[Federal Register: February 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 7785-7787]
[DOCID:fr20fe07-31]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55274; File No. SR-NASD-2007-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Implement Certain Approved NASD Rule Changes Upon the
Operation of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC for Non-Nasdaq Exchange-Listed
Securities

February 12, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 9, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the NASD. The NASD
filed the proposed rules change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed
rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The NASD has filed a proposed rule change to (1) Provide notice
that the amendments to the NASD Rule 4700 Series that were approved
pursuant to SR-NASD-2006-104 \5\ will not be implemented; (2) implement
certain amendments that were approved pursuant to SR-NASD-2006-104 upon
the operation of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (the ``Nasdaq Exchange'')
as a national securities exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed
securities; and (3) propose additional changes that were not approved
pursuant to SR-NASD-2006-104, specifically the deletion of the Rule
4700 Series and Rule 5150. All other rule changes that were approved
pursuant to SR-NASD-2006-104, and were not implemented pursuant to SR-
NASD-2006-135,\6\ will be implemented upon the operation of NASD's
Alternative Display Facility (``ADF'') for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed
securities, as approved by the Commission on September 28, 2006.\7\ The
text of the proposed amendments is available at the NASD, from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the NASD's Web site (http://www.nasd.com
).

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

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54798 (November 21,
2006), 71 FR 69156 (November 29, 2006) (order approving SR-NASD-
2006-104).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54984 (December 20,
2006), 71 FR 78245 (December 28, 2006) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of SR-NASD-2006-135).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54537 (September 28,
2006), 71 FR 59173 (October 6, 2006) (order approving SR-NASD-2006-
091).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the NASD included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On June 30, 2006, the Commission approved SR-NASD-2005-087, which,
among other things, proposed an implementation strategy for the
operation of the Nasdaq Exchange as a national securities exchange for
Nasdaq-listed securities during a transitional period and also proposed
rules for reporting trades in Nasdaq-listed securities effected
otherwise than on an exchange to the NASD/Nasdaq Trade Reporting
Facility (the ``NASD/Nasdaq TRF'').\8\ On November 21, 2006, the
Commission approved SR-NASD-2006-104, which, among other things,
proposed amendments necessary to reflect the complete separation of The
Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. (``Nasdaq'') from the NASD upon the operation
of the Nasdaq Exchange as a national securities exchange for non-Nasdaq
exchange-listed securities and also proposed to expand the scope of the
NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules to include reporting of over-the-counter trades
in non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54084 (June 30,
2006), 71 FR 38935 (July 10, 2006) (order approving SR-NASD-2005-
087).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54798 (November 21,
2006), 71 FR 69156 (November 29, 2006) (order approving SR-NASD-
2006-104).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As originally approved, the rule changes in SR-NASD-2006-104 were
to become effective on the date that the Nasdaq Exchange commences
operation as a national securities exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-
listed securities. However, as described in SR-NASD-2006-135, for a
transitional period, Nasdaq has continued to operate the
SuperIntermarket (SiM) trading platform on NASD's behalf via the
Transitional System and Regulatory Services Agreement.\10\ As
contemplated in SR-NASD-2006-135, the NASD has determined to continue
to use Nasdaq as a vendor to operate SiM, even upon the Nasdaq
Exchange's operation as an exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed
securities, which is currently scheduled for February 12, 2007.\11\ As
such, the current rules relating to SiM will remain in place and the
approved rule changes to the Rule 4700 Series in SR-NASD-2006-104 will
not be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54984 (December 20,
2006), 71 FR 78245 (December 28, 2006) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of SR-NASD-2006-135). In that filing,
amendments to the Plan of Allocation and Delegation of Functions by
NASD to Subsidiaries and the By-Laws of NASD, NASD Regulation and
NASD Dispute Resolution, and the deletion of the Nasdaq By-Laws,
which were previously approved in SR-NASD-2006-104, were implemented
on December 20, 2006 to reflect Nasdaq's complete separation from
NASD, and, on that same date, dissolution of NASD's controlling
share in Nasdaq.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54984 (December 20,
2006), 71 FR 78245 (December 28, 2006) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of SR-NASD-2006-135), infra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the following rule changes that were approved pursuant
to SR-NASD-2006-104 will be implemented on the date upon which the
Nasdaq Exchange operates as a national securities exchange for non-
Nasdaq exchange-listed securities: (1) Deletion of the Rule 4900 Series
and the 4950 Series; and (2) adoption of new Rules 5120 (Other Trading
Practices) and 5130 (Obligation to Provide Information) relating to
trading otherwise than on an exchange. All other rule changes that are
part of SR-NASD-2006-104, and were not implemented pursuant to SR-NASD-
2006-135 (i.e., amendments to the Rule 0100 Series; amendments to the
Rule 4000 Series and Rule 6100 Series relating to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF;
deletion of Rule 4400; amendments to Rule 11890, Interpretive Material
(IM) 11890-1 and IM-11890-2; and the deletion of IM-11890-3), will be
implemented upon the operation of the ADF for non-Nasdaq exchange-
listed securities, which will be the Regulation NMS Trading Phase Date
(currently anticipated to be March 5, 2007).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Pursuant to SR-NASD-2006-091, among other changes, the
following will be deleted from the NASD Manual on the Trading Phase
Date: the Rule 5200 Series, the Rule 6300 Series and the Rule 6400
Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proposed rule change, NASD is proposing two additional rule
changes that were not approved as part of SR-NASD-2006-104. First, NASD
is proposing to delete the Rule 4700 Series in its entirety upon the
operation of the ADF for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities.\13\
Second, NASD is proposing to delete Rule 5150 upon the operation of the
ADF for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. Rule 5150 requires an
NASD member that is registered as a market maker with the Nasdaq
Exchange in a non-Nasdaq exchange-listed security to comply with the
provisions of NASD Rule 5262 relating to trade-throughs with respect to
that security for trades reported to NASD. Rule 5150 was approved by
the Commission on September 19, 2006 and will become effective on the
date that the Nasdaq Exchange operates as a national securities
exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities.\14\ Upon the
operation of the ADF for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities, the
Rule 5200 Series, including Rule 5262, will be deleted pursuant to
NASD-2006-091. Thus, NASD is proposing to delete Rule 5150 on that same
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Thus, in the period between commencement of operation of
the Nasdaq Exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities and
the operation of the ADF for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities,
the Rule 4700 Series will remain in the NASD Manual as it exists
today. Upon the operation of the ADF for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed
securities, the Rule 4700 Series will be deleted in its entirety.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54471 (September
19, 2006), 71 FR 56202 (September 26, 2006) (order approving SR-
NASD-2006-081).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. NASD proposes to implement the proposed rule change as
described herein.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among
other things, that NASD rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will
provide an effective mechanism and regulatory framework for quoting and
trading activities otherwise than on an exchange in non-Nasdaq
exchange-listed securities upon the operation of the Nasdaq Exchange as
a national securities exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed
securities and the operation of the ADF for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or

such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\19\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The NASD has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission
believes that such waiver is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it would allow the NASD to
update and clarify its rules.\20\ The Commission notes that the
proposed rule change will facilitate the implementation of NASD rules
that were subject to notice and comment and approved by the Commission
on November 21, 2006. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change to be operative on the date that the Nasdaq
Exchange begins operations as a national securities exchange for non-
Nasdaq exchange-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \20\ For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the rule's impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2007-012 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-012. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-012
and should be submitted on or before March 13, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-2839 Filed 2-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


MEMORANDUM
To:	Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424
From:	Liz Goodiel, U.S. EPA/CCD
Date:	November 21, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:	Technical Support for Supplemental Revisions to Subpart HH: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
1.0	Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a supplemental proposal to amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 98) to improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule. As part of this proposal, the EPA is proposing revisions to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills source category (40 CFR part 98, subpart HH; hereafter referred to as "subpart HH") to account for anomalous or large-release events of methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills, including but not limited to a poorly operating recovery system of the gas control and collection system (GCCS), a poorly operating control device, or leaks in the cover system due to cracks, fissures, etc. Existing subpart HH emission calculation equations include methodologies to quantify and account for emissions released due to poor operations in recovery systems and control devices. However, the EPA is proposing slight revisions and clarifications to these terms to improve accuracy of reporting. Additionally, there is not currently a methodology in place under subpart HH to account for methane emissions from cover system leaks. The EPA is proposing the following revisions for subpart HH Equations HH-6 through HH-8 to improve clarity for calculating emissions due to cover system leaks:
 A new term in Equations HH-6, HH-7, and HH-8 to quantify emissions from cover system leaks from landfills with gas collection systems for which surface methane concentration measurements across the landfill are conducted.
 A lower default collection efficiency in Equations HH-7 and HH-8 for landfills with gas collection systems for which surface methane concentration measurements are not conducted.
This memorandum provides technical support for these proposed revisions.
2.0 	Background on Subpart HH Calculation Methodologies
Methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2), and small quantities of other gases are generated by the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in a MSW landfill. These gases, collectively referred to as landfill gas (LFG), are produced throughout the operating life of a facility (i.e., while the facility receives waste) as well as many years, often several decades, after the facility has closed.
Subpart HH of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) requires landfill operators to estimate annual CH4 generation based on the amount of decomposable material in the waste coupled with a decay rate. This approach is generally referred to as a "first-order decay" (FOD) model and is the top down national GHG inventory approach recommended in the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines. For landfills without gas collection systems, the FOD model is the only method available under subpart HH for estimating annual CH4 generation and emissions. For landfills with gas collection systems, subpart HH requires landfill operators to measure the annual quantity of CH4 recovered and use this measured CH4 to calculate annual CH4 emissions using two methods. Method 1, represented by Equation HH-6, calculates CH4 emissions by subtracting the amount of CH4 recovered from the amount of CH4 generated based on the FOD model. Method 2, represented by Equation HH-8, calculates CH4 emissions by subtracting the amount of CH4 recovered from the amount of CH4 generated based on Equation HH-7. (Equation HH-7 calculates CH4 generation based on the amount of CH4 recovered divided by the collection efficiency and the fraction of annual operating hours of the collection system.) Method 2 is commonly referred to as the "back-calculation method" since CH4 generation is based on measured or recovered CH4 rather than modeled CH4. Landfill operators with gas collection systems must report annual CH4 emissions using both methods but have the option to select the method they consider the best representation of their annual emissions reported under subpart HH.
3.0 	California Study Indicating Large Emissions from Landfills
Recent CH4 measurement data collected from five aerial survey campaigns over a variety of different CH4 emission sources in California suggest that CH4 emissions from landfills may be considerably higher than CH4 emissions quantified or reported under subpart HH. Based on the study measurements, Duren, et al. (2019) concluded:
   "Solid-waste management is the largest methane point-source emission sector in California, with persistent plumes observed at only 32 of 436 surveyed landfills and composting facilities. Our imaging of landfills identified methane plumes associated with construction, gaps in intermediate cover and leaking gas-capture wells -- indicating a subpopulation of anomalous emitters. The fact that we did not detect a larger population of smaller methane point sources across the landfill sector suggests that most of those facilities emit methane as area sources that cannot be detected with this method."
As noted by Duren, et al., (2019), the aerial method used in this study is best suited to detect high emitting "point source" releases of CH4 and could not quantify emissions for landfills with lower emissions or with emissions spread out more evenly across the landfill. It is important to note that only landfills with anomalous emissions could be quantified by the aerial methods used by Duren, et al., (2019) and that these emissions only occurred at 7 percent of the surveyed landfills. However, when these anomalous emissions occur, the CH4 emissions reported to the EPA under subpart HH are consistently lower than the measured emission rates extrapolated to annual estimates.
      Because the California aerial study of Duren, et al., (2019) could not quantify the emissions from 93 percent of the landfills that did not have anomalous emissions, this study does not provide evidence that the subpart HH methodologies are inaccurate or biased under typical conditions that exist for most landfills. Therefore, we conclude that this study indicates a potential bias in the subpart HH methodologies for the fraction of landfills that have anomalous emissions.
4.0 	Assessment of Subpart HH Methods to Account for Large Emissions Events
      We identified the following potential causes of high emissions from landfills:
 Poor operations in the recovery system of the GCCS;
 Poor operation of the control device; and/or
 Leaks in the cover system due to cracks, fissures, gaps around protruding wells, etc.

4.1 	Revisions Considered for Poorly Operating Recovery Systems
Typically, recovery system periods of poor operation are noticed quickly by landfill operators. If the recovery system goes down, the amount of CH4 recovered (term "R" in Equations HH-6, HH-7, and HH-8) will be lower. In this situation, Equation HH-6 will automatically yield higher CH4 emissions. While it may appear that a lower R in Equation HH-8 would result in lower projected emissions, the fRec,n term is included in the equation specifically to account for times when the recovery system is not operating. Together, these terms (R and fRec,n) will result in the same quantity of CH4 generation (Equation HH-7 and the first term in Equation HH-8), and the reduced CH4 recovery will yield higher emissions in Equation HH-8.
In reviewing the fRec,n term, issues were raised during the verification of submitted subpart HH emission reports in how the electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting (e-GGRT) system calculates emissions at times when one recovery system may have two measurement locations or multiple control devices are associated with one measurement location. For example, the landfill may have turbines used to generate electricity from the landfill gas and a backup flare for when the turbines are down for maintenance or repair and separate measurement locations for the turbines versus the flare. The gas collection system may operate a total of 8,760 hours per year and the landfill gas may only be directed to the flare for 100 hours. In this case, the fRec,n term should be 1; however, the e-GGRT internal calculations will estimate the fRec,n term associated with the flare to be 0.011 (100/8,760). To help clarify the correct calculation procedure, we are separating out calculations that should be performed at the gas collection system level rather than the measurement location. Thus, we are replacing the fRec,n term evaluated at the measurement location with an fRec,c term evaluated at the collection system level.
4.2 	Revisions Considered for a Poorly Operating Control Device
Like recovery systems, control device periods of poor operation are typically noticed quickly by landfill operators. For example, some flares may have automatic shut-offs to prevent sending landfill gas to a flare when the pilot light is not lit. Both Equation HH-6 and HH-8 include an fDest,n term (fraction of operating time for the control device) to account for times the recovered gas is vented rather than destroyed. There may be times when the control device may be operating, but not at the temperature where the device is expected to efficiently destroy CH4. These periods of poor performance can yield significant unintended CH4 emissions. Therefore, to ensure the fDest,n term accurately accounts for these issues, the EPA is proposing additional language to clarify that, "The annual operating hours for the destruction device should include only those periods when flow was sent to the destruction device and the destruction device was operating at its intended temperature or other parameter indicative of effective operation. For flares, times when there is no pilot flame present must be excluded from the annual operating hours for the destruction device." With this clarification, the performance of the fDest,n term should account for periods when the destruction devices are non-operating or operating poorly.
4.3 	Revisions Considered for Leaks in the Cover System
Unlike recovery system or control device periods of poor operation, leaks in the cover system may go unnoticed for quite some time.
For landfills without gas collection systems, subpart HH assumes that nearly all the CH4 generated is emitted, save a small fraction of CH4 (typically 10 percent) that is oxidized by aerobic microbes near the soil surface as the landfill gas percolates through the upper soil layer. If there is a large crack or fissure in the landfill surface for gas to escape, the CH4 oxidation fraction for the gas escaping via the fissure is likely near zero. Thus, the subpart HH methodology for landfills without gas collection systems may underestimate emissions in this case, but only by about 10 percent.
The majority of MSW landfills reporting under subpart HH have landfill GCCS and these "controlled" landfills account for 76 percent of subpart HH emissions in 2021. Presently, Equations HH-6 and HH-8, which are used to quantify CH4 emissions from controlled landfills, do not account for fugitive CH4 emissions from cover system leaks. Cover system leaks can lead to large release events of CH4 emissions and may explain the discrepancy between the anomalous emitters from the California aerial surveys (Duren, et al., 2019) and those reported under subpart HH. Controlled landfills have fugitive CH4 emissions from areas of the landfill where the GCCS is not in place; these areas must use a collection efficiency (CE) of 0 percent. Controlled landfills also have fugitive CH4 emissions from controlled areas where the GCCS is in place. Fugitive emissions from controlled areas are dependent on the CE of the GCCS, which can vary across a landfill depending on soil cover depth and compaction. For example, capped areas with 3 feet of compacted clay are assumed to have higher collection efficiencies (95 percent) and lower emissions than areas with a daily or intermediate cover (60 percent and 75 percent, respectively).
Because a significant portion of the CH4 generated may be collected via the GCCS, the rate at which landfill gas percolates through the soil surface layer is reduced. This reduced rate tends to increase the fraction of CH4 oxidized, so controlled landfills may be able to use higher soil oxidation factors (0.25 or 0.35) instead of the basic 0.10 default oxidation factor. As such, fissures or cracks in the cover material can significantly impact the projected emissions from controlled landfills using Equation HH-6 and have even more of a significant impact on landfill operators using Equation HH-8 because these leaks can affect both the overall CE and the surface oxidation factor.
To ensure GCCS are efficiently capturing the landfill gas, landfills subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or Emission Guidelines (EG) for MSW landfills under part 60 or part 62 of section 111 of the Clean Air Act that meet certain criteria are required to conduct periodic surface methane concentration measurements (SMCM). We note that MSW landfills are subject to the NSPS or EG based on size and date of operation and are required to install and operate a GCCS once annual emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC), which are present in landfill gas along with CH4, reach a certain threshold. Both the NSPS and EG include certain maintenance requirements for a mandatory GCCS, including periodic SMCM monitoring across the cover system. Specifically, SMCM involves measuring the CH4 concentration measurements within 5 to 10 centimeters (cm) of the ground every 30 meters across the entire coverage area of the system. For any location where a measurement equals or exceeds 500 parts per million (ppm), the landfill is required to take corrective action at the location, which can include cover maintenance or adjusting the vacuum of the collection wells in the area, and re-monitor the location within 10 days. If the latter shows that the concentration is still at or above 500 ppm, additional corrective action and re-monitoring must take place within 10 days of the first re-monitoring. If the second re-monitoring concentration equals or exceeds 500 ppm, corrective action and re-monitoring must take place within 10 days of the second re-monitoring. If the third re-monitoring is still out of compliance, a new well or other collection device must be installed within 120 days of the initial exceedance. For most landfills, SMCM is required quarterly, with the measurement data sent to the permitting authority as well as to the regional EPA. Closed landfills that have four consecutive quarterly monitoring events with no "exceedances" (i.e., no measurements equal to or greater than 500 ppm) may conduct annual monitoring; however, if an exceedance occurs in the future, the landfill must resume quarterly monitoring.
It makes sense that landfill operators that conduct SMCM monitoring to ensure their GCCS is effectively capturing CH4 would have better overall CEs than landfills that do not conduct SMCM monitoring, all other things being equal. It also follows that landfills that have more SMCM exceedances than another landfill (all other things being equal) would have higher emissions than the equivalent landfill with fewer SMCM exceedances. Therefore, we sought methods to identify means to quantify these differences.
4.3.1	Quantifying Differences in Collection Efficiencies Between Landfills Conducting and Not Conducting Surface Methane Concentration Measurements
The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) evaluated CH4 emissions from Maryland landfills. The EIP study compiled data for 40 Maryland landfills, primarily from data reported to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) in their 2017 state GHG inventory. Twenty-one of the 40 landfills for which data were compiled have GCCS required by either state or federal requirements. Four of the 21 mandated landfill GCCS are required under federal rules: three active landfills and one closed landfill. According to the EIP study authors, 17 landfills have voluntarily installed GCCS and adequate data were available to estimate GCCS CEs for 16 of these landfills. The EIP study authors primarily assessed landfill gas CE by comparing measured quantities of CH4 collected by the GCCS and modeled CH4 generation rates using LandGEM, which uses the FOD model. Thus, this study did not directly measure the emissions from the Maryland landfills.
The EIP study authors compared the landfill gas CE for the four landfills mandated by federal rules, which are required to conduct SMCM, to the CE for the 16 landfills with voluntary GCCS. EIP found that the four landfills with federally mandated GCCS and SMCM had an average CE of 76 percent, while the 16 landfills with voluntary GCCS had an average CE of 55 percent. Thus, the CEs for landfills with voluntary GCCS (no SMCM) were 21-percentage points lower than the CEs for landfills with federally mandated GCCS (with SMCM).
However, some of this difference could be caused by differences in the relative coverage of the GCCS across the landfill as well as differences in the types of soil covers used in areas where landfill gas is collected. Table HH-3 of subpart HH contains default CEs for areas under active gas collection that differ by the type of soil cover. Areas of the landfill with a final soil cover of 3 feet or thicker of clay or a geomembrane cover system have a default CE = 95%; areas with an intermediate soil cover have a default CE = 75%; and areas with only daily soil cover have a default CE = 60%. Thus, some of the differences in the Maryland landfill CEs may be due to differences in the relative areas of the cover system. We reviewed subpart HH reported data from Maryland landfills. There are 19 Maryland landfills reporting under subpart HH for RY 2017, 14 of which have GCCS.  The 14 Maryland landfills with GCCS that report under subpart HH include the three active landfills with federally required GCCS and 11 landfills identified by EIP as having voluntary GCCS. Relevant data for these landfills are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison for Maryland Landfill Gas Collection Efficiencies Reported in EIP (2021) and Subpart HH.
                           Subpart HH Facility Name
                                EIP Reported CE
                            Subpart HH Reported CE
Landfills with Federally Required GCCS
Millersville Landfill
                                                                           0.77
                                                                           0.89
Prince George's County Brown Station Road Sanitary Landfill
                                                                           0.67
                                                                          0.805
Eastern Sanitary Landfill Solid Waste Management Facility
                                                                           0.64
                                                                           0.73
Landfills with Voluntary GCCS
Midshore I Regional Solid Waste Facility
                                                                           0.45
                                                                           0.65
Harford Waste Disposal Center
                                                                           0.38
                                                                           0.59
Norris Farms Landfill
                                                                           0.95
                                                                           0.95
Beulah Sanitary Landfill
                                                                            0.3
                                                                            0.6
Quarantine Road Landfill
                                                                           0.38
                                                                          0.569
Mountainview Sanitary Landfill
                                                                           0.62
                                                                          0.787
Alpha Ridge Landfill
                                                                           0.41
                                                                           0.82
Reichs Ford Municipal Landfill & Recycling Center
                                                                           0.53
                                                                            0.8
Newland Park Landfill
                                                                           0.55
                                                                           0.68
Cecil County Central Landfill
                                                                           0.63
                                                                            0.7
Central Sanitary Landfill
                                                                         0.0077
                                                                           0.38

Average for Federally Mandated GCCS
                                                                            69%
                                                                            81%
Average for Voluntary GCCS
                                                                            47%
                                                                            68%

As seen in Table 1, considering the subset of Maryland landfills reporting to subpart HH, we see a 22-percentage point difference between the CEs for landfills with voluntary GCCS (no SMCM) and those with federally mandated GCCS (with SMCM) (69% - 47%). However, we see from the subpart HH reported CEs that there is a 13-percentage point difference (81% - 68%) that can be attributed to differences in the coverage area of the GCCS and/or the relative areas of the landfill having different cover types (final, intermediate, or daily covers).
The subpart HH calculated collection efficiencies are consistently higher than those determined from the Maryland inventory data. This may indicate that the subpart HH defaults are too high, but it may also indicate that the "potential methane generation capacity" input term for LandGEM (which is analogous to the DOC term used in Equation HH-1) is higher than the actual potential CH4 generation capacity of the waste being disposed. That is, because the CEs determined from the Maryland data are based on modeled CH4 generation rather than actual measured CH4 emissions from the landfills, it is just as likely that the Maryland CEs are biased low as the subpart HH CEs are biased high. However, it is clear that landfills that have federally required GCCS appear to have higher CEs than voluntary systems and the difference in the CEs is larger (by about 10-percentage points) than can be explained by differences in the relative areas of the different cover types. Therefore, we are proposing additional default CEs in Table 3 of subpart HH (Table HH-3 to Subpart HH of Part 98 - Landfill Gas Collection Efficiencies) to account for the reduced CEs observed for landfills for which SMCM monitoring is not performed. The proposed new CEs for landfills for which SMCM monitoring is not performed are 10-percentage points lower than the current defaults in Table HH-3. The current default CEs in Table HH-3 will remain applicable for landfills for which SMCM monitoring is conducted.
4.3.2	Quantifying Methane Emissions from Exceedances in the Surface Methane Concentration Measurements
To account for differences in performance between similar landfills with different numbers of SMCM exceedances, we sought to quantify the emissions from an individual exceedance. We reviewed several studies[,] and identified a correlation from Heroux, et al., (2010) between the CH4 flux rate in micrograms per square meter per second (ug/m[2]-s) and the CH4 concentration in ppm by volume (ppmv) at 6 cm of the ground surface as follows.
Methane Flux μgm2s =0.3647xMethane Concentration (ppmv)
                                   R2=0.9188

Because the SMCM must be conducted within 5 to 10 cm of the ground, the value of the SMCM can be used directly for this correlation. The SMCM are conducted every 30 meters, so each measurement location represents a 900 m[2] area (30 m x 30 m). When the SMCM are conducted daily since the last monitoring event, each measurement represents 1 day or 86,400 seconds (24 hrs/day x 3,600 sec/hr).  Noting there are 10[12] ug/Mg (Mg = megagram = metric ton), the emissions associated with a single daily SMCM exceedance can be calculated as:
Emissions Mg/day= 0.3647xSx900x86,4001012=0.0000284xS
Where,
    S	=	Surface CH4 concentration measurement that exceeds 500 ppm above background (ppmv).
For landfills that conduct SMCM at different frequencies, the above equation can be multiplied by the number of days between monitoring events to estimate the emissions for that given monitoring frequency. For example, if quarterly monitoring is conducted, the emissions associated with an exceedance would be calculated using 91 days in one quarter. One quarterly SMCM with a value of 1,000 ppmv would represent 2.6 Mg of "extra" CH4 emissions from the landfill compared to a facility with no exceedances. A landfill can have more than one exceedance per monitoring period and have additional exceedances in subsequent monitoring events during the calendar year.
<IP_ADDRESS>	Added Term for Equation HH-6
When using the FOD model and Equation HH-6, all CH4 generated that is not recovered percolates through the cover material. As noted previously, some fraction of the CH4 that percolates through the cover material is expected to be oxidized and the rest emitted. When there are fissures or cracks in the surface, this does not alter the quantity of CH4 generated or the measured quantity of CH4 recovered, but it does cause the landfill gas to "bypass" the aerobic microbes near the soil surface. So, when using Equation HH-6, we need to account for the amount of CH4 that the model assumes is oxidized but is not due to bypassing. To accomplish this, we are proposing to add the following term to account for SMCM monitoring exceedances to Equation HH-6:
Added Term for Equation HH6 in Mg=OXxm=1M0.0000284xdmxSm
Where:
   OX	=	Oxidation fraction. Use appropriate oxidation fraction default value from Table HH-4 of subpart HH (Table HH-4 to Subpart HH of Part 98 - Landfill Methane Oxidation Fractions).
   M	=	Number of individual surface measurements that exceed 500 parts per million (ppm) above background in the reporting year. If surface monitoring is not performed or no measurement exceeded 500 ppm above background in the reporting year, assume M = 0.
   0.0000284	= 	Correlation factor (metric tons CH4 per ppm surface concentration per day).
   dm	=	Leak duration (days), estimated as the number of days since the last monitoring event at the specified location from company records. Alternatively, you may use the following defaults for d: 10 days for 10-day monitoring events; 30 days for monthly monitoring, 91 days for quarterly monitoring, and 365 days for annual monitoring.
   Sm	=	Surface measurement methane concentration for the m[th] measurement that exceeds 500 parts per million above background (parts per million by volume).
<IP_ADDRESS>	Added Term for Equations HH-7 and HH-8
When using the back-calculation method to determine CH4 generation in Equation HH-7 and CH4 emissions in Equation HH-8, the quantity of CH4 generated is estimated by the quantity of CH4 recovered and the expected CE of the GCCS. When there are exceedances during SMCM monitoring, the CE of the GCCS is lower than expected by the quantity of excess CH4 released from the soil surface in the area associated with the exceedance. Thus, when using Equations HH-7 or HH-8, the following term is proposed for the additional CH4 generation or emissions, respectively, associated with the SMCM exceedance.
Added Term for Equations HH7 and HH8 in Mg=m=1M0.0000284xdmxSm
4.3.3	Estimating the Number of Subpart HH Reporters Impacted by Revisions to Account for Leaks in Cover Systems
A total of 834 landfills with GCCS reported CH4 emissions to subpart HH in RY 2021. All but 42 of these landfills are believed to be subject to the federal NSPS or EG for MSW landfills based on their design capacity and year of waste acceptance. However, as noted previously, some landfills may be subject to NSPS or EG for MSW landfills but not required to install a GCCS and conduct SMCM monitoring until they exceed certain NMOC emission thresholds (typically 34 Mg/year, or 50 Mg/year for certain closed landfills). To estimate the number of landfills for which operators are required to conduct SMCM monitoring, estimates of NMOC emission rates were needed. NMOC emission estimates for 2021 were found for 701 of the 792 controlled landfills believed to be subject to NSPS or EG for MSW landfills. Among the 701 landfills for which data were available, 592 (84%) had NMOC emissions requiring controls (based on exceeding the 34 Mg/year emission threshold). Based on this information, we estimate that at least 70 percent (592/834) of landfills with GCCS reporting to subpart HH are conducting required SMCM monitoring according to the provisions in the federal NSPS or EG for MSW landfills. These facilities should be able to provide the additional data needed to calculate emissions from cover leaks with minimal burden.
By difference, we estimate that 15 to 30 percent of landfills with GCCS reporting under subpart HH are not conducting SMCM monitoring. These facilities may elect to conduct SMCM monitoring at least annually or use the new, lower CEs proposed for landfills with GCCS that are not conducting SMCM monitoring. Some of these landfills may be required by state regulations to conduct SMCM monitoring so these facilities should be able to provide the additional data needed to calculate emissions from cover leaks with minimal burden. We expect nearly all of the other landfill operators to elect to use the new, lower CEs and this option will not change the overall reporting burden for these facilities.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18624-18626]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08917]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket Nos. FMCSA-2013-0107; FMCSA-2013-0109; FMCSA-2015-0119]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for three
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any

loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on February 14, 2018. The
exemptions expire on February 14, 2020. Comments must be received on or
before May 29, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0107; FMCSA-2013-0109;
FMCSA-2015-0119 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day e.t.,
365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for five years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA
grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with
the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
    The three individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal
of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on
their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-
year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the three
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The
three drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency,
have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any
medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a
CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. In addition, for
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data.
For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the
State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an
adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to
safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes
that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of
two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing
without the exemption.
    As of February 14, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Gregory L. Hrutkay, (PA)
John Johnson, (WI)
George K. Webb, (MA).

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0107; FMCSA-
2013-0109; FMCSA-2015-0119. Their exemptions are applicable as of
February 14, 2018, and will expire on February 14, 2020.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each

driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified
Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The
exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the three exemption applications,
FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: April 23, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-08917 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P