Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0696-0034
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Adopting Requirements in Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste  Landfills
Posted Date: 2019-08-26T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44547-44556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18233]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0696: FRL-9998-82-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU33

Adopting Requirements in Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid 
Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
is amending the 2016 Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (``MSW Landfills EG''). The general 
requirements for state and federal plans implementing emission 
guidelines (EG) are referred to as implementing regulations, which are 
cross-referenced in the MSW Landfills EG. In a separate regulatory 
action titled ``Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing 
Regulations,'' the EPA finalized changes to modernize the implementing 
regulations governing EG under a new subpart. This action updates the 
cross-references to the implementing regulations in the MSW Landfills 
EG to harmonize with the new requirements for state and federal plans.

DATES: Effective date: The final rule is effective on September 6, 
2019.
    Compliance date: States must submit state plans by August 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0696. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information 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 electronically 
through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 
Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The EPA's Public Reading Room hours of operation are 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through 
Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Allison Costa, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code 
E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1322; fax number: (919) 541-0516; 
and email address: costa.allison@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for

[[Page 44548]]

reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms 
here:

CAA Clean Air Act
CRA Congressional Review Act
EG Emission Guidelines
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. What is included in the final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments?
    B. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

   Table 1--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source category               Name of action      NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local, and tribal         Adopting Subpart Ba              924119
 government agencies.             Requirements in
                                  Emission Guidelines
                                  for Municipal Solid
                                  Waste Landfills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 this 
final action for the source category listed. This table lists the types 
of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by 
this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also 
be regulated. To determine whether your source category is regulated by 
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria 
found in the final rule. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, 
your delegated authority, or your EPA Regional representative listed in 
40 CFR 60.4 (General Provisions).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action is available on the internet. Following signature by 
the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-new-source-performance-standards. Following publication 
in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version 
of the final document at this same website.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by October 25, 2019. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further 
provides that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was 
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 
(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' 
This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a 
proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection 
can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such 
objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for 
such objection arose after the period for public comment, (but within 
the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of 
central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to 
make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for 
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 
3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel 
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail 
Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

    On August 29, 2016, the EPA promulgated a new EG at 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Cf, titled ``Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (``MSW Landfills EG''), under CAA 
section 111(d) (81 FR 59276). The MSW Landfills EG updated the control 
requirements and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions 
for existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill sources. The MSW 
Landfills EG incorporated by cross-reference or direct adoption of 
certain requirements for state and federal plans as specified in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart B (the ``old implementing regulations''). Under the 
old implementing regulations at 40 CFR 60.23(a), as incorporated by the 
MSW Landfills EG, state plans were due 9 months after the MSW Landfills 
EG final rule was published. Because the MSW Landfills EG was published 
on

[[Page 44549]]

August 29, 2016, states were required to submit their plans to the EPA 
by May 30, 2017. See 40 CFR 60.30f(b). Under the old implementing 
regulations as incorporated by the MSW Landfills EG, the EPA had 4 
months to approve or disapprove a state plan after receipt of a plan or 
plan revision, 40 CFR 60.27(b), and 6 months to issue federal plans for 
states that failed to submit approved plans after the due date for 
state plans, 40 CFR 60.27(c)-(d).
    In the recent ``Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing 
Regulations,'' the EPA finalized revisions to the old implementing 
regulations for EG (84 FR 32520, July 8, 2019). Specifically relevant 
to this action, the new implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Ba amended the timing requirements in 40 CFR 60.23 and 60.27 
for the submission of state plans, the EPA's review of state plans, and 
the issuance of federal plans. See 40 CFR 60.23a and 60.27a. In 
addition, the new implementing regulations include completeness 
criteria to be used for the review of state plans, which are modeled 
after the criteria that apply to state implementation plans (SIPs) 
submitted under CAA section 110. See 40 CFR 60.27a(g).
    On October 30, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register that proposed to adopt the timing requirements of the 
proposed new implementing regulations in the MSW Landfills EG (83 FR 
54527-32). On November 9, 2018, the EPA published a notice correcting 
the docket number listed for the proposed rule (83 FR 56015). On 
November 15, 2019, the EPA gave notice of an upcoming public hearing 
for the action and extended the comment period for the proposed rule 
until January 3, 2019 (83 FR 57387-88).

III. What is included in the final rule?

A. What are the final rule amendments?

    As noted in section IV of the preamble to the ``Revisions to 
Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations,'' the EPA is aware of 
cases where state plan submittal and review processes are still ongoing 
for existing CAA section 111(d) EG and the EPA is applying the new 
timing requirements not just to EG published after the new implementing 
regulations are finalized, but also to ongoing EG already published 
under CAA section 111(d) (84 FR 32564-65 and 32575, July 8, 2019). In 
this action, the EPA is promulgating amendments to apply the timing 
requirements in the new implementing regulations to the MSW Landfills 
EG, an ongoing CAA section 111(d) action that was published under 40 
CFR 60.22(a). Specifically, the EPA is amending the cross-reference 
within the MSW Landfills EG to refer to the new implementing 
regulations in 40 CFR 60.30f for the provisions related to the 
``Adoption and submittal of State plans; public hearings'' (40 CFR 
60.23a, replacing 40 CFR 60.23) and ``Actions by the Administrator'' 
(40 CFR 60.27a, replacing 40 CFR 60.27).
    The old implementing regulations included specific requirements 
detailing the states' responsibilities to provide adequate notice of, 
hold, and document a public hearing on the state plan or plan revision. 
The old implementing regulations further allowed the Administrator to 
extend the period of submission of any plan. Additionally, the old 
implementing regulations allowed the Administrator 4 months after 
submission of a state plan to approve or disapprove the plan and 
required the promulgation of a federal plan within 6 months after the 
date required for state plan submissions that will apply to any state 
that has not adopted and submitted an approved plan within that time 
frame.
    The new implementing regulations require states to submit a plan 
within 3 years of the publication of an EG or to submit a plan revision 
at any time necessary to meet the requirements of an applicable 
subpart. The new implementing regulations allow some flexibility to the 
requirements for public hearings, specifically allowing relevant 
materials to be made available to the public via the internet and 
allowing a state to cancel a public hearing if the state includes 
information in the notice that the hearing will be cancelled if no one 
requests a hearing within 30 days of the notice. Other requirements 
regarding the hearing remain unchanged between the old and new 
implementing regulations. The new implementing regulations allow the 
Administrator to shorten, but not to extend, the period for submission 
of any state plan. Additionally, the new implementing regulations 
require the Administrator to evaluate submitted state plans for 
completeness according to certain criteria within 60 days of receipt of 
submission, but no later than 6 months after the deadline by which 
states were required to submit their plans. The new implementing 
regulations establish that a state plan shall automatically be deemed 
complete if no determination has been made within 6 months of the 
state's submission. The Administrator will approve or disapprove state 
plans within 12 months of the completeness determination. Additionally, 
the Administrator will promulgate a federal plan within 2 years after 
either a state fails to submit a plan, a state submits a plan that is 
deemed incomplete and the deficiency is not corrected, or a state plan 
is disapproved.
    For the MSW Landfills EG, which was published on August 29, 2016, 
the application of the new implementing regulations results in the 
following timetable for states: State plans are due to be submitted to 
the Administrator by August 29, 2019. The Administrator shall determine 
completeness within 6 months of the state submission. The Administrator 
will approve or disapprove plans deemed complete within 12 months of 
the completeness determination.
    The EPA also is finalizing two clerical amendments to correctly 
incorporate the provisions of the new implementing regulations in the 
MSW Landfills EG. Within the new implementing regulations, provisions 
in 40 CFR 60.23a(a)(1) and 60.27a(e)(1) refer to the final guideline 
documents published under 40 CFR 60.22a(a). The text in 40 CFR 60.22(a) 
and 40 CFR 60.22a(a) refer to the implementing regulations that apply 
to a particular EG, depending on when the EG was published. The 
provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ba were published in the Federal 
Register on July 8, 2019. Therefore, EG published prior to that date 
are considered guideline documents published under 40 CFR 60.22(a) and 
EG published on or after that date are considered guideline documents 
published under 40 CFR 60.22a(a). Since the MSW Landfills EG was 
published prior to the new implementing regulations, the EPA is 
clarifying that these provisions (40 CFR 60.23a(a)(1) and 60.27a(e)(1)) 
will refer to a guideline document that was published under the old 
implementing regulations in 40 CFR 60.22(a).
    Finally, the EPA is amending the specific deadline for the 
submission of state plans that is listed in 40 CFR 60.30f(b). The 
specific deadline is now August 29, 2019, instead of May 29, 2017. The 
specific date that was included in the MSW Landfills EG was based on 
the timing requirements of the old implementing regulations, which only 
allowed states 9 months to adopt and submit a state plan to the 
Administrator. The date is now revised to match the timing requirements 
of the new implementing regulations, which have replaced the old timing 
requirements referenced in 40 CFR 60.30f(a).
    The EPA also took comment on the provisions that would apply to 
states that submitted state plans prior to the promulgation of these 
amendments. Specifically, the EPA questioned whether to amend the MSW 
Landfills EG regulatory text to require those states

[[Page 44550]]

to resubmit their plans in accordance with the provisions of the 
proposed new implementing regulations. Additionally, the EPA 
questioned, if resubmission was not required, whether the EPA should 
still evaluate the already-submitted plans for compliance with the new 
completeness criteria. The EPA is not finalizing any additional 
requirements for states that have already submitted plans. Therefore, 
state plans submitted prior to promulgation of these amendments will 
continue to be reviewed according to the provisions of the old 
implementing regulations.
    On May 6, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 
of California issued a decision in the case, State of California v. 
EPA, No. 4:18-cv-03237 (N.D. Cal. 2019). In that case, a coalition of 
eight states and an intervenor, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), 
claimed that the EPA had failed to perform nondiscretionary duties to 
approve or disapprove existing state plans and to issue a federal plan 
in accordance with the EPA's old implementing regulations at 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart B, which were cross-referenced in the MSW Landfills 
EG. The Court ordered the EPA to take action on existing state plans by 
September 6, 2019, and to promulgate a federal plan by November 6, 
2019.\1\ As noted in section II of this preamble, the EPA recently 
finalized new implementing regulations that amend the timing 
requirements for the submission of state plans, the EPA's review of 
state plans, and the issuance of federal plans. This final rule, 
together with the new implementing regulations, change certain 
deadlines applicable to the MSW Landfills EG, including the deadline 
for a federal plan. The EPA acknowledges that, with respect to the 
deadline for a federal plan, there is now a conflict between the EPA's 
regulations and the Court's order. If the EPA determines that it should 
no longer have to comply with the deadline for a federal plan in the 
Court's order due to the promulgation of this final rule, the EPA will 
seek appropriate relief from the Court. State plans submitted prior to 
promulgation of this final rule, however, will continue to be reviewed 
in accordance with the provisions of the old implementing regulations 
and finalized in accordance with the Court's order. States that have 
not yet submitted a state plan have until August 29, 2019, to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ One of the existing state plans, submitted by Maricopa 
County, Arizona, was withdrawn after the Court's original order on 
May 6, 2019. The Court issued a subsequent order on July 19, 2019, 
to exclude the Maricopa County plan from the original order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments?

    After considering public comments and further analyzing the 
available data, the EPA did not make any major substantive changes to 
the final rule relative to what we proposed. A complete list of public 
comments received on the proposed rule and the corresponding responses 
can be viewed in the document, ``Responses to Public Comments on EPA's 
Adopting Subpart Ba Requirements in Emission Guidelines for Municipal 
Solid Waste Landfills: Proposed Rule'' (hereafter ``Response to 
Comments document''), which is available in the docket for this action. 
This section of the preamble summarizes the minor changes made since 
the proposal, key comments with our responses, and the rationale for 
our final approach.
1. Application of and Rationale for Timing Requirements in New 
Implementing Regulations to the MSW Landfills EG
    The EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 60.30f(a) to refer to 40 CFR 
60.23a and 40 CFR 60.27a in lieu of 40 CFR 60.23 and 40 CFR 60.27, 
respectively, and to change the corresponding date for submission of 
state plans in 40 CFR 60.30f(b). We are finalizing the amendments as 
proposed, except we are removing the proposed amendment that stated 
that the requirements of 40 CFR 60.27a(e)(2) would continue to refer to 
40 CFR 60.24(f) instead of 60.24a(f). The amendment is no longer 
necessary, as the reference to 40 CR 60.24a(f) was a typographical 
error in the proposed implementing regulations. The final amendments 
promulgated for 40 CFR 60.27a(e)(2) in the new implementing regulations 
now refer to 40 CFR 60.24a(e) (instead of 40 CFR 60.24a(f) as proposed) 
for the factors that states may consider when adopting less stringent 
emission standards or compliance times than the EG. These factors are 
substantively similar to those listed in 40 CFR 60.24(f). Therefore, 
there is no longer a need to clarify this requirement in the MSW 
Landfills EG.
    Comment: Two commenters supported the EPA's proposal to amend the 
MSW Landfills EG to align the timing requirements for submitting and 
acting on CAA section 111(d) plans with the proposed timing 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ba on the basis that the 
existing timing requirements were insufficient. The commenters stated 
that 9 months is not a realistic time frame for states to develop and 
submit a plan under CAA section 111(d) because the plans have to 
include rules to make the state standards adopted pursuant to the CAA 
section 111(d) guidelines enforceable. The commenters noted that 
regardless of the substantive content of any particular state plan, 
such rulemaking commonly takes a year, not including technical work and 
outreach to stakeholders beforehand. One commenter described many steps 
that are part of a state rulemaking process, including initial public 
outreach, drafting a proposed plan, taking public comment on that 
proposal, evaluating and responding to comments, seeking final approval 
of other state governmental entities, and codification into the state 
administrative code. The commenter believed that the current 9-month 
deadline can constrain the process and either diminish opportunities 
for public involvement or limit the ability of state governmental 
officials to fully evaluate the policies underlying the plan. The 
commenters further explained that the deadlines in the current 
implementing regulations were adopted in 1975 and do not reflect the 
increased complexity and procedural demands of emission standard 
development and rulemaking under current state and federal law. One of 
the commenters noted that the current deadline for EPA approval of 
state plans is too short and further explained that the EPA frequently 
takes longer than 1 year to approve SIPs under CAA section 110. The 
commenter claimed that inconsistencies between state rules, approved 
state plans, and the EPA's regulations can cause significant confusion, 
citing United States v. Cinergy, 623 F.3d 455, 457-59 (7th Cir. 2010). 
The commenter pointed out that the EPA's approval or disapproval of 
state plans requires multiple steps, including developing and 
publishing a proposal to approve or disapprove the plan, evaluating and 
responding to comments received from the public, and then issuing a 
final decision, all of which require involvement of various levels 
within the U.S. government (e.g., approval of the U.S. Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB)). The commenter contended that the 
deadlines in the new implementing regulations will ensure sufficient 
time for the rulemaking process and increase the amount of time allowed 
for states and the EPA to work together to resolve any differences of 
opinion they may have on the plan submitted. The commenter further 
asserted that such coordination could avoid the need to disapprove a 
plan, and, thus, avoid the need to devote resources toward a

[[Page 44551]]

federal plan or a revised state plan. Therefore, the commenters 
concluded that the EPA's proposed deadlines are much more reasonable 
and realistic.
    Another commenter generally supported the proposed new implementing 
regulations for any future EG issued under CAA section 111(d). However, 
the commenter believed that it is only appropriate to apply the new 
implementing regulations prospectively to new CAA section 111(d) EG, 
not retroactively to the MSW Landfills EG. The commenter requested that 
the EPA consider finalizing revisions to incorporate the new 
implementing regulations in the MSW Landfills EG during the ongoing 
reconsideration of the MSW Landfills EG.
    Meanwhile, two commenters found the EPA's proposal to be 
unreasonable and inadequately supported. One commenter emphasized that 
the proposed amendments add several years to a state plan development 
and approval process that should already be well underway. The 
commenter claimed that the proposal is arbitrary and capricious because 
neither the justifications in the proposal or the proposal for the new 
implementing regulations were adequate. The second commenter contended 
that the proposal should already have been implemented. The commenter 
stated that the EPA can give states more time to complete plans for a 
particular EG, as in the Clean Power Plan (80 FR 64855, October 23, 
2015), or extend the deadline on an individual basis for a state that 
presents a factual record to demonstrate its need for more time to 
submit its state plan according to 40 CFR 60.27(a).
    Response: Given the EPA's experience working with states to develop 
SIPs under CAA section 110, we agree with the commenters that adopting 
the timing requirements in the new implementing regulations for the MSW 
Landfills EG is a reasonable way to provide realistic deadlines for the 
process of submitting, reviewing, and approving state plans, and 
promulgating a federal plan. As stated in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, states have considerable flexibility in implementing CAA section 
111(d) and the development of state plans requires a significant amount 
of work, effort, and time. Adoption of these amendments allows states 
more time to interact and work with the EPA in the development of state 
plans and minimize the chance of unexpected issues arising that could 
slow down eventual approval of state plans. Congressional intent, 
strengthened by the reference to CAA section 110, is clear that 
implementation of CAA section 111(d) is intended to be primarily a 
state-driven process, and the existence of federal backstop authority 
is not a sufficient reason to decline to provide a sufficient period of 
time for states to develop and submit their plans (83 FR 54530, October 
30, 2018).
    The EPA reiterates the justification provided in the proposal for 
this action and emphasizes the number of states who failed to meet the 
original deadline supports the need to adopt more reasonable timing 
requirements. As stated in the preceding paragraph, the EPA's prior 
experience on reviewing and acting on SIPs under CAA section 110 
illustrates that it is appropriate to extend the period for the EPA's 
review and approval or disapproval of plans to a 12-month period (after 
a determination of completeness, either affirmatively by the EPA or by 
operation of law). This timeline would provide adequate time for the 
EPA to review plans and follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures 
to ensure an opportunity for public comment on the EPA's proposed 
action on a state plan (83 FR 54530, October 30, 2018). Given that most 
states did not meet the prescribed 9-month period to submit a state 
plan by May 30, 2017, the EPA determined that it would be more 
efficient to adopt the new implementing regulations rather than grant 
extensions to individual states according to the provisions of 40 CFR 
60.27(a), as one commenter suggested.
    Finally, as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA 
determined that it is appropriate to extend the timing for the EPA to 
promulgate a federal plan for states that fail to submit an approvable 
state plan, consistent with the federal implementation plan deadline 
under CAA section 110(c). Whenever the EPA promulgates a federal plan, 
it must follow the rulemaking requirements in CAA section 307(d). This 
involves a number of potentially time-consuming steps, including 
coordination with many offices, developing a comprehensive record, and 
considering comments submitted on a proposed plan. In addition, when 
states fail to submit a plan as required under the MSW Landfills EG, we 
typically promulgate a single federal plan that applies to a number of 
states. Unlike a federal plan developed for a single state, the federal 
plan developed here may be more complex and time-intensive since it 
must be tailored to meet the needs of many states (83 FR 54530-31, 
October 30, 2018).
    Comment: Five commenters objected to the EPA's justification that 
states need more time to submit their plans. The commenter noted that 
the extended deadlines that some stakeholders requested when the EPA 
promulgated the MSW Landfills EG (at least 12 to 24 months) have passed 
and that the EPA's time period is 36 months--longer than commenters 
requested. One commenter also alleged that the EPA actively encouraged 
states to flout the March 30, 2017, deadline and pointed to various 
pieces of email correspondence from Regional offices, primarily during 
the pendency of the stay from May 31, 2017, through August 29, 2017. 
The commenter cited a desk statement that the EPA issued in October 
2017, stating that the EPA did not plan to prioritize review of state 
plans submitted or issue a federal plan for states that failed to 
submit a state plan. The commenter maintained that the correspondence 
makes the EPA's justification regarding the small number of plans 
submitted ``at the very least disingenuous.''
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assessment and 
characterization of the EPA's actions. The correspondence the commenter 
cites shows that there appeared to be some confusion about the impact 
of the EPA's statement on May 5, 2017, regarding the grant of 
reconsideration and a promise to stay the MSW Landfills EG. In 
particular, it appears that some states and Regional offices did not 
recognize that the date the stay was ultimately issued (May 31, 2017) 
did not change the fact that the deadline of May 30, 2017 (one day 
prior to the start of the stay period), remained valid to submit state 
plans. Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the desk statement made 
it clear that state plans were due May 30, 2017. See Commenter's Appx. 
at 418 (``Under the emissions guidelines, CAA section 111(d) state 
plans for addressing existing landfills were due May 30, 2017''), which 
is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0696-0029, Attachment 4). The desk statement also made it 
clear that, consistent with the expiration of the stay on August 29, 
2017, ``the 2016 rules are currently in effect.'' Id. The EPA's 
explanations in the desk statement regarding its priorities and 
reassurance about potential sanctions for failure to submit state plans 
does not change the clear message that the plans were due on May 30, 
2017. Even if some states were confused from correspondence before or 
during the stay regarding their compliance obligations, the desk 
statement put them on notice that the May 30, 2017, due date remained 
valid. The commenter cites no correspondence from a state

[[Page 44552]]

maintaining they were not submitting their state plan due to the 
October 2017 desk statement. Indeed, three states and two counties 
submitted their plans after the desk statement was issued--Maricopa 
County, Arizona, on May 4, 2018 (which was subsequently withdrawn); 
Pinal County, Arizona, on March 4, 2019; the remainder of Arizona on 
July 24, 2018; Delaware on October 13, 2017; and West Virginia on 
September 19, 2018. California, New Mexico, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo 
County, New Mexico, submitted their plans on or before the May 30, 
2017, deadline. The commenter provides no evidence, only speculation, 
that other states failed to submit a plan due to the October 2017 desk 
statement. Although some commenters requested at least 12 to 24 months 
when commenting on the original guidelines, the fact that the majority 
of states did not submit a state plan within that time frame supports 
the EPA's contention that states need more time to submit their state 
plans. As the EPA explains in the prior response, and as supported by 
other commenters, the 36-month period is a reasonable period of time 
for states to submit their plans.
    Comment: One commenter stated that this action is invalid under Air 
Alliance Houston v. EPA, 906 F.3d 1049, 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2018), and 
similar cases because the rule is an attempt to stay the MSW Landfills 
EG while the EPA reconsiders the guidelines, contrary to the Court's 
holding in Air Alliance and similar cases.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that Air Alliance 
and similar cases cited are applicable to this action. All the cases 
the commenter cited involve the EPA invoking its stay authority under 
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) or extending the effective date of a rule 
pending reconsideration. That is not the case with the current action. 
In this final rule, the EPA is not invoking its stay authority or 
extending the effective date of a rule pending reconsideration.
    As the Court in Air Alliance noted, the EPA ``retains authority . . 
. to substantively amend the programmatic requirements of [a rule], and 
pursuant to that authority, revise its effective and compliance dates, 
subject to arbitrary and capricious review.'' Air Alliance Houston v. 
EPA, at 1066. The EPA is doing precisely what the Court in Air Alliance 
said is the proper course of action. The EPA is substantively amending 
the programmatic requirements of the MSW Landfills EG and, pursuant to 
its authority to amend those requirements, is revising the compliance 
dates of the rule. As explained elsewhere in the Response to Comments 
document, available in the docket for this rulemaking, the EPA's 
revisions to the compliance deadlines meet the arbitrary and capricious 
standard of review because the revised compliance deadlines are 
consistent with CAA requirements, are supported by the record, and are 
rationally explained. Additionally, see the Response to Comments 
document for more detailed discussion of the specific cases cited.
    What is the rationale for our final approach? For the reasons 
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 54530-54531, 
October 30, 2018) and in the comment responses in this section of this 
preamble, we are finalizing the requirements in 40 CFR 60.30f(a) and 
(b) to refer to the timing and completeness requirements in 40 CFR 
60.23a and 60.27a.
2. Addition of New Completeness Criteria for Evaluation of State Plans; 
Resubmittal of Already-Submitted State Plans
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for state plans 
to be evaluated according to the criteria in 40 CFR 60.27a(g). The EPA 
did not receive any comments in favor of requiring states to resubmit 
their plans or in favor of evaluating the already-submitted plans for 
compliance with the new completeness criteria.
    Comment: Two commenters opposed applying completeness criteria to 
previously submitted state plans. One commenter contended that the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's submittal already meets 
the proposed new completeness criteria and believed it could remedy any 
inconsistencies between its currently submitted plan and the new 
proposed completeness requirements through a supplemental submittal. 
The other commenter pointed out that the EPA should have already 
completed its review of these state plans. Thus, the commenter 
contended that applying completeness criteria to previously submitted 
plans would result in unlawful retroactive application of new, more 
burdensome criteria. The commenter stated all plans should be held to 
the same regulatory standard, regardless of when they were submitted.
    Response: The EPA has reviewed the comments and determined that it 
is not necessary to require states who have already submitted state 
plans prior to the promulgation of these amendments to resubmit those 
plans to demonstrate compliance with the new completeness criteria in 
40 CFR 60.27a(g). The EPA is in the process of reviewing the state 
plans that have already been submitted prior to the promulgation of 
these amendments and will evaluate these plans in accordance with the 
old implementing regulations (40 CFR 60.27(b)). Therefore, it is not 
necessary to consider whether a supplemental proposal is needed from 
states that have already submitted state plans. Similarly, because the 
EPA is not changing any requirements for these states, there is no need 
for the states to review the submitted plans or the completeness 
criteria and there will be no additional burden for these states.
    Regarding the commenter's statement that all plans should be 
reviewed according to the same criteria, the EPA maintains, as stated 
in the preamble to the proposed rule, that the new completeness 
criteria for states are based on the criteria outlined in the old 
implementing regulations and in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, that states 
already follow when developing SIPs under CAA section 110. The criteria 
in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V apply to the majority of state plans 
submitted to the EPA, and, therefore, many states likely already comply 
with these completeness criteria when developing their CAA section 
111(d) state plans. Thus, the EPA has determined that state plans 
submitted prior to the promulgation of this rule are not subject to 
substantively different review criteria than plans submitted after 
promulgation of this rule.
    What is the rationale for our final approach? In response to 
comments as described within this section of this preamble, we are not 
making any changes to the requirements that we proposed. The EPA is not 
requiring that state plans that were already submitted prior to the 
promulgation of these amendments be evaluated according to the 
completeness criteria in the new implementing regulations and, 
therefore, we are not requiring resubmission of those state plans.
3. Impacts of This Action
    In the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 54531, October 30, 
2018), we explained that although the costs and benefits of harmonizing 
the timing requirements of state plans cannot be quantified due to 
inherent uncertainties, the EPA believes that they will be minimal. 
This includes impacts of the costs for landfills to install gas 
collection systems, the amount of landfill gas captured over the life 
of the project, and the costs for states to comply with the new timing 
and completeness criteria. The EPA requested comments on this 
determination.
    Comment: Commenters disagreed in their views of the EPA's 
assessment of

[[Page 44553]]

the environmental impacts, with some commenters agreeing that impacts 
would be minimal, and others contending that the rule would have 
significant impacts on human health and welfare.
    One commenter disputed any claims that the EPA's proposal to extend 
the process for implementing the MSW Landfills EG would have a 
detrimental impact on the environment. To the contrary, the commenter 
believed that the proposal to adopt new deadlines into the MSW 
Landfills EG will not have any real impact on emissions or the 
environment. The commenter pointed out that the revisions to the EG 
that the EPA adopted in 2016 would further reduce emissions by only 3 
percent, which may be overstated. The commenter claimed that landfills 
are already well controlled, and that the EPA's 2016 analysis showed 
impacts for 2025, which is still 6 years away. The commenter claimed 
that extending the deadlines merely reflects the current reality of the 
rule--most states have not yet submitted state plans and maintaining 
the current deadlines would not change that fact.
    Two commenters claimed the action is unlawful because the EPA has a 
statutory responsibility to reduce air emissions from pollutants that 
endanger human health and the environment. One of the commenters 
disagreed that the proposal represents a procedural change and claims 
it is a substantial revision of the MSW Landfills EG, which will result 
in significant additional emissions of dangerous air pollution with 
adverse effects on human health and welfare. The commenter said that 
the EPA has not explained how this proposal will not forego those 
benefits. This commenter asserted that the EPA does not provide 
justification for the statement that impacts are minimal. The commenter 
also claimed the EPA does not acknowledge its prior analyses of the 
public health, environmental, or energy impacts, which the commenter 
says are required statutory considerations when establishing EG under 
CAA section 111. Another commenter explained that the EPA did not 
provide information about surveying affected facilities to see which 
ones may or may not have already installed controls, so the conclusions 
in the preamble are insufficient.
    One commenter asserted that the rule would have significant adverse 
impacts on human health and welfare. The commenter cited the preamble 
to the MSW Landfills EG (81 FR 59276, August 29, 2016) and noted that 
the EPA estimated that the EG would reduce 1,810 megagrams per year of 
nonmethane organic compound emissions and 285,000 metric tons of 
methane per year (over 7.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent) plus displace fossil fuel-generated electricity. In that 
preamble, the EPA estimated that, by 2025, the annual net benefits of 
the EG would be $390 million. Therefore, the commenter claimed that by 
delaying implementation, the EPA is forfeiting reductions of tens of 
millions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions and at least $1.5 
billion in net benefits.
    Multiple commenters believe that delaying implementation of the EG 
would have a net cost. Two of these commenters claim that the EPA 
failed to conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) or analyze the 
foregone benefits and argues that the costs are substantial, not 
minimal. One commenter claims that human health and welfare is at stake 
due to climate change, so the action cannot be reasonable regardless of 
economic impact. One commenter, thus, cited the EPA's ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the Emission Guidelines for 
Existing Sources and the Final New Source Performance Standards in the 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Sector,'' EPA-452/R-16-003 (2016 RIA) 
(Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0235) to demonstrate that 
delaying implementation of the EG has a net cost. The commenter claimed 
that according to the 2016 RIA, 92 landfills would reduce 330,000 
metric tons of methane in 2019 due to the EG. The commenter asserted 
that is an average of an additional 3,580 tons of methane emitted from 
each landfill in 2019. The commenter also asserted that the social cost 
of methane for 2019 emissions is approximately $1,200 in 2007 dollars 
($1,490 in 2018 dollars), which would mean that each landfill that 
postponed installation has over $5 million in forgone climate benefits/
monetized climate damages, plus unmonetized impacts to health and 
environment. Because the social costs are not zero, the commenter 
stated the EPA can and should assess how many landfills could postpone 
installation of controls before the delay is not cost-benefit 
justified.
    A second commenter estimated that, using the values from the MSW 
Landfills EG preamble (81 FR 59280, August 29, 2016), this action would 
lead to forfeiture of $397 million in annual net benefits from 2019 
through 2025. Another commenter stated that the proposed amendment 
would result in adverse climate impacts totaling $400 million to $4.8 
billion, based on the 2016 RIA, saying that methane emission reduction 
benefits of the proposed rule are approximately $200 million to $1.2 
billion per year and assuming that this rule will delay these 
reductions by 2 to 4 years.
    Another commenter cited the 2016 RIA to state that methane 
emissions would be reduced by 330,000 metric tons per year and 
nonmethane organic compounds by 281 metric tons per year. The commenter 
included data from the 2016 RIA Tables 3-13, 3-14, and 6-7 to show the 
number of affected landfills, annual emission reductions, and annual 
net benefits of the EG over each year from 2019 to 2030. To calculate 
the foregone emission reductions and net benefits from the current 
proposal, the commenter assumed that states and the EPA would take the 
maximum amount of time allowed by the new deadlines. Then the commenter 
added 36 months (instead of 30 months) for the initial monitoring and 
installation lead time allowed in the rules, which resulted in 
approximately 11,000 tons nonmethane organic compounds emissions, 1.75 
million tons methane emissions, and over $2 billion cumulatively, 
depending on how many states prepare individual plans. The commenter 
estimated that, even if the EPA promulgated a federal plan in July 
2019, the proposal would still result in foregone benefits of 3,000 to 
5,000 tons nonmethane organic compounds emissions; 500,000 to 800,000 
tons methane emissions, and net benefits of nearly $1 billion.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that this final action will result in 
significant foregone economic and climate benefits. As one commenter 
cited, many MSW landfills are already well controlled, due in part to 
some MSW landfills that install landfill gas collection systems prior 
to the dates required by the MSW Landfills EG to capitalize on 
incentives (e.g., revenue from recovered energy) or in order to comply 
with state rules that have more stringent regulatory requirements. For 
example, a web search of two major carbon offset registries, the 
American Carbon Registry and Climate Action Reserve, returned over 100 
U.S. landfill gas capture/combustion projects that have registered 
credits. To be eligible to produce offset credits, the landfill gas 
capture/combustion projects cannot be required due to regulation. 
Therefore, these lists are one example of the prevalence of voluntary 
installation of landfill gas collection systems.\2\ A copy of the 
results obtained from a search on June 13, 2019, is available in the 
docket for this action. In comparison, the MSW

[[Page 44554]]

Landfills EG estimated that 93 landfills would need to install controls 
due to the change in emissions threshold (81 FR 59305, August 29, 
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://americancarbonregistry.org/how-it-works/registry-reports and https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/projects/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiple commenters cited the 2016 RIA. However, the commenters 
failed to provide any new information or refute the EPA's assessment 
that some landfills would install controls earlier than required by 
federal regulations. Similarly, all except one of these commenters 
assumed the ``worst-case'' scenario, i.e., that states would wait to 
submit their state plans until the deadline (or not at all) and that 
each subsequent step (completeness review, approval, and promulgation 
of a federal plan for states without approved state plans) would take 
the maximum amount of time allowed under the new implementing 
regulations. Additionally, these commenters failed to analyze or 
acknowledge the effects of the states who have already submitted state 
plans (California; Delaware; West Virginia; Pinal County, Arizona; the 
rest of Arizona; Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; and the 
rest of New Mexico) or who may be developing state plans. For an 
approvable state plan, these states should already have adopted laws 
incorporating the requirements of the MSW Landfills EG. As the 
delegated authority, the state should have revised MSW landfill permits 
in these states to include the new requirements. Therefore, the 
emission reductions and associated benefits attributed to the MSW 
Landfills EG in the 2016 RIA are already occurring in these locations 
and are not affected by this action.
    The EPA emphasizes that this action does not change the stringency 
of the emission reduction requirements promulgated in the MSW Landfills 
EG. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule adopting the 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Ba requirements in the MSW Landfills EG, the costs and 
benefits of harmonizing the timing requirements of state plans cannot 
be quantified due to inherent uncertainties regarding when affected 
landfills actually install controls to reduce emissions (84 FR 54531, 
October 30, 2018). These uncertainties can arise at the state level, 
based on the timing of the promulgation of state regulations (as 
discussed above), or at the facility level, as individual landfills 
evaluate site-specific factors to determine the timing of emissions 
controls. For example, some facilities may have an incentive to install 
landfill gas collection systems, such as to recover and use landfill 
gas as an energy source to offset existing energy costs or to provide a 
source of revenue prior to regulatory requirement dates. This offers 
financial advantages for some facilities to install landfill gas 
collection systems early in the development of the project (i.e., prior 
to the regulatory requirement date resulting from a state or federal 
plan implementing the MSW Landfills EG). Additionally, landfill gas 
collection systems are a common method of reducing odors from 
landfills. Therefore, other facilities install landfill gas collection 
systems prior to regulatory requirement dates to reduce odors either 
voluntarily, as mandated by state odor requirements, or as part of a 
consent decree/court order. If facilities have already installed 
controls, then shifting the date by which states must submit plans 
would not have any impact on the actual collection and control of 
landfill gas from those facilities. On the other hand, some sources may 
choose to wait until requirements are enacted prior to installing 
controls. While this would not impact the cost of installing controls, 
it could impact the amount of landfill gas captured over the life of 
the project and increase the net cost (83 FR 54531, October 30, 2018).
    In terms of direct costs, as noted in the preamble to the MSW 
Landfills EG, EG established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any 
requirements on regulated entities directly; rather, the EG require 
states and U.S. territories to establish comparable standards for 
existing sources. It is those state requirements that impact regulated 
entities. However, the EG do impose costs on state or local 
governments, as these governments must establish plans to implement the 
EG according to the criteria in the implementing regulations (84 FR 
59309-10, October 30, 2018). The requirements for states to develop 
state plans remain substantively the same between the old implementing 
regulations and the new implementing regulations. While there could be 
a small increase in burden for administrative hours to ensure the plan 
specifically meets the new completeness criteria, we expect that burden 
to be offset by updated provisions that increase flexibility for 
states, such as the ability to provide information related to public 
hearings on the internet or the ability to cancel the public hearings 
in certain situations. Overall, we expect the amendments to provide 
consistency and streamline procedures for states as they develop plans 
to meet CAA section 110 and 111 regulations.
    What is the rationale for our final approach? For the reasons 
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 54531, October 
30, 2018) and within this section of this preamble, the EPA maintains 
that the adoption of the new implementing regulations is a procedural 
change whose impacts cannot be characterized due to inherent 
uncertainties and are likely to be minimal. Therefore, we have not made 
any substantive changes to the description of this regulation or the 
characterization of the impacts within the Statutory and Executive 
Order Reviews section of this preamble (section IV).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant action that was submitted to OMB for 
review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
documented in the docket.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 
action. As noted earlier in the preamble, this rule is an 
administrative action to update the underlying implementing regulations 
for CAA Section 111(d), as applied to the MSW Landfills EG. While the 
impact of harmonizing the timing requirements of state plans on the 
costs and benefits analyzed for Executive Order 12866 of the MSW 
Landfills EG cannot be quantified due to inherent uncertainties 
described in section III.B of this preamble, the MSW Landfills EG also 
impose direct costs on state and local governments, which must develop 
state plans to meet the requirements of the rule. By adopting the new 
implementing regulations in the MSW Landfills EG, states will have a 
consistent set of requirements for all new and ongoing CAA section 110 
and 111 plans. We expect the streamlining of these requirements could 
reduce net costs and provide some burden reduction for states.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0720. Because the burden to prepare and submit a 
state plan have been fully incorporated into the MSW

[[Page 44555]]

Landfills EG, and this action does not change any of the requirements 
associated with the stringency of the rule, there are no changes to the 
previously estimated information collection burden.

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. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. 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, has no 
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. This action proposes a technical 
amendment to the MSW Landfills EG promulgated in 2016, which was 
determined not to impose any requirements on small entities due to the 
fact that EG established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any 
requirements on regulated entities and, thus, will not have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities. See 81 FR 59309-9310 (August 29, 2016) for additional 
discussion. We have, therefore, concluded that this action similarly 
will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small 
entities.

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.
    The action implements mandate(s) specifically and explicitly set 
forth in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ba without the exercise of any policy 
discretion by the EPA.

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: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. The MSW Landfills EG recognized that one tribe 
had three landfills that may potentially be subject to the EG; however, 
these landfills have already met requirements under the previous new 
source performance standards/EG framework as promulgated in 1996 (See 
81 FR 59311, August 29, 2016). Moreover, this action does not establish 
an environmental health or safety standard. Therefore, the action does 
not have a substantial direct effect on that tribe since it is merely a 
procedural change amending timing requirements for states to submit 
plans to the EPA and for the EPA to promulgate a federal plan. 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 is a procedural change and does not 
concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this 
action is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because it is a 
procedural change and does not have any impact on energy supply, 
distribution, or use.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an 
environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is a 
procedural change and the EPA does not anticipate that it will have any 
material impact on human health or the environment.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Emission guidelines, Landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, State plan.

    Dated: August 16, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR 
part 60 as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Cf--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal 
Solid Waste Landfills

0
 2. Amend Sec.  60.30f by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.30f  Scope and delegated authorities.

* * * * *

[[Page 44556]]

    (a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program in a 
state or United States protectorate with one or more existing MSW 
landfills that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction 
on or before July 17, 2014, you must submit a state plan to the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that implements the Emission 
Guidelines contained in this subpart. The requirements for state and 
federal plans are specified in subpart B of this part with the 
exception that Sec. Sec.  60.23 and 60.27 will not apply. 
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  60.20a(a) in subpart Ba of this 
part, the requirements of Sec. Sec.  60.23a and 60.27a will apply for 
state plans submitted after September 6, 2019, and federal plans, 
except that the requirements of Sec.  60.23a(a)(1) will apply to a 
notice of availability of a final guideline document that was published 
under Sec.  60.22(a). Likewise, the requirements of Sec.  60.27a(e)(1) 
will refer to a final guideline document that was published under Sec.  
60.22(a).
    (b) You must submit a state plan to the EPA by August 29, 2019.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-18233 Filed 8-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P