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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

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

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans For Designated

Facilities and Pollutants: Tennessee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Sections 111(d)/129 State Plan for

Nashville/Davidson County submitted by the State of Tennessee, through

the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on

December 24, 1996, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions

Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Municipal Waste Combustors

(MWCs) with capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal

solid waste (MSW). See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. EPA is also

approving the Section 111(d) State Plan for Nashville/Davidson County

submitted on December 24, 1996, for implementing and enforcing the EG

applicable to existing MSW landfills. See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on February 16, 1999 without

further notice, unless EPA receives significant, material, and adverse

comment by January 19, 1999. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will

publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal

Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should address comments on this action to Steven M.

Scofield at the EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street,

SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Copies of documents related to this action are available for the

public to review during normal business hours at the locations below.

If you would like to review these documents, please make an appointment

with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Reference file TN 183-1-9824a. The Region 4 office may have additional

documents not available at the other locations.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Steven M. Scofield, 404/

562-9034.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air

Pollution Control, 9th Floor L & C Annex, 401 Church Street, Nashville,

Tennessee 37243-1531. 615/532-0554

[[Page 70023]]

Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Metropolitan Health

Department, Nashville and Davidson County, 311--23rd Avenue, North,

Nashville, Tennessee 37203. 615/340-5653

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Davis at 404/562-9127 or Steven

M. Scofield at 404/562-9034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

MWCs

I. Background

On December 19, 1995, pursuant to sections 111 and 129 of the Clean

Air Act (Act), EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS)

applicable to new MWCs and EG applicable to existing MWCs. The NSPS and

EG are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Eb and Cb, respectively.

See 60 FR 65387. Subparts Cb and Eb regulate the following: particulate

matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen,

carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans.

On April 8, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit vacated subparts Cb and Eb as they apply

to MWC units with capacity to combust less than or equal to 250 tons

per day of MSW (small MWCs), consistent with their opinion in Davis

County Solid Waste Management and Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F.3d

1395 (D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As a

result, subparts Eb and Cb apply only to MWC units with individual

capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of MSW (large MWC

units).

Under section 129 of the Act, emission guidelines are not federally

enforceable. Section 129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit to

EPA for approval State Plans that implement and enforce the emission

guidelines. State Plans must be at least as protective as the emission

guidelines, and become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA. The

procedures for adoption and submittal of State Plans are codified in 40

CFR part 60, subpart B. EPA originally promulgated the subpart B

provisions on November 17, 1975. EPA amended subpart B on December 19,

1995, to allow the subparts developed under section 129 to include

specifications that supersede the general provisions in subpart B

regarding the schedule for submittal of State Plans, the stringency of

the emission limitations, and the compliance schedules. See 60 FR

65414.

This action approves the State Plan submitted by the State of

Tennessee for the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Health

Department (MHD) to implement and enforce subpart Cb, as it applies to

large MWC units only.

II. Discussion

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation submitted

correspondence on May 21, 1997, certifying there are no MWCs under the

direct jurisdiction of the State of Tennessee. The State submitted to

EPA on December 24, 1996, the following in their 111(d)/129 State Plan

for implementing and enforcing the emission guidelines for existing

MWCs under their direct jurisdiction in the State of Tennessee: Legal

Authority; Enforceable Mechanism; Inventory of MWC Plants/Units; MWC

Emission Inventory; Emission Limits; Compliance Schedule; Testing,

Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; Demonstration

That the Public Had Adequate Notice and Opportunity to Submit Written

Comments; Submittal of Progress Reports to EPA; and applicable

Tennessee statutes, Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County

Government statutes, and MHD agency regulations. The State submitted

its plan before the Court of Appeals vacated subpart Cb as it applies

to small MWC units. Thus, the MHD plan covers both large and small MWC

units. As a result of the Davis decision and subsequent vacatur order,

there are no emission guidelines promulgated under sections 111 and 129

that apply to small MWC units. Accordingly, EPA's review and approval

of the MHD plan for MWCs addresses only those parts of the MHD plan

which affect large MWC units. Small units are not subject to the

requirements of the federal rule and not part of this approval. Until

EPA again promulgates emission guidelines for small MWC units, EPA has

no authority under section 129(b)(2) of the Act to review and approve

State Plans applying state rules to small MWC units.

The approval of the MHD plan is based on finding that: (1) the MHD

provided adequate public notice of public hearings for the proposed

rulemaking which allows the MHD to implement and enforce the EG for

large MWCs, and (2) the MHD also demonstrated legal authority to adopt

emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to the

designated facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards

and compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information

necessary to determine compliance; require recordkeeping; conduct

inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission

reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly

available.

In Appendix 1 of the plan, the MHD cites the following references

for the legal authority: State of Tennessee Codes Annotated 68-201-115,

``Local Pollution Control Programs,'' 10-7-503, ``Records Open to

Public Inspection-Exceptions,'' and 10-7-504, ``Inspection of

Records;'' Metropolitan Code of Laws, Article 10, ``Public Health and

Hospitals,'' Chapter 1, ``Public Health'' of the Charter of the

Metropolitan Government, Chapter 10.56, Air Pollution Control,''

Section 10.56.090, ``Board-Powers and Duties,'' Section 10.56.150,

``Nuisance Declared-Injunctive Relief,'' Section 10.56.290,

``Measurement and Reporting of Emissions,'' Section 2.36 ``Health

Department,'' and Section 2.36.130 ``Records and Proceedings-Public

Inspection Authorized When.'' These statutes and regulations are

approved as being at least as protective as the federal requirements

for existing large MWC units.

In Appendix 2 of the plan, the MHD cites all emission standards and

limitations for the major pollutant categories related to the

designated sites and facilities. These standards and limitations in the

MHD Pollution Control Division's Regulation No. 12, ``Regulation for

Control of Municipal Waste Combustors,'' are approved as being at least

as protective as the federal requirements contained in subpart Cb for

existing large MWC units.

The State submitted compliance schedules and legally enforceable

increments of progress for each large MWC under their direct

jurisdiction in the State of Tennessee. This portion of the plan has

been reviewed and approved as being at least as protective as federal

requirements for existing large MWC units.

The State submitted an emission inventory of all designated

pollutants for each large MWC under their direct jurisdiction in the

State of Tennessee. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and

approved as meeting the federal requirements for existing large MWC

units.

The MHD plan includes its legal authority to require owners and

operators of designated facilities to maintain records and report to

their agency the nature and amount of emissions and any other

information that may be necessary to enable their agency to judge the

compliance status of the facilities. The MHD also cites its legal

authority to provide for periodic inspection and testing and provisions

for making reports of MWC emissions data, correlated with emission

standards

[[Page 70024]]

that apply, available to the general public. The State submitted MHD's

Regulation No. 12 to support the requirements of monitoring,

recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance assurance. These MHD rules

have been reviewed and approved as being at least as protective as

federal requirements for existing large MWC units.

As stated on page 5 of the plan, the MHD will provide progress

reports of plan implementation updates to the EPA on an annual basis.

These progress reports will include the required items pursuant to 40

CFR 60, subpart B. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and

approved as meeting the federal requirement for State Plan reporting.

MSW Landfills

I. Background

Under section 111(d) of the Act, EPA has established procedures

whereby states submit plans to control certain existing sources of

``designated pollutants.'' Designated pollutants are defined as

pollutants for which a standard of performance for new sources applies

under section 111, but which are not ``criteria pollutants'' (i.e.,

pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are

set pursuant to sections 108 and 109 of the Act) or hazardous air

pollutants (HAPs) regulated under section 112 of the Act. As required

by section 111(d) of the Act, EPA established a process at 40 CFR part

60, subpart B, which states must follow in adopting and submitting a

section 111(d) plan. Whenever EPA promulgates a NSPS that controls a

designated pollutant, EPA establishes EG in accordance with 40 CFR

60.22 which contain information pertinent to the control of the

designated pollutant from that NSPS source category (i.e., the

``designated facility'' as defined at 40 CFR 60.21(b)). Thus, a state,

local, or tribal agency's section 111(d) plan for a designated facility

must comply with the EG for that source category as well as 40 CFR part

60, subpart B.

On March 12, 1996, EPA published EG for existing MSW landfills at

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc (40 CFR 60.30c through 60.36c) and NSPS for

new MSW landfills at 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.750 through

60.759). See 61 FR 9905-9944. The pollutants regulated by the NSPS and

EG are MSW landfill emissions, which contain a mixture of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs), other organic compounds, methane, and HAPs.

VOC emissions can contribute to ozone formation which can result in

adverse effects to human health and vegetation. The health effects of

HAPs include cancer, respiratory irritation, and damage to the nervous

system. Methane emissions contribute to global climate change and can

result in fires or explosions when they accumulate in structures on or

off the landfill site. To determine whether control is required,

nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs) are measured as a surrogate for

MSW landfill emissions. Thus, NMOC is considered the designated

pollutant. The designated facility which is subject to the EG is each

existing MSW landfill (as defined in 40 CFR 60.32c) for which

construction, reconstruction or modification was commenced before May

30, 1991.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.23(a), states were required to either: (1)

submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant to which the

EG applies; or (2) submit a negative declaration if there were no

designated facilities in the state within nine months after publication

of the EG (by December 12, 1996).

EPA has been involved in litigation over the requirements of the

MSW landfill EG and NSPS since the summer of 1996. On November 13,

1997, EPA issued a notice of proposed settlement in National Solid

Wastes Management Association v. Browner, et al. No. 96-1152 (D.C.

Cir), in accordance with section 113(g) of the Act. See 62 FR 60898. It

is important to note that the proposed settlement does not vacate or

void the existing MSW landfill EG or NSPS. Accordingly, the currently

promulgated MSW landfill EG was used as a basis by EPA for review of

section 111(d) plan submittals.

This action approves the section 111(d) plan submitted by the State

of Tennessee for the Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, MHD to

implement and enforce subpart Cc.

II. Discussion

The State submitted to EPA on December 24, 1996, the following in

their section 111(d) plan for implementing and enforcing the emission

guidelines for existing MSW landfills in Nashville and Davidson County,

Tennessee: Legal Authority; Enforceable Mechanism; Inventory of MSW

Landfills; MSW Landfill Emission Inventory; Emission Limits; Compliance

Schedule; Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements; Demonstration That the Public Had Adequate Notice and

Opportunity to Submit Written Comments; Submittal of Progress Reports

to EPA; and applicable Tennessee statutes, Metropolitan Nashville and

Davidson County Government statutes, and MHD agency regulations.

The approval of the MHD plan is based on finding that: (1) the MHD

provided adequate public notice of public hearings for the proposed

rulemaking which allows the MHD to implement and enforce the EG for MSW

landfills; and (2) the MHD also demonstrated legal authority to adopt

emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to the

designated facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards

and compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information

necessary to determine compliance; require recordkeeping; conduct

inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission

reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly

available.

In Appendix 1 of the plan, the MHD cites the following references

for the legal authority: State of Tennessee Codes Annotated 68-201-115,

``Local Pollution Control Programs,'' 10-7-503, ``Records Open to

Public Inspection-Exceptions,'' and 10-7-504, ``Inspection of

Records;'' Metropolitan Code of Laws, Article 10, ``Public Health and

Hospitals,'' Chapter 1, ``Public Health'' of the Charter of the

Metropolitan Government, Chapter 10.56, ``Air Pollution Control,''

Section 10.56.090, ``Board-Powers and Duties,'' Section 10.56.150,

``Nuisance Declared-Injunctive Relief,'' Section 10.56.290,

``Measurement and Reporting of Emissions,'' Section 2.36 ``Health

Department,'' and Section 2.36.130 ``Records and Proceedings-Public

Inspection Authorized When.'' These statutes and regulations are

approved as being at least as protective as the federal requirements

for existing MSW landfills.

In Appendix 2 of the plan, the MHD cites all emission standards and

limitations for the major pollutant categories related to the

designated sites and facilities. These standards and limitations in the

MHD Pollution Control Division's Regulation No. 16, ``Regulation for

Control of Municipal Waste Landfills,'' are approved as being at least

as protective as the federal requirements contained in subpart Cc for

existing MSW landfills.

The MHD adopted compliance schedules in Regulation No. 16 for each

existing MSW landfill to be in compliance within 12 months of the

effective date of their implementing regulation (November 12, 1996).

All other compliance times for affected MSW landfills in Regulation No.

12 comply with the compliance timelines of the EG. This portion of the

plan has been reviewed and approved as being at

[[Page 70025]]

least as protective as federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.

The State submitted an emission inventory of all designated

pollutants for each MSW landfill in Nashville and Davidson County,

Tennessee. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and approved as

meeting the federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.

The MHD plan includes its legal authority to require owners and

operators of designated facilities to maintain records and report to

their agency the nature and amount of emissions and any other

information that may be necessary to enable their agency to judge the

compliance status of the facilities. The MHD also cites its legal

authority to provide for periodic inspection and testing and provisions

for making reports of MSW landfill emissions data, correlated with

emission standards that apply, available to the general public. The

State submitted MHD's Regulation No. 16 to support the requirements of

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance assurance. These

MHD rules have been reviewed and approved as being at least as

protective as federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.

As stated on page 2 of the plan, the MHD will provide progress

reports of plan implementation updates to the EPA on an annual basis.

These progress reports will include the required items pursuant to 40

CFR 60, subpart B. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and

approved as meeting the federal requirement for plan reporting.

Consequently, EPA finds that the MHD plan meets all of the

requirements applicable to such plans in 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and

Cc. The MHD did not, however, submit evidence of authority to regulate

existing MSW landfills in Indian Country. Therefore, EPA is not

approving this plan as it relates to those sources.

Final Action

EPA is approving the Sections 111(d)/129 State Plan for Nashville/

Davidson County submitted by the State of Tennessee for implementing

and enforcing the EG applicable to existing MWCs with capacity to

combust more than 250 tons per day of MSW. EPA is also approving the

Section 111(d) State Plan for Nashville/Davidson County for

implementing and enforcing the EG applicable to existing MSW landfills,

except for those existing MSW landfills located in Indian Country. MSW

landfills located in other Tennessee counties will be addressed in

separate rulemaking. As provided by 40 CFR 60.28(c), any revisions to

the State plan or associated regulations will not be considered part of

the applicable plan until submitted by the State in accordance with 40

CFR 60.28(a) or (b), as applicable, and until approved by EPA in

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should

relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective

February 16, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives

relevant adverse comments by January 19, 1999.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice

withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period. Only parties interested in

commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received,

the public is advised that this rule will be effective on February 16,

1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,

entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the

extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected

state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns,

copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875

do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies

on matters that

[[Page 70026]]

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve

or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must

select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 16, 1999. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Municipal waste

combustors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 30, 1998.

Winston A. Smith,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 62 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

2. Subpart RR is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.10626 and a new

undesignated center heading to read as follows: Plan for the Control of

Designated Pollutants From Existing Facilities (Section 111(d) Plan).

Sec. 62.10626 Identification of plan.

(a) Identification of plan. Tennessee Designated Facility Plan

(Section 111(d) plan).

(b) The plan was officially submitted as follows:

(1) Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee's

Implementation Plan For Municipal Waste Combustors, submitted on

December 24, 1996, by the State of Tennessee Department of Environment

and Conservation.

(2) Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee's Plan For

Implementing the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Emission Guidelines,

submitted on December 24, 1996, by the State of Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation.

(c) Designated facilities. The plan applies to existing facilities

in the following categories of sources:

(1) Existing municipal waste combustors.

(2) Existing municipal solid waste landfills.

3. Subpart RR is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.10627 and a new

undesignated center heading to read as follows:

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the Capacity To

combust Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid Waste

Sec. 62.10627 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to existing facilities with a municipal waste

combustor (MWC) unit capacity greater than 250 tons per day of

municipal solid waste (MSW) at the following MWC sites:

(a) Nashville Thermal Transfer Corporation, Nashville, Tennessee.

4. Subpart RR is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.10628 and a new

undesignated center heading to read as follows:

[[Page 70027]]

Landfill Gas Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills

Sec. 62.10628 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to existing municipal solid waste landfills for

which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced

before May 30, 1991, that accepted waste at any time since November 8,

1987, or that have additional capacity available for future waste

deposition, as described in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

[FR Doc. 98-33481 Filed 12-17-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P