11482 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

as deficient. This approval is limited 

because the EPA is simultaneously 

proposing a limited disapproval of the 

rule under section 110(k)(3). 

In addition, a final limited 

disapproval would trigger sanctions 

under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 

52.31 unless the EPA approves 

subsequent SIP revisions that correct the 

rule deficiencies within 18 months of 

the effective date of the final action. 

Note that the submitted rule has been 

adopted by the YSAQMD, and the EPA’s 

final limited disapproval would not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. The limited disapproval also would 

not prevent any portion of the rule from 

being incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP as discussed in 

a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the YSAQMD rules described in Table 

1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because this action is not significant 

under Executive Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 9, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03197 Filed 2–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0014; FRL–10020– 

56–Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD or ‘‘the District’’) portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This revision concerns 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

and particulate matter (PM) from 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 11483 

indirect sources associated with new 

development projects as well as NOX

and PM emissions from certain 

transportation and transit development 

projects. We are proposing to approve a 

local rule to regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2021–0014 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La 

Kenya Evans, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3245 or by 

email at evans.lakenya@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. The EPA’s Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ...................... 9510 Indirect Source Review .............................................. 12/21/17 (effective March 

21, 2018).

05/23/18 

On November 23, 2018, the submittal 

for SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 was deemed 

by operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 9510 into the SIP on May 9, 2011 

(76 FR 26609). The SJVUAPCD adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

December 21, 2017, and the CARB 

submitted the revised rule to the EPA on 

May 23, 2018. If we take final action to 

approve the December 21, 2017 version 

of Rule 9510, this version will replace 

the previously approved version of this 

rule in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

Emissions of NOX contribute to the 

production of ground-level ozone, smog 

and PM, which harm human health and 

the environment. Emissions of PM, 

including PM equal to or less than 2.5 

microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM 

equal to or less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10), contribute to effects 

that are harmful to human health and 

the environment, including premature 

mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, decreased lung 

function, visibility impairment, and 

damage to vegetation and ecosystems. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that control 

NOX and PM emissions. 

Rule 9510 is an indirect source review 

(ISR) rule that establishes a mechanism 

to reduce or offset emissions of NOX and 

PM10 in the San Joaquin Valley from the 

construction and use of development 

projects through design features, on-site 

measures, and off-site measures. The 

rule requires applicants of new 

development projects to reduce 

operational and construction equipment 

NOX and PM10 emissions by specific 

percentages, as compared to an 

unmitigated baseline. The rule requires 

applicants to incorporate design features 

and on-site measures into the 

development project or pay a mitigation 

fee for emissions in excess of the 

requirement. SJVUAPCD uses the fees to 

fund off-site emission reduction 

projects. 

The SIP-approved version of the rule 

applies to project applicants seeking 

‘‘final discretionary approval’’ for a 

development project. However, through 

implementation of the existing rule, the 

District has found that projects subject 

to final discretionary approval can vary 

between public agencies for the same 

type of project, especially large 

development projects. SJVUAPCD 

modified Rule 9510 to ensure the rule 

is applied consistently to all large 

development projects in the San Joaquin 

Valley by adding additional 

applicability criteria for large 

development projects and making 

clarifying and editorial changes to the 

rule. ‘‘Grandfathered Large 

Development Projects’’ and previously 

exempt large development projects that 

received a building permit, conditional 

use permit, or other similar approval by 

March 21, 2018, remain exempt from 

this rule. The EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this rule. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable 

(see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

11484 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i). 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). 

The San Joaquin Valley is currently 

designated and classified as an Extreme 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area and an 

Extreme 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area under the 1997, 2008, and 2015 

standards (40 CFR 81.305). CAA section 

172(c)(1) requires ozone nonattainment 

areas to implement all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), 

including such reductions in emissions 

from existing sources in the area as may 

be obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), as 

expeditiously as practicable. CAA 

sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) specify that 

implementation of RACT under CAA 

section 172(c)(1) is required for all 

major stationary sources of NOX in the 

area. 

Generally, SIP rules must implement 

Best Available Control Measures 

(BACM), including Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT), in Serious 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see CAA 

section 189(b)(1)(B)). The SJVUAPCD 

regulates a PM2.5 nonattainment area 

classified as Serious for the PM2.5 for the 

1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5

standards and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards (40 CFR 81.305). A BACM 

and BACT evaluation is generally 

performed in context of a broader plan. 

The area is currently designated 

attainment for PM10. Accordingly, 

SJVUAPCD is not required to implement 

BACM or BACT for PM10 and PM10

precursors. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we used to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised 

January 11, 1990). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little 

Bluebook). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

In our May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26609) 

final rule approval of Rule 9510 into the 

SIP, we identified a number of concerns 

about the enforceability of the rule’s 

provisions, e.g., provisions that allow 

project developers to pay a fee instead 

of implementing on-site pollution 

mitigation plans, and noted that the 

State would need to resolve these 

enforceability issues before relying on 

this rule for credit in an attainment 

plan. The District has not addressed 

these concerns in the submitted rule, 

and we therefore continue to conclude 

that the rule does not qualify for 

emission reduction credit for the 

purpose of any attainment or progress 

demonstration in any area. 

As described above, the District 

revised the rule applicability to include 

large development projects that are not 

currently subject to the rule and made 

editorial and clarifying changes. The 

revisions are generally clear and 

strengthen the rule. In addition to 

addressing the enforceability concerns 

outlined in our prior action, if the 

District plans to rely on emission 

reductions from this rule for attainment 

or progress demonstrations, the District 

should revise section 3.17 to further 

clarify which ‘‘Grandfathered Large 

Development Projects’’ are exempt from 

the rule by quantifying ‘‘substantial 

loss’’ and include other specific criteria 

that would allow for these provisions to 

be applied in a consistent and replicable 

manner. 

With respect to rule stringency, we 

note that Rule 9510 is an ISR rule, and 

that EPA is prohibited by the CAA from 

requiring states and local air agencies to 

include ISR programs in SIPs.1 Because 

EPA cannot require a state or local air 

agency to adopt and implement an ISR 

program, the EPA cannot require that 

such a program meet any particular 

level of stringency. Therefore, we are 

not evaluating amended Rule 9510 for 

compliance with the RACM/RACT or 

BACM/BACT requirements. 

We conclude the rule is consistent 

with the relevant requirements, policy, 

and guidance regarding SIP relaxations 

since the rule revisions add further 

applicability and strengthen the current 

SIP-approved rule. However, we 

continue to conclude that the rule is not 

fully consistent with the relevant 

requirements, policy, and guidance on 

enforceability. While Rule 9510 does 

not meet all the evaluation criteria for 

enforceability, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted rule because it 

would strengthen the SIP compared to 

the current SIP-approved rule. In light 

of the deficiencies identified in our 

prior action and above, we continue to 

conclude that the rule should not be 

credited in any attainment and rate of 

progress/reasonable further progress 

demonstrations. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. The EPA’s Recommendations to 

Further Improve the Rule 

The TSD includes recommendations 

for the next time the local agency 

modifies the rule. 

D. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted rule. We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal until March 29, 2021. If 

we take final action to approve the 

submitted rule, our final action will 

incorporate this rule into the federally 

enforceable SIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is 

proposing to include in a final EPA rule 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District rule described in Table 1 of this 

preamble. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 11485 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 16, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03481 Filed 2–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2020–0431, FRL–10016– 

26–Region 2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities; New 

York; Section 111(d) State Plan for 

MSW Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to New York’s section 111(d) 

state plan (the ‘‘State Plan’’) for 

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills, 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’ 

or the ‘‘Act’’). The proposed State Plan 

revision consists of amendments to New 

York’s ‘‘Landfill Gas Collection and 

Control Systems for Certain Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills,’’ as well as 

attendant revisions to ‘‘General 

Provisions.’’ The primary goal of this 

regulation is to implement and enforce 

the Emission Guidelines (EG) 

promulgated by the EPA for MSW 

landfills on August 29, 2016. The goal 

of the revised federal EG is to reduce 

emissions of landfill gas containing 

Non-methane Organic Compounds 

(NMOC) and methane by lowering the 

emissions threshold at which an 

existing MSW landfill must install and 

operate a Gas Collection and Control 

System (GCCS). The emission threshold 

reduction will address air emissions 

from all affected MSW landfills, 

including NMOC and methane. The 

reduction of emissions will improve air 

quality and protect the public health 

from exposure to landfill gas emissions. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 29, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2020–0431 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI), or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment, and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file-sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Fausto Taveras, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, New York, New York 10007– 

1866, at (212) 637–3378, or by email at 

Taveras.Fausto@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Supplementary Information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. EPA Action 

A. What action is the EPA proposing 

today? 

B. Who is affected by New York’s revised 

State Plan? 

II. Background 

A. What is a state plan? 

B. Why is the EPA requiring New York to 

submit a revised MSW landfill state 

plan? 

C. What are the requirements for a revised 

MSW landfill state plan? 

D. What revisions did the EPA make to 40 

CFR part 60 subpart Cf on August 29, 

2016? 

III. New York’s State Plan 

A. What is contained in the New York’s 

revised State Plan? 

B. What approval criteria did we use to 

evaluate New York’s revised State Plan? 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. What is the EPA’s conclusion? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA Action 

A. What action is the EPA proposing 

today? 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

State of New York’s revised section 

111(d) state plan for MSW landfills, for 

the purpose of incorporating the 

adoption of Title 6 of the New York 

Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) 

Part 208. In a letter dated December 11, 

2019, the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 

on behalf of the State of New York, 

submitted to the EPA a state plan 

entitled, ‘‘Landfill Gas Collection and 

Control Systems for Certain Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills,’’ which contains 

a New York State-approved regulation 

for the purpose of lowering the 

emissions threshold within MSW 

landfills through the installation of Gas 

Collection and Control Systems (GCCS). 

The State Plan incorporates by reference 

the revised EG codified at 40 CFR part 

60 subpart Cf, which applies to MSW 

landfills that have accepted waste at any