel, and venting of treated landfill gas to the ambient air or
combustion in a flare is not allowed under this option.
* * * * *
    5. Section 60.36c is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.36c  Compliance Times.

* * * * *

    (c) Within nine months after [DATE THE FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS ARE
PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], each State shall adopt and submit
to the Administrator, revisions to their State plan that implement the
emission guidelines and compliance times in this subpart, as amended.
Except as provided under Sec.  60.24, the revised State plan shall
include the revised definitions in Sec.  60.31c; the designated
facilities provisions in Sec.  60.32c(a) through (e) and the associated
recordkeeping requirement in Sec.  60.758(g); the control and treatment
system requirements in Sec.  60.33c(2) and (3); the associated
treatment system monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
in Sec. Sec.  60.756 through 60.758 that are cross-referenced in
Sec. Sec.  60.34c and 60.35c; and a supplemental revised compliance
schedule.

Subpart WWW--[Amended]

    6. Section 60.750 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.750  Applicability, designation of affected facility, and
delegation of authority.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each municipal solid
waste (MSW) landfill that commenced construction, reconstruction, or
modification on or after May 30, 1991 and the stationary equipment used
to collect, control, or treat the landfill gas from such MSW landfills
required by Sec.  60.752(b)(2). Physical or operational changes made to
an existing MSW landfill solely to comply with an applicable State plan
or the Federal plan implementing the requirements of subpart Cc
(Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills) of this part are not considered construction,
reconstruction, or modification for the purposes of this subpart. Each
MSW landfill owner/operator and each MSW landfill gas collection,
control, or treatment system owner/operator, as defined in Sec.  .751,
is responsible for compliance with this subpart as specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section; provided, however, that if
the MSW landfill and the associated gas collection, control, and/or
treatment system are under common control, the entity exercising such
control shall be responsible for complying with the requirements in
both paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) MSW landfill owners/operators are responsible for complying
with the requirements of this subpart for the landfill and any portion
of the landfill gas collection, control, or treatment system they own/
operate. In addition, if another entity owns/operates the gas
collection, control, or treatment system used to comply with the
applicable requirements of this subpart and for any reason (e.g.,
bankruptcy, abandonment of operation) that entity ceases to accept the
landfill gas, responsibility for complying with all applicable
requirements to which that entity was subject under this subpart shall
immediately apply to, and be binding on, the landfill owner/operator.
The title V permits for landfill owners/operators must be written to
require that the requirements applicable to the owners/operators of the
landfill gas collection, control, and/or treatment system immediately
become applicable

requirements of the landfill owner/operator, whenever the owners/
operators of the landfill gas collection, control, and/or treatment
system cease to accept the landfill gas.
    (2) Municipal solid waste landfill gas collection, control, or
treatment system owners/operators are responsible for complying with
the requirements of this subpart for the portion of the landfill gas
collection, control, or treatment system they own/operate.
* * * * *
    7. Section 60.751 is amended by:
    a. Revising the definition of ``Household waste''; and
    b. Adding the definitions of ``Absolute filtration rating,''
``Municipal solid waste landfill gas collection, control, or treatment
system owner/operator,'' ``Municipal solid waste landfill owner/
operator,'' ``Segregated yard waste,'' ``Treated landfill gas,''
``Treatment system,'' and ``Untreated landfill gas'' in alphabetical
order to read as follows:

Sec.  60.751  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Absolute filtration rating means the diameter of the largest hard
spherical particle that would pass through a filter.
* * * * *
    Household waste means any solid waste (including garbage, trash,
and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from households (including,
but not limited to, single and multiple residences, hotels and motels,
bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic
grounds, and day-use recreation areas). Household waste does not
include fully segregated yard waste.
* * * * *
    Municipal solid waste landfill gas collection, control, or
treatment system owner/operator means any entity that owns or operates
any stationary equipment required by Sec.  60.752(b)(2) of this subpart
that is used to collect, control, or treat landfill gas from an MSW
landfill that is subject, regardless of the location of the control or
treatment system.
    Municipal solid waste landfill owner/operator means any entity that
owns or operates a municipal solid waste landfill.
* * * * *
    Segregated yard waste means vegetative matter resulting exclusively
from the cutting of grass, the pruning and/or removal of bushes,
shrubs, and trees, the weeding of gardens, and other landscaping
maintenance activities.
* * * * *
    Treated landfill gas means landfill gas processed in a treatment
system according to this subpart.
    Treatment system means a system that has an absolute filtration
rating of 10 microns or less, lowers the water dew point of the
landfill gas by at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit with a de-watering
process, and compresses the landfill gas.
    Untreated landfill gas means any landfill gas that is not treated
landfill gas.
    8. Section 60.752 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D), paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)
introductory text, and paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C); and
    b. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(i)(E) and paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(D) to
read as follows:

Sec.  60.752  Standards for air emissions from municipal solid waste
landfills.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) If the owner or operator chooses to demonstrate compliance with
the emission control requirements of this subpart using a treatment
system as defined in this subpart and according to the requirements of
paragraph (b)(iii)(C) of this section, then the collection and control
system design plan must include:
    (1) Design specifications for the filtration, de-watering, and
compression systems that demonstrate conformance with the treatment
system definition contained in Sec.  60.751.
    (2) The minimum pressure drop across the filtration system, or
other monitoring parameter(s) and operating ranges that indicate proper
performance of the filtration system. The collection and control plan
must include information, such as manufacturer's recommendations or
engineering analyses, to justify the minimum pressure drop or operating
ranges for other monitoring parameters.
    (3) The minimum landfill gas temperature reduction across a
chiller-based de-watering system, the minimum landfill gas dew point
reduction for a non-chiller-based de-watering system, or other
operating parameters and operating ranges that indicate proper
performance of the de-watering system. If the owner/operator requests
approval to monitor temperature or dew point at a single location, such
as the outlet of the chiller or de-watering system, rather than at both
the inlet and outlet, the design plan must demonstrate that the
proposed monitoring location and site-specific maximum temperature or
maximum dew point are sufficient to indicate that the dew point has
been reduced by at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the
treatment system definition. The collection and control plan must
include information, such as manufacturer's recommendations or
engineering analyses, to justify the operating ranges for temperature,
dew point, or other monitoring parameters.
    (E) The Administrator shall review the information submitted under
paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section and either
approve, disapprove, or request that additional information be
submitted. Because of the many site-specific factors involved with
landfill gas system design, alternative systems may be necessary. A
wide variety of system designs are possible, such as vertical wells,
combination horizontal and vertical collection systems, or horizontal
trenches only, leachate collection components, and passive systems.
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98
weight percent, or, when an enclosed combustion device is used for
control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or to reduce the
outlet to less than 20 parts per million by volume, dry basis as hexane
at 3 percent oxygen. The reduction efficiency or parts per million by
volume shall be established by an initial performance test to be
completed no later than 180 days after the initial startup of the
approved control system using the test methods specified in Sec.
60.754(d). The performance test is not required for boilers and process
heaters with design heat input capacities equal to or greater than 44
megawatts that burn landfill gas for compliance with this subpart.
* * * * *
    (C) Route the collected gas to a treatment system that processes
the collected gas for subsequent sale as a fuel for combustion or use
as a fuel for combustion. Landfill gas sold as a fuel for combustion or
used as a fuel for combustion shall be treated in a treatment system as
defined in Sec.  60.751 that meets the requirements of Sec.
60.752(b)(2)(i)(D) and the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of this subpart that apply to treatment systems. All
emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment system shall
be subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. For purposes of this rule, atmospheric
vents located on the condensate storage tank are not part of the
treatment system and are exempt from the requirements

of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. The