[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 59 (Thursday, March 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17244-17282]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04800]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 59

March 26, 2020

Part III

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047; FRL-10006-05-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU18

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills source
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action to correct
and clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); revise wellhead
operational standards and corrective action to improve effectiveness
and provide compliance flexibility; reorganize rule text to incorporate
provisions from the new source performance standards (NSPS) within this
subpart; and add requirements for electronic reporting of performance
test results. The EPA is also finalizing minor changes to the MSW
Landfills NSPS and Emission Guidelines (EG) and Compliance Times for
MSW Landfills. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing provisions to the
most recent MSW Landfills NSPS and EG that would allow affected sources
to demonstrate compliance with landfill gas control, operating,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements by following the
corresponding requirements in the MSW Landfills NESHAP. These final
amendments will result in improved compliance and implementation of the
rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 26, 2020. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March
26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0047. 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 (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Andrew Sheppard, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (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>For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02),
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>For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone 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
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
EG emission guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GCCS gas collection and control system
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HOV higher operating value
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference km kilometer
LFG landfill gas
MACT maximum achievable control technology
Mg/yr megagrams per year
MSW municipal solid waste
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NMOC non-methane organic compounds
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SOE subsurface oxidation event
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On July 29, 2019, the EPA proposed
revisions to the MSW Landfills NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action,
we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize
some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the
proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of
all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to
those comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and the
EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and
Amendments for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills NESHAP, available in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047. A ``track changes'' version of the
regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is
available in the docket.
    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 and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the MSW Landfills source category and how does the
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    C. What changes did we propose for the MSW Landfills source
category in our July 29, 2019, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the MSW Landfills source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the MSW Landfills source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the MSW Landfills
NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the MSW Landfills source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the MSW Landfills Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the MSW Landfills Source Category
    C. SSM for the MSW Landfills Source Category
    D. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations 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) and
1 CFR Part 51
    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--Neshap and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NAICS \1\
                  NESHAP and source category                      code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills..............................     562212
Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management............     924110
State, Local, and Tribal Government Agencies.................     924110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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 will also be 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-national-emission-standards. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the court) by May 25, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only 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 reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator 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 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

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of

materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 36670 (July 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the MSW Landfills source category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the MSW Landfills NESHAP on January 16, 2003
(68 FR 2227). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA. As promulgated in 2003 and further amended on April 20, 2006 (71
FR 20462), the NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from MSW landfills that
are either major or area sources.
    The NESHAP applies to MSW landfills that have accepted waste since
November 8, 1987, or have additional capacity for waste deposition and
are major sources, are collocated with major sources, or are area
source landfills with a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5
million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters (m\3\) and have
estimated uncontrolled emissions equal to or greater than 50 megagrams
per year (Mg/yr) of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC). The NESHAP
also applies to MSW landfills that have accepted waste since November
8, 1987, or have additional capacity for waste deposition and include a
bioreactor and are major sources, are collocated with major sources, or
are area source landfills with a design capacity equal to or greater
than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\ that were not permanently
closed as of January 16, 2003.
    The majority of HAP emissions at MSW landfills come from the
continuous biodegradation of the MSW in the landfill and the formation
of landfill gas (LFG) emissions. LFG emissions contain methane, carbon
dioxide, and more than 100 different NMOC. The HAP emitted by MSW
landfills include, but are not limited to, vinyl chloride, ethyl
benzene, toluene, and benzene (61 FR 9906, March 12, 1996). The owner
or operator of a landfill may control the gas by routing it to a non-
enclosed flare, an enclosed combustion device, or a treatment system
that processes the collected gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use.
    The NESHAP regulates HAP emissions by requiring MSW landfills that
exceed the size and emission thresholds to install and operate a
landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS). The NESHAP achieves
emission reductions through a well-designed and well-operated landfill
GCCS with a control device (i.e., non-enclosed flare, enclosed
combustion device, or treatment system) capable of reducing NMOC by 98
percent by weight. NMOC is a surrogate for LFG. The GCCS must be
installed within 30 months after an MSW landfill that equals or exceeds
the design capacity threshold (2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\)
reaches or exceeds an NMOC emissions level of 50 Mg/yr. The landfill
must expand the system to collect gas from each area, cell, or group of
cells in the landfill in which the initial solid waste has been placed
for 5 years or more if active; or 2 years or more if closed or at final
grade. The collection and control system may be capped or removed when
the landfill is closed, the system has operated 15 years, and NMOC
emissions are below 50 Mg/yr.
    In addition, the NESHAP requires timely control of bioreactors. A
bioreactor is an MSW landfill or portion of the landfill where any
liquid other than leachate is added to the waste mass to reach a
minimum average moisture content of at least 40 percent by weight to
accelerate or enhance the biodegradation of the waste. New bioreactors
must install the GCCS in the bioreactor prior to initiating liquids
addition, regardless of whether the landfill emissions rate equals or
exceeds the estimated uncontrolled emissions rate; existing bioreactors
must install the GCCS before initiating liquids addition and must begin
operating the GCCS within 180 days after initiating liquids addition or
within 180 days after achieving a moisture content of 40 percent by
weight, whichever is later.
    Based on modeled emission estimates in the 2016 NSPS/EG datasets,
and supplementary searching of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
data (located in 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH), the EPA Landfill Methane
Outreach Program, Landfill and LFG Energy Project Database, and
selected permits, as of 2014, there were between 664 and 709 MSW
landfills subject to the LFG collection and control requirements of the
NESHAP. The exact list of facilities subject to the NESHAP is unknown
because many landfills collect site-specific data for NMOC
concentrations using the Tier 2 provisions allowed under the regulation
to compute the NMOC annual emission rates. A list of facilities
expected to be subject to the NESHAP based on modeled emissions and a
default NMOC concentration of 595 parts per million by volume (ppmv)

is available in the RTR dataset.\2\ It is estimated that these
landfills emit between 2,242 and 4,586 Mg/yr of HAP, after considering
current control requirements. Most of these emissions are fugitive
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ MSW Landfills NESHAP RTR Draft Emissions Modeling File. May
2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-national-emission-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What changes did we propose for the MSW Landfills source category in
our July 29, 2019, RTR proposal?

    On July 29, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA),
that took into consideration the RTR analyses (84 FR 36670). Based on
the risk analysis, we proposed to find that the risks from the MSW
Landfills source category are acceptable. The risk analysis estimated
that the cancer risk to the individual most exposed is below 10-in-1
million from both actual and allowable emissions (estimated cancer
incidence is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 20
years). The risk analysis also estimated a maximum chronic noncancer
target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) value below 1.
    Our risk analysis indicated the risks from this source category are
low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, we
proposed that any risk reductions to further control fugitive landfill
emissions would result in minimal health benefits (84 FR 36686, July
29, 2019). We also proposed that the current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health (84 FR 36686, July 29, 2019).
In addition, pursuant to the technology review for the MSW Landfills
source category, we proposed that no revisions to the current standards
are necessary because, after analyzing the available options, we
determined that each is either not technically feasible or the cost is
not justified for the level of emission reduction achievable (84 FR
36689, July 29, 2019).
    In addition to the proposed decisions resulting from the RTR
described above, we proposed revisions to the NESHAP to promote
consistency between MSW landfills regulations under CAA sections 111
and 112. We also proposed changes to the wellhead temperature operating
standards and associated monitoring, corrective action, and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for temperature. We proposed to adjust
provisions for GCCS removal to provide additional flexibility for
landfill owners and operators. In addition, we proposed updates to SSM
and electronic reporting requirements.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the MSW Landfills source category.
This action also finalizes other changes to the MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA), including changes to promote
consistency between MSW landfills regulations under CAA sections 111
and 112 and changes to the wellhead temperature operating standards,
including associated monitoring, corrective action, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for temperature. This final rule also
provides additional flexibility for landfill owners and operators by
adjusting the provisions for GCCS removal. In addition, SSM and
electronic reporting requirements have been updated. This action also
reflects several changes to the July 2019 RTR proposal in consideration
of comments received during the public comment period described in
section IV of this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
MSW Landfills source category?

    This section introduces the final amendments to the NESHAP being
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The risks from this source
category are low for both cancer and noncancer health effects and we
proposed that the risks are acceptable. We received only comments in
support of the proposed determination. We are finalizing our
determination that risks from this source category are acceptable and
that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are
not finalizing any revisions to the NESHAP based on our analyses
conducted under CAA section 112(f). Section IV.A.3 of this preamble
provides a summary of key comments we received regarding risk review
and our responses.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the MSW Landfills source category?

    The technology review identified three types of developments that
could lead to additional control of HAP from MSW landfills. The three
potential developments are practices to reduce HAP formation within a
landfill, to collect more LFG for control or treatment, and to achieve
a greater level of HAP destruction in the collected LFG. As stated in
the proposal preamble (84 FR 36686-36689, July 29, 2019) none of these
developments were deemed to be cost effective. We are finalizing our
determination, as proposed, that there are no developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions
to the MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not
finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the MSW landfills
standards to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. Within its
2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the
court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of
the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As detailed in
section IV.D.8 of the proposal preamble (84 FR 36693-36697, July 29,
2019), we proposed that the NESHAP standards apply at all times (see 40
CFR 63.1930(b)), consistent with the court's decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The EPA is finalizing the SSM
provisions as proposed with minimal changes.
    We are finalizing a work practice requirement that applies whenever
the GCCS is not operating. The work practice requirement appears at 40
CFR 63.1958(e) and is explained in the proposal preamble (84 FR 36695,
July 29, 2019).
    Further, the EPA is not setting separate standards for malfunction
events. As discussed in the proposal preamble (84 FR 36694, July 29,
2019), the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the
discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. Although
we are not setting separate standards for malfunction events, we are
setting a work practice standard for when the GCCS is not operating,
which could include periods of malfunction. Whenever a landfill
operator is complying with the work practice for periods when the GCCS
is not operating,

it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the
standards, and no comments were submitted that would suggest otherwise.
Refer to 84 FR 36694 of the proposal preamble for further discussion of
the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set separate standards for
malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could
take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event. The administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations, including malfunction events.
    We are also finalizing revisions to Table 1 of subpart AAAA, part
63, titled Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions to Subpart AAAA,
as explained in more detail in the SSM section of the proposal preamble
(84 FR 36693, July 29, 2019), to eliminate requirements that include
rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally,
we are finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM
that treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of
malfunction.
    The legal rationale and detailed changes for SSM periods that we
are finalizing are set forth in the proposed rule (84 FR 36693, July
29, 2019). As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble, the EPA is
making it clear that the semi-annual report must describe the date,
time, and duration of periods during which an operating standard was
exceeded, as well as when the GCCS was not operating. For more
information, see the response to comments document, titled Summary of
Public Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and
Technology Review and Amendments for the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action.

D. What other changes have been made to the MSW Landfills NESHAP?

    This rule finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several NESHAP
requirements that promote consistency among MSW landfills regulations
developed under CAA sections 111 and 112. This rule also finalizes
revisions to the 2016 NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cf) to promote consistency among MSW landfills
regulations under the CAA. Most of these changes are the same as those
proposed at 84 FR 36670 on July 29, 2019.
    This rule also finalizes minor changes to other provisions of the
NESHAP since proposal. Specific changes made since proposal are
discussed in section IV.C of this preamble. Revisions to the NESHAP,
NSPS, and EG include:
1. Reorganization of the NESHAP
    We are finalizing the reorganization of the NESHAP to incorporate
the major compliance provisions from the MSW Landfills NSPS program
directly into the NESHAP, thus, minimizing cross-referencing to other
subparts and consolidating requirements between the NSPS program and
the NESHAP. With the incorporation of the major compliance provisions
from the 2016 NSPS (subpart XXX), we, thus, incorporated revisions to
subpart XXX that were finalized in 2016. In addition, we clarified
which of the reorganized provisions apply no later than 18 months after
publication of the final rule.
2. Revisions to the 1996 NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts WWW) and the
2016 NSPS and EG (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts XXX and Cf)
    The EPA is clarifying that subpart Cf (once implemented via a state
or federal plan) supersedes subparts WWW and Cc. The final rule revises
the title and applicability of subpart WWW (at 40 CFR 60.750(a)) to
distinguish the applicability dates from other landfills subparts. We
clarify that after the effective date of an EPA-approved state or
tribal plan implementing subpart Cf, or after the effective date of a
federal plan implementing subpart Cf, owners and operators of MSW
landfills must comply with the approved and effective state, tribal, or
federal plan implementing subpart Cf instead of subpart WWW or the
state or federal plan implementing subpart Cc.
3. NSPS and EG (Subparts XXX and Cf) Opt-In Provisions for NESHAP
    We are finalizing minor edits to the 2016 NSPS and EG regulations
allowing MSW landfills affected by the NSPS and EG to demonstrate
compliance with the ``major compliance provisions'' of the NESHAP in
lieu of complying with the analogous provisions in the NSPS and EG.
This change allows landfills to follow one set of operational,
compliance, monitoring, and reporting provisions for pressure and
temperature. The differences between the landfills subparts are
identified in the memorandum titled Comparison of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) Landfills Regulations, which is available in the docket for this
action.
4. Operational Standards for Wellheads
a. Nitrogen and Oxygen Concentrations
    The EPA is finalizing the elimination of the operational standards
and the corresponding corrective action for nitrogen and oxygen
concentrations in the NESHAP for consistency with the 2016 NSPS and EG
(subparts XXX and Cf). The EPA concluded that nitrogen and oxygen
concentrations are not, by themselves, effective indicators of proper
operation of the LFG collection system (see 81 FR 59346, August 29,
2016).
b. Increased Wellhead Temperature Operating Standard
    The EPA is finalizing an increase of temperature standard to 145
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). The EPA is finalizing the increased
wellhead temperature operating standard in the NESHAP to reduce the
burden on regulated entities and delegated state, local, and tribal
agencies. This change is expected to reduce the number of requests and
burden associated with submitting and reviewing the requests for higher
operating values (HOVs) for temperature, as well as reduce the
frequency of corrective actions for exceeding the temperature limit.
This change provides landfill owners and operators greater flexibility
and autonomy with regards to wellhead monitoring and operations.
5. Corrective Action for Wellhead Operating Standards
    The EPA is finalizing the elimination of the requirements for
corrective action for nitrogen and oxygen concentrations in the NESHAP
to maintain consistency with the requirements in the 2016 NSPS and EG
(subparts XXX and Cf). The operating standard for nitrogen and oxygen
has already been eliminated in those rules. In the NESHAP, the EPA is
finalizing changes to the corrective action procedures to address
positive pressure and elevated temperature to provide flexibility to
owners or operators in determining the appropriate remedy, as well as
the timeline for implementing the remedy. The changes to the timeline
and the process for correcting for positive pressure and elevated
temperature make the NESHAP requirements consistent with the current
requirements of the NSPS and EG, except that the requirements for
corrective action procedures being proposed in the NESHAP are tied to
the exceedance of the 145 [deg]F standard, instead of the 131 [deg]F
standard that still applies in the NSPS and EG.

6. Enhanced Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting for High Wellhead
Temperatures
    The EPA is finalizing the addition of enhanced wellhead monitoring
and visual inspection requirements for any landfill with wellhead
temperature exceeding 145 [deg]F. Enhanced monitoring in the final rule
involves weekly observations for subsurface oxidation events (SOE), as
well as weekly monitoring of wellhead temperature, carbon monoxide
(CO), oxygen, and methane using an analyzer that meets all quality
assurance and quality control requirements for EPA Methods 10, 3C, or
18. Enhanced monitoring begins 7 days after the first reading exceeding
145 [deg]F is recorded and continues until the measured wellhead
operating temperature is 145 [deg]F or less, or an HOV is approved. The
proposed rule required a landfill to continue weekly enhanced
monitoring until an HOV was approved or until the LFG temperature at
the wellhead reached less than or equal to 62.8 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) (145 [deg]F). In the final rule, the EPA is allowing monthly
CO monitoring if the wellhead has CO readings below 100 ppmv for four
consecutive weeks. If the CO level exceeds 100 ppmv again, the landfill
must return to weekly monitoring (see section IV.D of this preamble).
Consistent with our proposal, the final rule requires enhanced
monitoring data to be submitted in the semi-annual report and
maintained as records. The EPA is finalizing the enhanced monitoring
requirements as proposed except for the following changes:
     The EPA is removing the proposed requirement for an
independent laboratory analysis of each CO measurement (see section
IV.D of this preamble).
     The EPA is finalizing the proposed 24-hour electronic
report for any well with highly elevated temperature (76.7 [deg]C or
170 [deg]F) and CO readings (40 CFR 63.1981(k)). In the final rule, the
EPA reduced the CO threshold for the 24-hour electronic report from
1,500 ppmv to 1,000 ppmv (see section IV.D of this preamble). The EPA
adjusted the corresponding corrective action for wells that have any
wellhead temperature reading of 170 [deg]F or above and CO reading of
1,000 ppmv. The report is not required for landfills that have an HOV
approved by the Administrator.
     The EPA is finalizing the proposed downwell monitoring.
However, in the final rule, downwell monitoring is conducted annually,
instead of weekly. Additionally, the annual downwell monitoring is only
required for wellheads that have any temperature reading of 165 [deg]F
or above (see section IV.D of this preamble).
7. Criteria for Removing GCCS
    The EPA is finalizing as proposed the added flexibility to the
NESHAP for determining when it is appropriate to cap, remove, or
decommission a portion of the GCCS (40 CFR 63.1957(b)). The NESHAP
requires three criteria to be met to remove controls: (1) The landfill
is closed, (2) the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is
less than 50 Mg/yr on three successive test dates, and (3) the GCCS has
operated for at least 15 years. In this final rule, we updated the
third criterion to allow the landfill owner or operator to choose
between the 15 years of GCCS operation or demonstrate that the GCCS
will be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows.
8. Definition of Cover Penetration
    To clarify the implementation concerns, the EPA is finalizing as
proposed the phrase, ``. . . at all cover penetrations'' to the
regulatory text of the NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1958(d)), consistent with this
phrase in the 2016 NSPS and EG (subparts XXX and Cf). We are also
adding a definition of cover penetration as proposed. At 40 CFR
63.1958(d), we are clarifying the surface monitoring provisions by
requiring monitoring at any ``cover penetrations'' rather than at ``any
openings.'' And we are clarifying that the landfill owner or operator
must determine the latitude and longitude coordinates ``of each
exceedance.''
9. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is requiring owners and operators of new or modified MSW
landfills to electronically submit required performance test reports,
NMOC Emission Rate Reports, Bioreactor 40-percent moisture reports, and
semi-annual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) (40 CFR
63.1981(l)). The final rule requires that performance test results be
submitted using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). Alternatively, MSW
landfills may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible
markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. For more
details, see the Electronic Reporting section of the proposal preamble
(84 FR 36693, July 29, 2019). For NMOC Emission Rate Reports,
Bioreactor 40-percent moisture reports, and semi-annual reports, the
final rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate
spreadsheet template/forms to submit information to CEDRI when it
becomes available on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri). The electronic submittal of the reports
addressed in this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data
contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data
availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of
public health and the environment, will improve compliance by
facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate
compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of
delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the
EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes,
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the
EPA, and the public. For a more thorough discussion of electronic
reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047.
10. Other Clarifications and Changes To Conform With the NSPS
    In 2016, the EPA finalized its review of the 1996 NSPS (40 CFR part
60, subpart WWW) and made revisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) to
simplify and streamline implementation of the rule. Note that some of
the revisions were proposed as early as 2002 and 2006. With the
incorporation of compliance provisions from the NSPS into the NESHAP as
part of this rulemaking, we are likewise finalizing the following
provisions from the NSPS:
     Allowing the use of portable gas composition analyzers to
monitor the oxygen level at a wellhead (40 CFR 63.1961(a)).
     Requiring owners and operators to report more precise
locational data for each surface emissions exceedance to provide a more
robust and long-term record of GCCS performance and more easily locate
and correct breaches in the landfill cover (40 CFR 63.1961(f)).
     Refining the criteria for updating a design plan by
requiring landfill owners or operators to submit an updated design plan
for approval based on the following criteria: (1) Within 90 days of

expanding operations to an area not covered by the previously approved
design plan; and (2) before installing or expanding the gas collection
system in a way that is not consistent to the previous design plan (40
CFR 63.1981(e)).
     Clarifying that in addition to use as a fuel for
stationary combustion devices, use of treated LFG also includes other
uses such as the production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas
for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical
manufacturing process (40 CFR 63.1959(b)).
     Standardizing the terms ``control system'' and
``collection and control system'' in the NESHAP in order to use
consistent terminology throughout the regulatory text.
     Exempting owners/operators of boilers and process heaters
with design capacities of 44 megawatts or greater from the requirement
to conduct an initial performance test since large boilers and process
heaters consistently achieve the required level of control (67 FR
36478, May 23, 2002).
     Removing the term ``combustion'' from the requirement to
monitor temperature of enclosed combustors to clarify that temperature
could be monitored at another location, as long as the monitored
temperature relates to proper operation of the enclosed combustor (71
FR 53276, September 8, 2006).
     Refining definitions to ensure consistent use across
federal landfills regulations (40 CFR 63.1990) of the terms: Treated
landfill gas, Treatment system, Modification, Household waste, and
Segregated yard waste.
11. Closed Areas
    The EPA is maintaining the current approach to closed areas so that
landfills subject to both the 2016 NSPS and EG and the NESHAP have a
streamlined set of requirements to follow. The 2016 NSPS and EG allow
landfill owners or operators to model NMOC emissions or take actual
measurements of NMOC emissions at physically separated, closed areas of
open landfills. The EPA has not expanded the term ``closed area'' to
include areas that are not physically separated (e.g., separately
lined).
12. Changes to Definitions
    The EPA expanded the list of definitions in the NESHAP to create a
list that improves consistency between the 2016 NSPS, 1996 NSPS, and
the NESHAP. The changes fall into the following categories:
     The 2003 MSW Landfills NESHAP included eight definitions.
Five of these definitions remain the same. The EPA made changes to two
of the original defined phrases. One of these phrases also has had a
definition change. The original definition for ``deviation'' has been
refined to reflect the updated SSM requirements.
     The EPA added a new definition for ``cover penetration''
based on public comments.
     To address public comments about definition consistency,
the EPA included an additional 32 definitions that correspond to
definitions in NSPS subparts XXX, WWW, or both. The EPA made minor
updates to reflect current regulation references.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on March 26, 2020.
    The compliance date for existing sources is January 16, 2004.
    New sources must comply by January 16, 2003, or upon startup,
whichever is later.
    The compliance dates remain the same as proposed. The EPA is
allowing facilities up to 18 months after March 26, 2020, to begin
complying with the final rule. Affected MSW landfills must continue to
comply with the existing requirements until they meet the new
requirements.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the MSW Landfills source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, please
see the comment summaries and the EPA's Response to Comments document,
which are available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the MSW Landfills Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the MSW
Landfills source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the July 29, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA (84 FR 36670). The results of the risk assessment are presented
briefly in Table 2 of this preamble. More detail is in the residual
risk technical support document, Residual Risk Assessment for the MSW
Landfills Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.

                                                Table 2--MSW Landfills Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Maximum individual lifetime cancer                                Based on actual emissions
                                       risk (in 1 million) \2\       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               --------------------------------------    Estimated       Estimated       Estimated
   Number of facilities \1\                                            population at   population at   annual cancer   Maximum chronic       Maximum
                                 Based on actual        Based on      increased risk  increased risk     incidence     noncancer TOSHI   screening acute
                                emissions \3\ . .      allowable       of cance >=1-  of cancer >=10-   (cases per           \4\        noncancer hazard
                                        .           emissions . . .    in-1 million    in-1  million       year)                          quotient (HQ)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
706...........................  10 (p-             10 (p-                     18,300              11            0.04  0.1 (neuro-       HQREL\5\ = 0.07
                                 dichlorobenzene,   dichlorobenzene,                                                   logical).         (chloroform).
                                 ethyl benzene,     ethyl benzene,
                                 benzene).          benzene).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Whole facility emissions are equal to actual emissions and have the same risk.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ systems with the highest TOSHI for the source category are neurological, with risk driven by emissions of
  trichloroethylene, m-xylene, xylenes (mixed), and tetrachloroethene from fugitive emissions.
\5\ Reference Exposure Level (REL).

    The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk
assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual,
allowable, and whole facility emissions under the NESHAP, the maximum
individual risk posed by the source category is 10-in-1 million. The
total estimated cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is
0.04

excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 25 years. The total
estimated cancer incidence based on allowable emission levels is 0.05
excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 20 years. Fugitive air
emissions of benzene-based pollutants contributed approximately 50
percent to the cancer incidence. The population exposed to cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million based upon actual emissions is
18,300. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to
10-in-1 million based upon actual emissions is 11. No individuals or
groups are exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The
screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts indicates that no
pollutants exceed an acute HQ value of 1 based upon the REL. Because
none of the screening HQs were greater than 1, further refinement of
the estimates was not warranted. A separate assessment of inhalation
risk from facility-wide emissions was unnecessary because facility-wide
emissions were the same as source category emissions. The multipathway
risk screening assessment resulted in a maximum Tier 2 noncancer
screening value of less than 1 for mercury. Mercury was the only
persistent and bioaccumulative HAP emitted by the source category.
Based on these results, we are confident that the human-health
noncancer risks are below a level of concern. Mercury was the only
environmental HAP identified from the category and the ecological risk
screening assessment indicated that all modeled points were below the
Tier 1 screening threshold. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category.
    We weighed all human health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from the MSW
Landfills source category are acceptable. We then considered whether
the NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
and whether more stringent standards were necessary to prevent an
adverse environmental effect, by taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors. In determining whether the
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
we examined the same risk factors that we investigated for our
acceptability determination and also considered the costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might reduce risk (or potential risks)
associated with emissions from the source category. Our risk analysis
indicated the risks from this source category are low for both cancer
and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any additional emissions
reductions would result in minimal health benefits or reductions in
risk. We note that fugitive landfill emissions result in 84 percent of
the cancer incidence for this source category. Based upon results of
the risk analysis and our evaluation of the technical feasibility and
cost of the option(s) to reduce landfill fugitive emissions, we
proposed that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to
protect the public health. We also proposed, based on the results of
our environmental screening assessment, that more stringent standards
are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the MSW Landfills source
category?
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
    We received comments that were generally supportive of the proposed
residual risk review and our determination that no revisions were
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the MSW Landfills source
category. Commenters stated that the EPA's residual risk review
approach was sufficiently conservative in its assumptions relating to
facility emission profiles and supported the EPA's conclusion that the
residual risk is acceptable and provides an ample margin of safety. One
commenter stated that the modeling includes conservative features that
is consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
conforms to many state programs and that EPA appropriately considered
maximum exposed individuals, multi-pathway assessments, as well as
specific populations by census blocks near actual facilities. The
commenter also stated the EPA's emission factor data used for the
proposed NESHAP is comprehensive considering the number of facilities
referenced and the number of analytes assessed. However, another
commenter expressed concern regarding the EPA's use of emission factors
calculated using 2008 AP-42,\3\ Chapter 2.4. The commenter stated that
the modeling inputs were based on use of draft emission factors from an
AP-42 section that was proposed in 2008 and remains a draft. The
commenter stated that the use of a draft section creates confusion
regarding the information it contains and sets an unclear precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. EPA, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 1995.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the comment that the use of draft AP-42 emission
factors introduces confusion or sets precedent for using these factors
in other regulations. In the development of the risk analysis, we
documented the rationale for using the emission factors from 2008 AP-42
Chapter 2.4 in the docketed memorandum, Residual Risk Modeling File
Documentation for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source
Category.\4\ Specifically, the 2008 AP-42 draft emission factor data,
with subsequent adjustments made to reflect comments received on the
draft for the risk analysis, represent the best available data for HAP
emissions from landfills. The 1998 Final AP-42 chapter had factors for
only 23 HAP, whereas the updated factors used in the risk analysis
cover 49 HAP derived from a significantly larger dataset. By including
a larger number of HAP in the factors used in the risk analysis, the
analysis was conservative. The EPA is not suggesting in this preamble
or in background documentation that the factors used are appropriate
for other permitting or regulatory uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Appendix 1, Section 7 to docket item, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. May
2019. Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047-0091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After review of these comments, we determined that no changes
needed to be made to the underlying risk assessment methodology. The
comments and our specific responses can be found in the response to
comments document titled Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's
Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and Amendments
for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills NESHAP, which is available in
the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks from the MSW
Landfills source category are acceptable, and the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent
an adverse environmental

effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing
the risk review as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the MSW Landfills Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the MSW
Landfills source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed to conclude that no
revisions to the current NESHAP are necessary (section IV.C of the
proposal preamble 84 FR 36686). In conducting the review, we identified
developments in work practices and technologies to reduce HAP
formation, collect additional HAP, and destroy additional HAP from MSW
landfills. We ruled out developments in waste diversion programs, which
can reduce HAP formation, as technically infeasible, because programs
to ban or recycle wastes instead of placing the wastes in the landfill
are not typically under the control of landfill owners or operators. We
analyzed the costs and emission reductions associated with earlier gas
collection strategies, including a lower NMOC threshold and shortening
the time in which a GCCS is required to expand into new areas of the
landfill. Based on these analyses, we concluded that these options are
not cost effective for HAP. We also analyzed the cost and emission
reductions associated with destroying additional HAP in higher
efficiency flares, and based on these analyses, we concluded that these
options are not cost effective for HAP.
2. How did the technology review change for the MSW Landfills source
category?
    We have not changed any aspect of the technology review since the
July 29, 2019, proposal for the MSW Landfills source category.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    The comments received by the EPA on the technology review were
generally supportive, with only one commenter challenging the EPA's
findings regarding GCCS installation lag times. One commenter agreed
that the EPA's findings regarding mandated source separation, earlier
LFG collection, criteria, and timeframe for removing GCCS, early
installation of landfill cover systems, enclosed flares, thermal
oxidizers, energy recovery projects, and use of biocovers were
infeasible, not cost-effective, or did not result in emissions
reductions. Another commenter noted the limited innovation in HAP-
reducing technologies and requested increased government funding for
research in this area. One commenter challenged the EPA's determination
that earlier gas collection, via shorter expansion lag times, is not
economically feasible and asked the EPA to reevaluate its
determination.
    The EPA has not revised the technology review for the NESHAP to
analyze the costs of shorter expansion lag times for certain landfills.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that shorter lag times are
commercially available. However, the installation of well components to
achieve these shorter lag times requires site-specific analysis. For
example, the timing of well installation is affected by waste placement
patterns and annual acceptance rates. The EPA explored shorter lag
times as part of the review for the 2016 NSPS and EG and received
several comments related to site-specific costs and safety concerns
associated with reduced lag times, urging the EPA to retain flexibility
in any lag-time adjustments. See 79 FR 41807 (July 17, 2014) and 80 FR
52121 (August 27, 2015) for more details. The EPA has not received any
comments suggesting that the cost and safety concerns brought forth as
part of the 2016 rulemaking have changed, and as a result, no changes
to the lag times are being finalized.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    As explained in the proposal preamble (84 FR 36686, July 29, 2019),
we conducted a technology review to identify developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that may warrant revisions to the
current NESHAP. We identified three types of developments that could
lead to additional control of HAP from MSW landfills, but we determined
that there are no cost-effective developments in practices, processes,
or control technologies to warrant revisions to the standards. We also
evaluated the public comments on the EPA's technology review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. More information
concerning our technology review is in the memorandum titled CAA
section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the MSW Landfills Source
Category, in the docket for this action, and in the preamble to the
proposed rule (84 FR 36686-36689, July 29, 2019). Therefore, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing the results of the
technology review as proposed.

C. SSM for the MSW Landfills Source Category

1. What did we propose for the MSW Landfills source category?
    We proposed amendments to the NESHAP to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement
that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the
elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 36693).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the MSW Landfills source
category?
    We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed (84 FR 36693, July
29, 2019) with the minor changes described in section IV.C.3 of this
preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions and what are
our responses?
    We received two comments related to our proposed revisions to the
SSM provisions. The first commenter agreed that the NESHAP must apply
at all times and with the approach of applying a work practice standard
under CAA section 112(h) during periods of SSM. The second commenter
requested that the EPA clarify that SSM events be reported as stated in
the proposal preamble (84 FR 36696, July 29, 2019). A summary of the
SSM comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments
is available in the response to comments document titled Summary of
Public Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and
Technology Review and Amendments for the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills NESHAP, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0047.
    The first commenter agreed that the work practice requirements of
proposed 40 CFR 63.1958(e) are appropriate and consistent with a well-
designed and operated LFG collection system. However, the commenter
objected to the EPA's proposed preamble statements and rule revisions
that specify that compliance with these provisions during SSM does not
necessarily constitute compliance with the NESHAP. The commenter stated
that these provisions are inconsistent with prior EPA decisions about
appropriate landfill operation and are not compelled by the Sierra Club
v. EPA decision.
    Landfill emissions are produced by a continuous biological process
that cannot be stopped or restarted. Therefore, the primary concern
related to SSM is with malfunction of the landfill GCCS and associated
monitoring equipment, not with the

startup or shutdown of the entire source. The SSM periods that are
covered by the proposed additional work practice standard of 40 CFR
63.1958(e) are those periods when the landfill GCCS and associated
monitoring equipment are not operating for any reason. During such
periods, excess emissions to the atmosphere will occur. This additional
work practice requires the owner or operator to shut down all valves in
the collection and control system contributing to venting of the gas to
the atmosphere within 1 hour and to minimize the downtime for making
repairs to the collection and control system. Although this additional
practice is necessary to reduce emissions associated with a GCCS
outage, to minimize emissions also requires actions to prevent the
shutdown of the GCCS. Although we agree with the commenter that some
unavoidable circumstances may require that the GCCS system be shut down
for short periods of time (e.g., for tying in a system expansion,
repair, and preventative maintenance), the frequency of shutdowns also
can be affected by carelessness, ineffective operation and maintenance
procedures, failure to properly train landfill operations staff, and
other site-specific factors. Actions to prevent the shutdown of a GCCS
may include a preventative maintenance program, expeditious repair or
replacement of equipment that frequently fails, the use of valves and
bypass systems to segregate portions of the GCCS that are undergoing
expansion, maintenance, or repairs from those portions that are
unaffected by the work, and the use of redundant equipment and controls
so that the system can remain online even if one component fails to
operate properly. Additional reasonable steps include the controls of
vehicular equipment on the landfill to avoid damage to the GCCS or
crushed pipes. This may include speed limits and traffic routes that
avoid passing over buried ductwork or other equipment.
    Another commenter requested the EPA clarify that SSM events be
reported as stated in the proposal preamble (84 FR 36696, July 29,
2019) in order to evaluate whether the general duty to minimize
emissions is being met. The commenter stated that while the preamble
stated that reporting will be required (84 FR 36696, July 29, 2019),
the rule only requires records of SSM events.
    The EPA proposed to add recordkeeping requirements for startup and
shutdown to 40 CFR 63.1983(c) (84 FR 36696, July 29, 2019). Because 40
CFR 63.1958(e) specifies a different standard for periods when the GCCS
is not operating under normal conditions (which would include periods
of startup, shutdown, and maintenance or repair), we noted that it will
be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and
end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard.
Thus, we proposed language in 40 CFR 63.1983(c)(6) to require that a
landfill owner or operator report the date, time, and duration of each
startup and shutdown period. However, the paragraphs we cited in the
preamble and revised in the rule require only the records of such
events.
    The EPA agrees with the commenter that recordkeeping and reporting
for SSM events needs to be clarified in the final rule. Thus, the EPA
revised 40 CFR 63.1981(h)(1) to make it clear that the semi-annual
report must describe the date, time, and duration of periods during
which an operating standard was exceeded, as well as when the GCCS was
not operating. The semi-annual report in 40 CFR 63.1981(h) does not
require separate reporting of SSM events, but every exceedance,
including when operating standards are exceeded and when the GCCS is
not operating, must be reported including during SSM.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    We evaluated the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that the proposed amendments appropriately remove and revise
provisions related to SSM not consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More information concerning the
amendments we are finalizing for SSM is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (84 FR 36693, July 29, 2019). Therefore, we are finalizing our
approach for the SSM provisions as proposed with the clarifications
described in section IV.C.3 of this preamble.

D. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

1. Enhanced Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting for Elevated
Wellhead Temperature
    Given concerns with fire risks from elevated temperatures, and the
fact that parameters other than temperature can be indicators of a SOE,
we proposed enhanced wellhead monitoring and visual inspections for
subsurface oxidation events (40 CFR 63.1961(a)), and in some cases more
frequent reporting (40 CFR 63.1981(k)), for any landfill with wellhead
temperature exceeding 145 [deg]F. The proposed enhanced monitoring
included weekly monitoring of CO, oxygen, and methane. For each CO
measurement, the EPA proposed to require an independent laboratory
analysis (84 FR 36691, July 29, 2019). As part of enhanced monitoring,
the EPA proposed weekly temperature monitoring every 10 vertical feet
down the well (downwell monitoring).
    Several commenters expressed concerns with the requirement for
independent laboratory CO testing. One commenter observed that
laboratory testing is expensive, and three commenters stated that
requiring laboratory testing would extend the response time and not
provide timely information that can help the landfill owner or operator
improve compliance. One commenter also noted several concerns with the
logistics of independent laboratory analysis, including concerns with
the proposed test methods and sample transportation.
    The EPA agrees with commenters that independent laboratory analysis
could present logistical challenges and potentially increase costs.
Shipping passivated canisters or multi-layer foil gas sampling bags
could require specialized shipping and could delay results that could
improve operation of the GCCS. Therefore, based on public comments, the
EPA is removing the requirement for an independent laboratory to
analyze each CO measurement. In the final rule, landfill owners or
operators have the option to collect the sample and conduct analysis
on-site, using purchased or rented equipment that meets the
requirements of EPA Method 10. This could generate results quicker,
enabling the owner or operator to adjust the GCCS in a more timely
manner. Conducting the analysis on-site would also prevent the need to
package and ship the canisters or bags, thus, saving shipping costs and
eliminating the logistical concerns of shipping the samples.
    One commenter expressed concerns with the indefinite term of the
enhanced monitoring. The commenter advised that if CO readings are less
than 1,500 ppmv, monitoring should not be required indefinitely, but
instead cease after 3 consecutive months. The commenter observed that
this approach is consistent with the requirements of the consent
decrees in the docket and with historical HOV demonstrations.
    Regarding when to stop enhanced CO monitoring, the EPA agrees with
commenters because the weekly enhanced monitoring is not intended to
continue indefinitely. In the proposal, there were two means to stop
enhanced

weekly CO monitoring. Enhanced monitoring could be stopped once an HOV
is approved, at which time the monitoring provisions issued with the
HOV should be followed (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(viii)). Alternatively, the
enhanced monitoring could stop once the measurement of LFG temperature
at the wellhead is below 145 [deg]F (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(viii)). In
the final rule, the EPA is retaining these two means to stop enhanced
CO monitoring. The EPA is also providing an opportunity to reduce the
frequency of monitoring in the final rule while still maintaining
sufficient data availability of wellhead parameters for those wells
that consistently operate at higher temperatures. Specifically, the EPA
is extending the frequency of enhanced monitoring. Enhanced monitoring
must be conducted on a weekly basis. However, if four consecutive
weekly CO readings are below 100 ppmv, then monitoring may be decreased
to a monthly basis. If the CO level exceeds 100 ppmv again, the
landfill must return to weekly monitoring. Additionally, the EPA is
specifically clarifying in the final rule that HOVs that have been
previously approved under another MSW Landfill NSPS or EG regulation
will not have to seek pre-approval for that HOV under the provisions in
the NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)).
    One commenter expressed concern with the proposed 1,500 ppmv
threshold for CO, asserting that 1,000 ppmv would be a more reasonable
upper limit for detecting or preventing landfill fires. The EPA agrees
with the commenter. The EPA reexamined the MSW Landfills consent
decrees cited in the proposed rule; documents from CalRecycle, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Solid Waste Association of North America. These
documents (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047) all cite a 1,000
ppmv CO concentration as an indication of an underground landfill fire,
in combination with other factors. Additionally, a guidance document
from the Ohio EPA for subsurface heating events refers to the CO
concentration cited in the FEMA and CalRecycle documents. Two of the
consent decrees, Forward and Central Maui, require 24-hour electronic
notification to the delegated authority for any CO reading of 1,000
ppmv or above. For these reasons, the EPA is reducing the reporting
threshold for CO from 1,500 ppmv to 1,000 ppmv in the final rule.
    One commenter expressed support for the downwell temperature
reading requirement. However, another commenter warned that the
downwell monitoring may not be achievable or yield meaningful data,
noting that installation of thermocouples to measure well temperature
may not be possible on a well that is already constructed due to
shifting in the well as settlement occurs. The commenter also noted
that if wells have been raised with solid pipe, or the boring log does
not provide accurate as-built information, the data may not be
meaningful. Another commenter requested that the EPA eliminate the
downwell temperature monitoring requirement. The commenter observed
that the EPA claims that the proposed enhanced monitoring for well
temperature is intended to facilitate the detection of a subsurface
fire, yet the solid waste industry has long recognized that subsurface
fires occur near the surface, require oxygen, are visually
recognizable, and are addressed with known remedies. The commenter
asserted that weekly downwell measurements could be counter-productive
and inconsistent with the GCCS best management practices or challenging
to implement.
    The EPA reexamined the consent decrees and supporting documents and
agrees with the commenters that weekly downwell monitoring could be
potentially burdensome to implement. Requirements for conducting
downwell temperature monitoring is in only the referenced consent
decrees and not prescribed in the other supporting documents. Although
the 2009 Ohio EPA best management practices document \5\ suggests that
inter-well and intra-well temperature data may be useful, it does not
require those data in all cases. For these reasons, the EPA is reducing
the frequency of downwell monitoring from weekly to annually. Annual
downwell temperature monitoring will provide more robust data on waste
temperatures throughout the radius of influence of the well. In
addition, the EPA is increasing the wellhead temperature threshold that
triggers downwell monitoring. In the final rule, downwell monitoring is
required for wellhead temperatures of 165 [deg]F or greater rather than
145 [deg]F. The EPA believes the downwell monitoring data to be
critical for assessing the operations of wells with these higher
temperatures in order to minimize fire risks. The EPA expects that
these changes will reduce the burden and implementation challenges
associated with downwell monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Ohio EPA. Guidance Document for Higher Operating Value
Demonstrations. http://web.epa.state.oh.us/eBusinessCenter/Agency/DAPC/HOV%20Demonstration.doc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the EPA has changed the frequency of CO monitoring and
downwell temperature monitoring, the EPA has modified the requirement
to include a well-specific summary trend analysis in the semi-annual
report (40 CFR 63.1981(h)(8)(ii)) to remove the downwell temperature
and recognizes that CO monitoring may occur on a monthly or weekly
basis depending on the level at the well. Additionally, the EPA has
removed the requirement to submit a 24-hour high temperature report if
the well is subject to an approved HOV for temperature (40 CFR
63.1981(k)).
    The EPA has also adjusted the enhanced monitoring provisions at 40
CFR 63.1961(a)(5) to remove the upper bound limitation of 170 [deg]F.
Enhanced monitoring should continue until both this temperature level
and a CO level of 1,000 ppmv have been reached, at which point the
provisions 40 CFR 63.1960(a)(4)(i)(D) and 63.1981(k) apply. Consistent
with the proposed preamble (80 FR 36692, July 29, 2019), high
temperatures in combination with high levels of CO are considered a
positive indication of an active underground fire. The EPA has adjusted
the requirements for the records and reports associated with these
enhanced monitoring data to remove the upper bound limitation.
2. Delegation of Authority
    Commenters expressed concerns with the EPA's proposed delegation of
authority language (40 CFR 63.1985(c)). The EPA proposed at 40 CFR
63.1985(c) that the EPA will not delegate ``approval of alternatives to
the standards'' in 40 CFR 63.1955-63.1962, which the commenters
interpreted to include authority to approve alternatives to monitoring
(i.e., HOVs). Thus, the commenters contend that the language restricts
delegated state or local agencies from approving or disapproving HOVs
and other alternatives that are needed to reflect a source's site-
specific conditions. The commenters claim that the proposed provision
will lead to confusion in the compliance and enforcement work of the
delegated states or create conflicts wherein a state agency and the EPA
disagree. One commenter contended that the proposal allows the EPA to
approve an HOV by incorporating additional monitoring requirements. The
commenter questioned whether incorporation of applicable NSPS-required
limits and corrective actions in the title V permits would preclude the
applicability of flexibility outside these terms. Another commenter was
concerned that the

NESHAP was much more restrictive in the items that could be delegated
than the NSPS and that this would create conflict between the EPA and
delegated authorities.
    The EPA disagrees that proposed 40 CFR 63.1985(c) includes
authority to approve HOVs. The EPA did not intend to preclude state or
local agencies from approving or disapproving HOVs and other
alternatives that are needed to reflect a source's site-specific
conditions. The final NESHAP directly incorporates the major compliance
provisions of the NSPS rules (subparts WWW and XXX). Consistent with
the NSPS rules, the final NESHAP allows owners or operators to
establish an HOV for temperature at a particular well (40 CFR
63.1958(c)(1)). The owner or operator must submit a request for an HOV,
along with supporting data, to the Administrator for approval. Also
consistent with the NSPS rules, the collection and control system
design plan may include for Administrator approval collection and
control systems that include any alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions. The Administrator or delegated
authority would review and approve the HOV or design plan.
    The EPA recognizes that proposed 40 CFR 63.1985(c) does not reflect
its intent and may have caused confusion. In 40 CFR 63.1985(c), the EPA
retains authority to approve ``alternatives to the standards'' in 40
CFR 63.1955-63.1962. Commenters incorrectly interpreted that the term
``alternative emission standards'' includes authority to approve HOVs.
The term ``emission standards'' is defined in 40 CFR 60.21(f) as ``a
legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of
emissions into the atmosphere, establishing an allowance system, or
prescribing equipment specifications for control of air pollution
emissions.'' The EPA intends the use of the phrase ``alternative
emission standards'' to refer to the ``Standards'' for MSW landfill
emissions in 40 CFR 63.1955-63.1962. The EPA does not intend
``alternative emission standards'' to include alternatives for wellhead
monitoring in 40 CFR 63.1958. The EPA also does not intend to retain
authority to review and approve gas collection and control design
plans.
    Thus, based on public comments, the EPA is revising 40 CFR
63.1985(c) to reflect the EPA's intent, which is not to preclude states
or other delegated authorities from approving HOVs and design plans.
The EPA will delegate authority to approve HOVs and design plans.
However, consistent with the NSPS, the final rule retains the EPA's
authority to approve alternative methods for determining the NMOC
concentration in 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(3) and a site-specific methane
generation rate constant in 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(4).
3. Technical Corrections
    Based on public comments, the EPA made several technical
corrections and clarifications to make clear the requirements of the
regulation.
     40 CFR 60.38f(k) and 60.767(j). Clarified that if an MSW
landfill owner or operator is complying with the major compliance
provisions of the NESHAP, then the owner or operator must follow the
corrective action and the corresponding timeline reporting requirements
in the NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1981(j)) in lieu of the corresponding timeline
reporting requirements of the EG or NSPS, respectively.
     40 CFR 60.39f(e)(6). Corrected a typographical error.
Removed the word ``you'' and retained ``owner or operator.''
     40 CFR 60.750. Clarified that an affected MSW landfill
continues to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW until it becomes
subject to the more stringent requirements in an approved and effective
state or federal plan that implements 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf of
this part, or until it modifies or reconstructs after July 17, 2014,
and, thus, becomes subject to subpart XXX.
     40 CFR 60.768(e)(6). Corrected a typographical error.
Removed the word ``you'' and retained ``owner or operator.''
     40 CFR 63.1947(a)(2). Corrected typographical error. Refer
to 40 CFR 63.1982(c) and (d) instead of 40 CFR 63.1980(g) and (h) for
moisture calculations.
     40 CFR 63.1955(a). Clarified that alternatives to the
operational standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures,
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting provisions that have already
been approved under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX can be used to comply
with the NESHAP.
     40 CFR 63.1960(a)(4)(i). Corrected typographical error.
Removed the phrase, ``for the purpose of identifying whether excess air
infiltration exists'' because the phrase does not apply to temperature.
     40 CFR 63.1960(a)(4)(i)(D). Clarified that if the LFG
temperature measured at either the wellhead or at any point in the well
is greater than or equal to 76.7 [deg]C (170 [deg]F) and the CO
concentration measured is greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmv, the
owner or operator must complete the corrective action(s) for the
wellhead temperature standard (62.8 [deg]C or 145 [deg]F) within 15
days.
     40 CFR 63.1960(e). Corrected reference from 40 CFR
63.1958(c) to 40 CFR 63.1958(e) to refer to SSM requirements.
     40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5). Clarified that landfills with
previously approved HOVs for temperature under various landfills
subparts are not required to conduct enhanced monitoring.
     40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(vii). Corrected reference from
paragraph (a)(4) to (a)(5) to reference enhanced monitoring
requirements.
     40 CFR 63.1981(h)(1), (h)(1)(i), and (h)(1)(ii). Clarified
that the semi-annual report must include the date, time, and duration
of ``each exceedance'' of the applicable monitoring parameters, not
``each failure.''
     40 CFR 63.1983(e)(2)(i). Corrected paragraph numbering to
be (i), (ii), and (iii) instead of (i), (i), and (ii) and corrected
cross-reference to the enhanced monitoring provisions in 40 CFR
63.1961(a)(5).
     40 CFR 63.1990. Definition of controlled landfill.
Clarified that the landfill is a controlled landfill when a collection
and control system design plan is submitted in compliance with 40 CFR
60.752(b)(2)(i) or in compliance with 40 CFR 63.1959(b)(2)(i),
regardless of whether that submittal is within 18 months after date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
     Table 1 to subpart AAAA of part 63. Expanded to indicate
which initial notifications apply before and which notifications apply
after the date 18 months after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. Added ``Yes'' entries for 40 CFR 63.6(i) and (j), and
40 CFR 63.10(a) to show applicability after the initial 18-month
timeframe. Added a ``No'' entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c).

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    We anticipate that approximately 738 active or closed MSW landfills
in the United States and territories will be affected by these final
amendments in the year 2023. This number is based on all landfills that
accepted waste after November 8, 1987, that have a design capacity of
at least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\. In addition, this number
reflects the subset of landfills meeting these two criteria with
modeled emission estimates of 50 Mg/yr NMOC or greater that have
installed controls on or before 2023. While the EPA

recognizes some uncertainty regarding which landfills have actually
exceeded the emission threshold, given the allowance of sites to
estimate emissions using Tiers 1, 2, or 3, and the site-specific nature
of NMOC concentrations, the number of MSW landfills that are collocated
with major sources and, therefore, also subject to control requirements
under this rule is also unknown. Therefore, 738 is the best estimate of
the affected sources.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The final amendments are expected to have a minimal impact on air
quality. While these amendments do not require stricter control
requirements or work practice standards on landfills to comply with the
proposed amendments, some landfills may find that the adjustments made
to the oxygen, nitrogen, and temperature wellhead standards finalized
herein provide enough operational flexibility to install, expand, and
operate additional voluntary GCCS, which could reduce emissions. The
other proposed revisions that affect testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting will ensure that the GCCS equipment
continues to perform as expected and provide reliable data from each
facility to be reported for compliance.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The EPA has estimated $0 compliance costs for all new and existing
sources affected by this final rule, beyond what is already required
under the existing NESHAP and what is already included in the
previously approved information collection activities contained in the
existing NESHAP (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number
2060-0505), as described in section VI.C of this preamble. Furthermore,
landfills accepting waste after November 8, 1987, must comply with the
similar, yet, more stringent requirements of the 2016 NSPS or a plan
implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. Many of the changes in these
amendments better align the NESHAP with the requirements of the NSPS
and plans implementing subpart Cf. These changes simplify compliance,
which in turn could reduce costs. For example, elimination of the
wellhead operating standards for oxygen and nitrogen to match
requirements in the NSPS will reduce the number of requests for HOVs,
which in turn could decrease compliance costs.
    The EPA maintains that final changes to enhanced monitoring for
wellhead temperature are not estimated to incur a cost. The EPA is
finalizing a temperature standard that is 14 [deg]F higher than the
standard that currently exists in the baseline regulations in order to
provide additional flexibility to controlled landfills. However,
ultimately, the requirement in the final NESHAP remains to install and
operate a well-designed and well-operated GCCS. The EPA is not
requiring enhanced monitoring from all controlled landfills, but this
option is being made available as a compliance flexibility to the
population of wells that do not already have an approved HOV and for
which temperature cannot be adjusted downward through routine GCCS
adjustments. Based on feedback provided in public comments, over 6,000
HOV requests have been submitted and reviewed by regulatory agencies,
and the enhanced monitoring requirements would not apply to any of the
HOV requests that have received approval. Furthermore, the concern that
the enhanced monitoring requirements would continue in perpetuity is
unsubstantiated. First, landfills have up to 7 days to adjust the well
to achieve a lower temperature before the enhanced monitoring
requirements are triggered (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(vii)). Second, the
enhanced monitoring can stop once the well temperature drops back to
145 [deg]F or less. The EPA did not receive any comments on the number
of wells that are operating above 145 [deg]F without an approved HOV,
which would have helped the EPA quantify how many wells would be
affected and the corresponding costs. Additionally, the EPA did not
receive any data on how long the wells without an approved HOV
typically exceed 145 [deg]F. Given insufficient data on the number and
length of each temperature exceedance to make an estimate, the EPA has
not quantified any cost impacts for the enhanced monitoring.
    The EPA also contends that many of the parameters required in the
enhanced monitoring are also parameters that are required to obtain an
approval of an HOV request under the baseline regulations and so these
costs are not an incremental cost that is not otherwise happening
outside of the NESHAP amendments. For example, the Ohio EPA already
requires 6 months of historical data, narrative discussion of the
visual evidence of fire, and CO measurements using appropriate
laboratory techniques.\6\ Under the final amendments, the EPA
anticipates that landfill operators will immediately implement
corrective actions to lower well temperatures, as well as immediately
file appeals for HOVs for their wells, if appropriate. The EPA
anticipates that processing requests for HOVs will be quicker because
fewer requests are expected to be submitted due to the higher
temperature standard and elimination of the oxygen and nitrogen
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Ohio EPA. Guidance Document for Higher Operating Value
Demonstrations. http://web.epa.state.oh.us/eBusinessCenter/Agency/DAPC/HOV%20Demonstration.doc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also maintains that removal of the requirement to prepare
an SSM plan and removal of the associated recordkeeping and reporting
requirements will not result in additional costs for new or modified
facilities, but instead result in a cost savings. Owners or operators
will not incur the cost of preparing an SSM plan. To meet their
obligation under 40 CFR 63.1955(c) to minimize emissions during
collection or control system downtime, owners or operators are expected
to rely on existing standard operating procedures and safety practices.
The EPA expects that some landfills may incorporate automated controls
that would shut down the gas mover system and valves in the event of
detection of a collection or control system malfunction. Such systems
are expected to have existing corresponding written or automated
standard operating procedures and safety practices.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements will not result in
additional costs for new or modified facilities. The final work
practice requirements mandate a shutdown of the gas mover system and
all valves within the collection and control system within 1 hour of
the collection or control system not operating and then require repair
efforts to proceed in a way that keeps downtime to a minimum (40 CFR
63.1958(e)(1)(i)-(ii)). A landfill demonstrates compliance with these
requirements via recordkeeping as specified in 40 CFR 63.1983(c)(6)-
(7). The work practice requirement to record and report all instances
of downtime will not result in an increased recordkeeping and reporting
burden as compared to the 2003 NESHAP. Via cross-reference to the 1996
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) to (40 CFR 63.1955(a)(1)), the 2003
NESHAP already required landfill owners to keep continuous records of
the indication of flow to the control device, report periods when the
control device was not operating for a period exceeding 1 hour. The
records required by existing regulations serve as the records of system
downtime.
    Note that this work practice itself does not add incremental cost
to new or modified landfills subject to the proposed regulation because
this requirement already appears in the

NESHAP as promulgated in 2003 at 40 CFR 63.1955(a)(1), which says
affected landfills must comply with the requirements of the 1996 NSPS.
40 CFR 60.753(e) already requires owners or operators to shut down the
gas mover system and close all valves in the collection and control
system contributing to venting of the gas to the atmosphere within 1
hour.
    Given that the costs for these enhanced monitoring requirements
cannot be quantified, in addition to the fact that there are some cost
savings previously documented to offset these costs,\7\ the EPA
concludes that the final rule is best characterized as a no-cost
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. EPA, Cost Impacts of National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Risk
and Technology Review, May 20, 2019, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0047-0081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action.
Because there are no costs associated with the final rule, no economic
impacts are anticipated.

E. What are the benefits?

    As stated in section V.B of this preamble, we were unable to
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with adjustments
made to the oxygen and nitrogen wellhead operating standards, although
this change has the potential to reduce emissions. Any reduction in HAP
emissions would be expected to provide health benefits in the form of
improved air quality and less exposure to potentially harmful
chemicals.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the MSW Landfills source category, we
performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5
kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk
from the source category across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times above the poverty level, and linguistically
isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

                    Table 3--MSW Landfills Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Population with
                                                                               cancer risk      Population with
                                                                             greater than or      hazard index
                                                                             equal to  1 in 1   greater than 1
                                                                                million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Nationwide                Source category
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        317,746,049             18,217                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Race by Percent
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 62                 58                  0
All Other Races........................................                 38                 42                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Race by Percent
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
African American.......................................                 12                 13                  0
Native American........................................                0.8                0.1                  0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).......                 18                 20                  0
Other and Multiracial..................................                  7                  8                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Income by Percent
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 14                 15                  0
Above Poverty Level....................................                 86                 85                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Education by Percent
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma..............                 14                 17                  0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 86                 83                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Linguistically Isolated by Percent
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................                  6                  8                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are summarized in
section IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in the report,
Risk and Technology Review-Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations

Living Near Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source Category Operations,
available in the docket for this action.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are
finalizing regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(2)(ii) and (2)(iii)(B)
that includes the IBR of ASTM D6522-11--Standard Test Method for
Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen
Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using
Portable Analyzers (Approved December 1, 2011), as an alternative for
determining oxygen for wellhead standards in 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(2). For
this test method, a gas sample is continuously extracted from a duct
and conveyed to a portable analyzer for determination of nitrogen
oxides, CO, and oxygen gas concentrations using electrochemical cells.
Analyzer design specifications, performance specifications, and test
procedures are provided to ensure reliable data. This method is an
alternative to EPA methods and is consistent with the methods already
allowed under the 2016 NSPS and EG (subparts XXX and Cf). The ASTM
standards are available from the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org. You may inspect a
copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC; phone number: (202) 566-
1744; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0338. This IBR has been approved by
the Office of the Federal Register and the method is federally
enforceable under the CAA as of the effective date of this final
rulemaking.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the OMB for review.

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

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction by
removing the requirements for SSM plans and periodic SSM reports,
removing the oxygen and nitrogen wellhead operating standards,
increasing the temperature wellhead standard, revising the corrective
action timeline and procedures, providing flexibility for landfills to
remove controls, and adding electronic reporting.

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 2060-0505. The only burden associated with the final
rule is limited to affected sources becoming familiar with the changes
in the final rule. The burden for respondents to review rule
requirements each year is already accounted for in the previously
approved information collection activities contained in the existing
regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA), which were assigned OMB
control number 2060-0505. Additionally, changes to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, subpart XXX, and subpart Cf only add clarifying language
for affected sources and provide alternatives for any deviations from
the respective standards. These changes would not increase any burden
for affected sources.

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 is projected to affect 738
MSW landfills, and approximately 60 of these facilities are owned by a
small entity. The small entities subject to the requirements of this
final rule may include private small business and small governmental
jurisdictions that own or operate landfills, but the cost for complying
with the final amendments is expected to be $0. We have, therefore,
concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While state, local,
or tribal governments own and operate landfills subject to these final
amendments, the impacts resulting from this regulatory action are far
below the applicable threshold.

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 has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The database used to
estimate impacts of these final amendments identified one tribe, the
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, that owns three landfills
potentially subject to the NESHAP. Two of these landfills are already
controlling emissions--the Salt River Landfill and the Tri Cities
Landfill. Although the permits for these landfills indicate they are
subject to this subpart, these final changes are not expected to
increase the costs. The other landfill, North Center Street Landfill,
is not estimated to install controls under the NESHAP. The EPA offered
to consult with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribes in the process of developing this
regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its
development. A copy of the letter offering consultation is in the
docket for this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental

health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk
assessments are contained in sections III.A and IV.A of this preamble.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
use voluntary consensus standards ASTM D6522-11, ``Standard Test Method
for the Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen
Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using
Portable Analyzers,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3A
when used at the wellhead before combustion. It is advisable to know
the flammability and check the lower explosive limit of the flue gas
constituents prior to sampling, in order to avoid undesired ignition of
the gas. The results of ASTM D6522-11 may be used to determine nitrogen
oxides and CO emission concentrations from natural gas combustion at
stationary sources. This test method may also be used to monitor
emissions during short-term emission tests or periodically in order to
optimize process operation for nitrogen oxides and CO control. The
EPA's review is documented in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and
Technology Review, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047).
    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text for 40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAA that includes IBR in accordance with requirements of 1
CFR 51.5. Specifically, the EPA is incorporating by reference ASTM
D6522-11. See section VI of this preamble for information on the
availability of this material.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Our analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated
risks greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in
risks between demographic groups, including the African American,
Hispanic or Latino, Over 25 Without a High School Diploma, and Below
the Poverty Level groups. In addition, the population living within 50
km of MSW landfills has a higher percentage of minority, lower income,
and lower education people when compared to the nationwide percentages
of those groups. However, acknowledging these potential disparities,
the risks for the source category were determined to be acceptable, and
any emissions reductions from the final revisions will benefit these
groups the most.
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B
and C of this preamble, and the technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source Category Operations, which is
available in the docket for this action.

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

40 CFR Part 60

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: February 25, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
parts 60 and 63 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. Section 60.34f is amended by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:

Sec.  60.34f  Operational standards for collection and control systems.

    For approval, a state plan must include provisions for the
operational standards in this section (as well as the provisions in
Sec. Sec.  60.36f and 60.37f), or the operational standards in Sec.
63.1958 of this chapter (as well as the provisions in Sec. Sec.
63.1960 of this chapter and 63.1961 of this chapter), or both as
alternative means of compliance, for an MSW landfill with a gas
collection and control system used to comply with the provisions of
Sec.  60.33f(b) and (c). Once the owner or operator begins to comply
with the provisions of Sec.  63.1958 of this chapter, the owner or
operator must continue to operate the collection and control device
according to those provisions and cannot return to the provisions of
this section. Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill with a gas
collection and control system used to comply with the provisions of
Sec.  60.33f(b) and (c) must:
* * * * *

0
3. Section 60.36f is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.36f  Compliance provisions.

    For approval, a state plan must include the compliance provisions
in this section (as well as the provisions in Sec. Sec.  60.34f and
60.37f), or the compliance provisions in Sec.  63.1960 of this chapter
(as well as the provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1958 of this chapter and
63.1961 of this chapter), or both as alternative means of compliance,
for an MSW landfill with a gas collection and control system used to
comply with the provisions of Sec.  60.33f(b) and (c). Once the owner
or operator begins to comply with the provisions of Sec.  63.1960 of
this chapter, the owner or operator must continue to operate the
collection and control device according to those provisions and cannot
return to the provisions of this section.
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *

    (ii) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the positive pressure or elevated temperature
measurement for which the root cause analysis was required, the owner
or operator must also conduct a corrective action analysis and develop
an implementation schedule to complete the corrective action(s) as soon
as practicable, but no more than 120 days following the measurement of
landfill gas temperature greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees
Fahrenheit) or positive pressure. The owner or operator must submit the
items listed in Sec.  60.38f(h)(7) as part of the next annual report.
The owner or operator must keep records according to Sec.
60.39f(e)(4).
* * * * *

0
4. Section 60.37f is amended by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:

Sec.  60.37f  Monitoring of operations.

    For approval, a state plan must include the monitoring provisions
in this section, (as well as the provisions in Sec. Sec.  60.34f and
60.36f) except as provided in Sec.  60.38f(d)(2), or the monitoring
provisions in Sec.  63.1961 of this chapter (as well as the provisions
in Sec. Sec.  63.1958 of this chapter and 63.1960 of this chapter), or
both as alternative means of compliance, for an MSW landfill with a gas
collection and control system used to comply with the provisions of
Sec.  60.33f(b) and (c). Once the owner or operator begins to comply
with the provisions of Sec.  63.1961 of this chapter, the owner or
operator must continue to operate the collection and control device
according to those provisions and cannot return to the provisions of
this section.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 60.38f is amended by revising paragraphs (h) introductory,
(h)(7), and (k) introductory text and adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.38f  Reporting guidelines.

* * * * *
    (h) Annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill seeking to
comply with Sec.  60.33f(e)(2) using an active collection system
designed in accordance with Sec.  60.33f(b) must submit to the
Administrator, following the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(2)
of this section, an annual report of the recorded information in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section. The initial annual
report must be submitted within 180 days of installation and startup of
the collection and control system. The initial annual report must
include the initial performance test report required under Sec.  60.8,
as applicable, unless the report of the results of the performance test
has been submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX. In the initial annual
report, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested and the
date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in lieu
of the performance test report if the report has been previously
submitted to the EPA's CDX. The initial performance test report must be
submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this section, no later than the date that the initial annual report is
submitted. For enclosed combustion devices and flares, reportable
exceedances are defined under Sec.  60.39f(c)(1). If complying with the
operational provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of
this chapter, as allowed at Sec. Sec.  60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, the
owner or operator must follow the semi-annual reporting requirements in
Sec.  63.1981(h) of this chapter in lieu of this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (7) For any corrective action analysis for which corrective actions
are required in Sec.  60.36f(a)(3) or (5) and that take more than 60
days to correct the exceedance, the root cause analysis conducted,
including a description of the recommended corrective action(s), the
date for corrective action(s) already completed following the positive
pressure or elevated temperature reading, and, for action(s) not
already completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates.
* * * * *
    (k) Corrective action and the corresponding timeline. The owner or
operator must submit according to paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this
section. If complying with the operational provisions of Sec. Sec.
63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed at Sec. Sec.
60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, the owner or operator must follow the
corrective action and the corresponding timeline reporting requirements
in Sec.  63.1981(j) of this chapter in lieu of paragraphs (k)(1) and
(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (n) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter,
as allowed in Sec. Sec.  60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, must submit the
24-hour high temperature report according to Sec.  63.1981(k) of this
chapter.

0
6. Section 60.39f is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory
text and adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.39f  Recordkeeping guidelines.

* * * * *
    (e) Except as provided in Sec.  60.38f(d)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for at
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of the items in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section. Each owner or operator
that chooses to comply with the provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed in Sec. Sec.  60.34f,
60.36f, and 60.37f, must keep the records in paragraph (e)(6) of this
section and must keep records according to Sec.  63.1983(e)(1) through
(5) of this chapter in lieu of paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (6) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter,
as allowed in Sec. Sec.  60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, must keep records
of the date upon which the owner or operator started complying with the
provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961.
* * * * *

Subpart WWW--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification on or after May 30, 1991, but Before July 18, 2014

0
7. Section 60.750 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

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

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each municipal solid
waste landfill that commenced construction, reconstruction, or
modification on or after May 30, 1991, but before July 18, 2014.
* * * * *
    (d) An affected municipal solid waste landfill must continue to
comply with this subpart until it:
    (1) Becomes subject to the more stringent requirements in an
approved and effective state or federal plan that implements subpart Cf
of this part, or
    (2) Modifies or reconstructs after July 17, 2014, and thus becomes
subject to subpart XXX of this part.

Subpart XXX--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification After July 17, 2014

0
8. Section 60.762 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read
as follows:

Sec.  60.762  Standards for air emissions from municipal solid waste
landfills.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Operation. Operate the collection and control device installed
to comply with this subpart in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. Sec.  60.763, 60.765, and 60.766; or the provisions of Sec. Sec.
63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter. Once the owner or
operator begins to comply with the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, the owner or operator must
continue to operate the collection and control device according to
those provisions and cannot return to the provisions of Sec. Sec.
60.763, 60.765, and 60.766.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 60.765 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii) to read
as follows:

Sec.  60.765  Compliance provisions.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the positive pressure or elevated temperature
measurement for which the root cause analysis was required, the owner
or operator must also conduct a corrective action analysis and develop
an implementation schedule to complete the corrective action(s) as soon
as practicable, but no more than 120 days following the measurement of
landfill gas temperature greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees
Fahrenheit) or positive pressure. The owner or operator must submit the
items listed in Sec.  60.767(g)(7) as part of the next annual report.
The owner or operator must keep records according to Sec.
60.768(e)(4).
* * * * *

0