[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44547-44556]
[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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

* * * * *

    (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