recovery component. Landfill gas energy recovery protects the
environment by not only controlling LFG and its components, but also by
offsetting conventional sources of energy with a renewable resource for
heating, electricity, vehicle fuel, or other innovative end uses. The
EPA also notes that landfills complying with a treatment compliance
option are also subject to the surface emissions monitoring
requirements discussed in section VI.A of this preamble to ensure that
the GCCS is well operated and surface emissions are minimized.
Preparing the monitoring plan would document procedures that landfills
are likely already following to ensure that the LFG has been adequately
treated for its intended use and provide verifiable records of proper
operation to the EPA or other implementing authorities.
    The plan would be required to include monitoring parameters
addressing all three elements of treatment (filtration, de-watering,
and compression) to ensure the treatment system is operating properly
for the intended end use of the treated LFG. The plan would be required
to include monitoring methods, frequencies, and operating ranges for
each monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer's
recommendations or engineering analysis for the intended end use of the
treated LFG. Documentation of the monitoring methods and ranges, along
with justification for their use, would need to be included in the
site-specific monitoring plan. In the plan, the owner or operator would
also need to identify who is responsible (by job title) for data
collection, explain the processes and methods used to collect the
necessary data, and describe the procedures and methods that are used
for quality assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous
monitoring systems.
    The owner or operator would be required to revise the monitoring
plan to reflect changes in processes, monitoring instrumentation, and
quality assurance procedures; or to improve procedures for the
maintenance and repair of monitoring systems to reduce the frequency of
monitoring equipment downtime.
    Promote the Beneficial Use of LFG. Technical assistance is
available to landfill owners and operators who want to beneficially use
LFG. The EPA LMOP is a voluntary assistance program that encourages
recovery and beneficial use of landfill gas, and in turn, helps to
reduce methane emissions from landfills. LMOP has developed many

publications and tools to assist stakeholders interested in developing
LFG energy projects or promote landfill gas energy recovery to various
audiences. LMOP also provides customized, direct assistance to
individual Partners to address their needs, such as preliminary
analyses to estimate landfill gas energy project feasibility or
responses to technical questions about particular issues or barriers
involved with project development. LMOP's Web site has become one of
the main modes of providing LMOP Partners, others in the industry, and
the public with basic information and keeping them abreast of the
latest LFG energy-related advances and opportunities (http://www.epa.gov/lmop/). Many LMOP resources and tools are available on the
Web site including a Project Development Handbook, a preliminary
economic assessment model, and a database of LFG energy recovery
projects.

B. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit 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 section 112 standards apply continuously.
    Periods of Startup or Shutdown. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
the EPA is proposing standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf that apply
at all times. In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has
taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons
explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those
periods.
    The part 60 general provisions, which define startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, were written for typical industrial or manufacturing
sources and associated processes. Many of these sources and processes
may, at times, be shut down entirely for clean-out, maintenance, or
repairs, and then restarted. Applying the standards at all times,
including periods of startup and shutdown, is intended to minimize
excess emissions when the source or process ceases operation or
commences operation, or during malfunctions. Landfill emissions,
however, are produced by a continuous biological process that cannot be
stopped or restarted. For landfills, the primary SSM concern is with
malfunction of the landfill GCCS and associated monitoring equipment,
not with the startup or shutdown of the entire source. Thus, SSM
provisions in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf focus primarily on
malfunction of the gas collection system, gas control system, and gas
treatment system, which is part of the gas control system.
    Periods of Malfunction. Periods of startup, normal operations, and
shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's
operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor
routine. Instead they are, by definition sudden, infrequent and not
reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or
monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA interprets CAA section 111
as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to
be factored into development of CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in
CAA section 111 or in case law requires that the EPA consider
malfunctions when determining what standards of performance reflect the
degree of emission limitation achievable through ``the application of
the best system of emission reduction'' that the EPA determines is
adequately demonstrated. While the EPA accounts for variability in
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 111 requires the
agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction
should not be treated in the same manner as the type of variation in
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels EPA to consider such
events in setting CAA section 111 standards of performance.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem.
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of
imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources
to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle,
590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions
at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution
control device with 99 percent removal goes off-line as a result of a
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99 percent
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA
section 111 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions
is consistent with CAA section 111 and is a reasonable interpretation
of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 111 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation (40 CFR 60.2 (definition of
malfunction)).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can

raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal
district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The
same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding
officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised
and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 111 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. 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.
    In several prior rules, the EPA had included an affirmative defense
to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in an effort
to create a system that incorporates some flexibility, recognizing that
there is a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure
adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the
most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under
circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. Although the
EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement discretion provides
sufficient flexibility in these circumstances, it included the
affirmative defense to provide a more formalized approach and more
regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case
enforcement discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co.
v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more
formalized approach to consideration of ``upsets beyond the control of
the permit holder''). Under the EPA's regulatory affirmative defense
provisions, if a source could demonstrate in a judicial or
administrative proceeding that it had met the requirements of the
affirmative defense in the regulation, civil penalties would not be
assessed. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated an affirmative defense in one of the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
(vacating affirmative defense provisions in the CAA section 112 rule
establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). The court
found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an affirmative defense
for private civil suits and held that under the CAA, the authority to
determine civil penalty amounts in such cases lies exclusively with the
courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the court found: ``As the language
of the statute makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case
basis, whether civil penalties are `appropriate.' '' See NRDC at 1063
(``[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are `appropriate'
in a given private civil suit is a job for the courts, not EPA.''). In
light of NRDC v. EPA, the EPA is not including a regulatory affirmative
defense provision in this rulemaking. As explained above, if a source
is unable to comply with emissions standards as a result of a
malfunction, the EPA may use its case-by-case enforcement discretion to
provide flexibility, as appropriate. Further, as the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recognized, in an EPA or
citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider
any defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. Cf.
NRDC, at 1064 (arguments that violation were caused by unavoidable
technology failure can be made to the courts in future civil cases when
the issue arises). The same is true for the presiding officer in EPA
administrative enforcement actions.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA's authority
to establish an affirmative defense to penalties that is available
in administrative enforcement actions, EPA is not including such an
affirmative defense in the proposed rule. As explained above, such
an affirmative defense is not necessary. Moreover, assessment of
penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in administrative
proceedings and judicial proceedings should be consistent. Cf. CAA
section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the court to
take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Limit on SSM duration. Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 limits the
duration of SSM events for MSW landfills to 5 days for the landfill gas
collection system and 1 hour for treatment or control devices. Proposed
40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf does not include the 5-day and 1-hour time
limitations because some malfunctions cannot be corrected within these
timeframes. Excluding these provisions is consistent with Sierra Club
v. EPA (551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), which concluded that that
emission standards apply at all times, including periods of SSM, and 40
CFR 60.11(d), which states that at all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction, owners or operators shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate any affected facility
including associated air pollution control equipment in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing
emissions. The proposed revisions clarify that the NSPS standards
continue to apply during periods of SSM.
    To prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere during
control device malfunctions, we propose to include a requirement in
subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.34f(e)) that states that in the event the
collection or control system is not operating, the gas mover system
must be shut down and all valves in the collection and control system
contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere must be closed within
1 hour. The EPA proposes to use the term ``not operating,'' which
includes periods when the gas collection or control system is not
operating for whatever reason, including when the gas collection or
control system is inoperable. The EPA requests comment on the technical
feasibility of this approach as well as alternate ways to prevent free
venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere during control device
malfunctions.
    Shutting down the gas mover equipment and all valves contributing
to venting of gas to the atmosphere minimizes emissions from the
landfill while the control system is not operating and is being
repaired. Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 60.34f(e) does not constitute
compliance with the applicable standards in proposed 40 CFR 60.36f;
however, as a practical matter it is unlikely that there would be a
violation since no gas would be flowing to the control device.
Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 60.34f(e) is necessary to demonstrate
compliance with the general duty to minimize emissions in 40 CFR
60.11(d) during control or collection system malfunctions.
    Under proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, landfill owners or
operators must keep records of combustion temperature, bypass flow, and
periods when the flare flame or the flare pilot flame is out. However,
without additional provisions, the EPA would have no way to gauge the
severity of an emissions exceedance that may occur when these operating
parameters are not being met or when the control device is not
operating. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to include provisions for
landfill owners or operators to estimate NMOC emissions when the
control device or collection system is not operating. The landfill
owners or operators may use whatever information is available to
estimate NMOC emissions during the period, including but not limited
to, landfill gas flow to or bypass of the control device, the
concentration of NMOC (from the most recent performance test or from
AP-42), and the amount of time the control

device is not operating. Landfill owners or operators would keep
records of the estimated emissions and would report the information in
the annual compliance report.
    As discussed above, malfunctions are by definition sudden,
infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions
control, process or monitoring equipment. Further, there are myriad
different types of malfunctions that can occur and there are
significant difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for
the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. As a result, the EPA believes that it is generally not
technically feasible to establish an alternative emission standard that
would apply during periods of malfunction. The EPA also believes that
it would be difficult to defend an alternative standard that does not
achieve a level of emission reduction comparable to that required by
the standard that applies during periods of normal operation in
circumstances where there are steps that an owner or operator could
take to achieve such reductions such as shutting down the process or
having a second control device. In the immediate case, by shutting down
the flow to the flare or other control device a source is unlikely to
be in violation of the 98 percent emission reduction requirement since
there will be no gas flowing to the control device. We are, however,
interested in comment on whether there are alternative ways in which
the emission limit could be complied with when the control device
malfunctions.

C. Definitions and Other Rule Changes

    We propose to include definitions of ``household waste'' and
``segregated yard waste'' in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf to
clarify our intent regarding the applicability of proposed subpart Cf
to landfills that do not accept household waste, but accept segregated
yard waste. We also proposed to exclude construction and demolition
waste from the definition of household waste. We intend for subpart Cf
to apply to MSW landfills that accept general household waste
(including garbage, trash, sanitary waste), as indicated in the
definitions. We do not intend the landfills rules to apply to landfills
that accept only segregated yard waste or a combination of segregated
yard waste and non-household waste such as construction and demolition
waste.

X. Request for Comment on Specific Provisions

A. Defining Closed Areas of Open Landfills

    In the ANPRM for the Emission Guidelines (79 FR 41772), the EPA
requested input on how non-producing areas of the landfill, i.e., areas
that are no longer generating landfill gas, could be excluded from gas
collection requirements when designing a GCCS (79 FR 41792). The EPA
also sought input on whether the current criteria for capping or
removing a GCCS are appropriate, one of which requires that the
landfill be closed (79 FR 41783). As discussed in section VIII.B of
this preamble, we are proposing a second set of alternative criteria
for capping or removing the GCCS at closed landfills or closed areas of
active landfills, based on surface emissions monitoring.
    Commenters expressed concern with the requirement for closed areas
to be physically separated in order to be excluded from GCCS
requirements, noting that many closed areas of active landfills are
non-producing but remain physically connected to other areas of the
landfill.
    To help address the difficulty of controlling landfill gas in low-
producing areas, the EPA is proposing an alternative set of criteria
for capping or removing the GCCS that employs a SEM demonstration: (1)
The landfill is closed or an area of an active landfill is closed, (2)
the GCCS has operated for at least 15 years or the landfill owner or
operator can demonstrate that the GCCS will be unable to operate for 15
years due to declining gas flows, and (3) the landfill or closed area
demonstrates for 4 consecutive quarters that there are no surface
emissions of 500 ppm or greater. The EPA is also requesting comment on
whether owners or operators of physically separated, closed areas of
landfills may model NMOC emission rates, or may determine the flow rate
of landfill gas using actual measurements, to determine NMOC emissions
in order to identify areas that can be excluded from gas collection.
The EPA considers areas to be physically separated if they have
separate liners and gas cannot migrate between the separate areas.
    To further address non-producing areas, proposed 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf contains procedures for excluding areas from gas collection
and control. Owners or operators of landfills with physically
separated, closed areas may demonstrate that the quantity of NMOC
emissions from the area is less than 1 percent of the total NMOC
emissions from the entire landfill, and thus exclude the area from
control. Under proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, owners or operators
of landfills with physically separated, closed areas may model NMOC
emission rates, or may determine the flow rate of landfill gas using
actual measurements, to determine NMOC emissions. Using actual flow
measurements would yield a more precise measurement of NMOC emissions
for purposes of demonstrating the closed area represents less than 1
percent of the landfills total NMOC emissions.
    Because both of these topics rely on defining a closed area of a
landfill, the EPA requests comment on how to define closed areas of
open landfills.

B. Enhanced Surface Emissions Monitoring

    The proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf collection and control
requirements are intended to ensure that landfills maintain a tight
cover that minimizes any emissions of landfill gas through the surface.
The surface emissions monitoring procedures in proposed 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf are consistent with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and require
quarterly surface emissions monitoring to demonstrate that the cover
and gas collection system are working properly. However, we are also
considering and requesting additional public input on a potential
alternative approach to surface emissions monitoring.
    The alternative surface monitoring approach includes changing the
walking pattern that traverses the landfill from 30 meters (98 ft) to
25 ft and adding a methane concentration limit of 25 ppm as determined
by integrated surface emissions monitoring. This would be in addition
to the 500 ppm emission concentration as determined by instantaneous
surface emissions monitoring. Integrated surface emissions monitoring
provides an average surface emission concentration across a specified
area. For integrated surface emissions monitoring, the specified area
would be individually identified 50,000 square ft grids. A tighter
walking pattern and the addition of an integrated methane concentration
limit would more thoroughly ensure that the collection system is being
operated properly, that the landfill cover and cover material are
adequate, and that methane emissions from the landfill surface are
minimized in all types of climates. As part of these potential changes,
the EPA is also considering not allowing surface monitoring when the
average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour (mph) or the instantaneous
wind speed exceeds 10 mph because air movement can affect whether the

monitor is accurately reading the methane concentration during surface
monitoring. We are considering this change because conducting surface
emissions monitoring during windy periods may not yield readings that
are representative of the emissions. The EPA requested public comment
on this same enhanced approach in the landfills NSPS (79 FR 41822) and
ANPRM (79 FR 41789).
    Many commenters supported the enhanced surface monitoring
provisions for detecting surface emissions. A state agency supported
reducing the traverse pattern to 25 feet, stating that the tighter
traverse pattern would increase the chance of detecting exceedances. An
environmental organization supported all elements of the enhanced
surface monitoring and contended that the current monitoring at 30
meter intervals leaves most areas of the landfill unmonitored. Both
these commenters suggested that the walking pattern be varied each
quarter (i.e., offset by 10 meters) to monitor additional areas over
time. The environmental organization supported an integrated reading
because it would be a better indicator of GCCS performance and they
contended that the additional costs were not unreasonable.
    Many commenters opposed the enhanced surface monitoring provisions.
Commenters that opposed the enhanced surface monitoring provisions
primarily cited the additional costs and contended that the additional
expense was not warranted because of limited environmental benefits.
Two commenters commissioned a study to compare the level of effort and
monitoring results of the CA LMR to the SEM requirements under the
current NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW). The CA LMR utilizes a 25 ft
traverse pattern, an instantaneous as well as integrated reading, and
prevents sampling during windy conditions (greater than 5 mph average
and greater than 10 mph instantaneous).
    The study examined monitoring results for eight quarters of NSPS
surface monitoring at 42 California landfills, encompassing 27,140
acres. Those results were compared to CA LMR surface monitoring for 10
quarters at 72 California landfills, including the 42 landfills
conducting NSPS surface monitoring, encompassing a total of 57,151
acres. Among other observations, the study concludes that although the
CA LMR surface emission monitoring requirements detected 2.1 percent
more exceedances than NSPS surface emission monitoring requirements,
detecting these additional exceedances is not cost effective. The study
also concluded that under the NSPS monitoring, only one landfill was
required to expand its GCCS, while under the CA LMR monitoring, only
three landfills were required to expand the GCCS. The two commenters
that commissioned the study contended that the additional cost to
conduct enhanced surface monitoring, estimated by the EPA to be seven
times more expensive than NSPS monitoring, was an extraordinary amount
of money to spend detecting exceedances at merely an additional 2.8
percent of acres monitored, while increasing gas collection at only one
landfill.
    The EPA examined the data supporting the study as provided by one
of the commenters. The data allowed for direct comparison of exceedance
data from 29 landfills, although for different time periods. The study
and supporting data provide evidence of greater exceedances under the
California approach than the current approach. However, the EPA was
unable to determine the magnitude of emission reductions that might
result from the greater exceedances under the California approach. See
the docketed memorandum entitled ``Analysis of Surface Exceedances from
California Landfills under the New Source Performance Standards and the
California Landfill Methane Rule.''
    Many commenters, including many state agencies, opposed limiting
surface monitoring during windy conditions, stating that the wind
restrictions would be a significant inhibitor to completing the
required monitoring in many regions of the country due to typical windy
conditions. Commenters also stated that it would be difficult to
schedule and reschedule dedicated sampling crews and conditions could
change quickly during sampling events, causing crews to stop
monitoring.
    For proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, the EPA estimated the
costs associated with both the proposed subpart Cf surface monitoring
requirements (which are the same as the surface monitoring requirements
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) and potential changes to the surface
monitoring provisions under the proposed 2.5/34 option and the proposed
2.5/40 option and applied them to the set of existing landfills that
would be subject to control requirements under the respective option.
To determine the costs, the EPA used the following assumptions: Most
landfills will hire a contractor to conduct the quarterly monitoring.
The landfill will incur labor costs based on the time it takes to walk
the traverse (hours per acre), the size of the landfill (acres), and a
labor rate (dollars per hour). The landfill will also incur an
equipment rental rate (dollars per hour) as well as a flat fee for
purchasing calibration gases and hydrogen to fuel the equipment.
Equipment rental rates are dollar per day/week/month, depending on the
size of the landfill and time to traverse the acreage during each
quarterly period. See the docketed memo, ``Updated Methodology for
Estimating Testing and Monitoring Costs for the MSW Landfill
Regulations. 2015,'' which contains the details for determining the
costs that a landfill would incur to conduct enhanced surface
monitoring.
    Using the techniques discussed in section V.B of this preamble, the
EPA estimated the number of landfills that are expected to install
controls under the baseline, as well as the proposed option 2.5/34 and
option 2.5/40. Then, the EPA applied surface monitoring costs to the
respective set of landfills because landfills that must install
controls must also conduct surface monitoring. Table 4 of this preamble
compares the enhanced surface monitoring costs that would be incurred
for new landfills under the baseline and proposed option 2.5/34 and
proposed option 2.5/40.

                              Table 4--Comparison of Baseline Surface Monitoring Versus Enhanced Surface Monitoring in 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Incremental
                                                                             Number of                      Incremental   Total cost per     cost per
              Control option                   Surface monitoring type       landfills      Annual cost        cost         controlled      controlled
                                                                            controlling                                      landfill        landfill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 2.5/50 (2.5 million Mg design      No change (30 meter                      574       6,327,000              NA          11,000              NA
 capacity/50 Mg/yr NMOC).                    traverse).
                                            Enhanced (25-foot traverse,   ..............      43,831,000      37,504,000          76,400          65,300
                                             integrated sample).

Option 2.5/40 (2.5 million Mg design        No change (30 meter                      636       6,741,000         414,000          10,600             700
 capacity/40 Mg/yr NMOC).                    traverse).
                                            Enhanced (25-foot traverse,   ..............      46,746,000      40,419,000          73,500          63,600
                                             integrated sample).
Proposed Option 2.5/34 (2.5 million Mg      No change (30 meter                      680       7,062,000         735,000          10,400           1,100
 design capacity/34 Mg/yr NMOC).             traverse).
                                            Enhanced (25-foot traverse,   ..............      49,037,000      42,710,000          72,100          62,800
                                             integrated sample).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several factors contribute to the cost of enhanced surface
monitoring. Monitoring along a traverse with a 25 ft. interval would
increase monitoring time, and thus the labor costs, compared to
monitoring along a 30 meter (98 ft.) interval. Monitoring along the
tighter traverse pattern would take approximately 4 times as long,
because the distance is approximately 4 times greater. For a landfill
to conduct the integrated surface emissions monitoring, the EPA assumed
the landfill would rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer with a data
logger. The data logger is necessary to obtain an integrated reading
over a single 50,000 square foot grid. However, the EPA does not expect
that requiring an integrated methane concentration would add
significant cost because landfills could use the same instrument that
they currently use for the instantaneous readings and these instruments
can be programmed to provide an integrated value as well as an
instantaneous value.
    The EPA recognizes that these provisions could reduce surface
emissions and that these emissions reductions are difficult to
quantify. The EPA also understands that there are potential
implementation concerns with these enhanced procedures. Surface
monitoring is a labor intensive process and tightening the grid pattern
would increase costs. Of the 574 landfills expected to be controlling
in 2025 under the baseline, it would take these landfills over 42
hours, on average, to complete each quarterly traverse pattern.
Tightening the traverse pattern to 25 ft instead of 30 meters would
require over 165 hours per quarter, or nearly 500 additional hours per
year, per landfill, compared to the current 30-meter traverse pattern.
    At this time, the EPA is not proposing surface monitoring
provisions that differ from those outlined in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW, but we are soliciting comment on the various elements of enhanced
surface emissions monitoring (the width of the traverse pattern,
offsetting the walking pattern each quarter (i.e., offset by 10
meters), an integrated reading of 25 ppm, and restrictions during windy
conditions), as well as techniques and data to estimate the emission
reductions associated with enhanced surface monitoring.

C. Wet Landfills

    In the ANPRM (79 FR 41784), we solicited input on separate
thresholds for wet landfills and how wet landfills might be defined.
Among other concerns, we received feedback from commenters expressing
concern on potential overlap between wet landfills handled under the
Emission Guidelines and bioreactor landfills handled under 40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAA (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills). A landfill is defined as
a bioreactor under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA if it has added liquids
other than leachate into the waste mass in a controlled fashion; \68\
such bioreactor landfills are required to install and operate a GCCS on
an accelerated schedule compared to non-bioreactor landfills. Once a
landfill is required to install and operate a GCCS under either 40 CFR
part 63, subpart AAAA, or 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc, the GCCS
requirements are the same. In addition to bioreactors as defined under
40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, the EPA is aware of 31 bioreactor
projects permitted under the research, development, and demonstration
(RD&D) rule in 11 states and one project on tribal lands.\69\ These
bioreactor landfills generally do not meet the 40 percent by weight
moisture component of the bioreactor definition in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAA. Based on the options analyzed and presented in Table 3 of
this preamble, proposed option 2.5/34 is estimated to achieve
reductions of NMOC and methane emissions at 651 existing open landfills
in year 2025. Of these 651 landfills, 18 are identified as having RD&D
permits, which permit liquids addition; 343 are located in areas
receiving greater than 40 inches of precipitation each year; and an
additional 16 landfills report leachate recirculation activities and a
k value of 0.057 year-1 or greater to subpart HH of the
GHGRP, but are not located in areas receiving 40 inches of
precipitation or more, for a total of 377 ``wet'' landfills out of
those required to control emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, bioreactor means a MSW
landfill or portion of a MSW landfill where any liquid other than
leachate (leachate includes landfill gas condensate) is added in a
controlled fashion into the waste mass (often in combination with
recirculating leachate) to reach a minimum average moisture content
of at least 40 percent by weight to accelerate or enhance the
anaerobic (without oxygen) biodegradation of the waste.
    \69\ EPA/600/R-14/335. Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor
Operations: Ten Years after the RD&D Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Collectively, reductions from these 377 wet landfills constitute
approximately 50 percent of the incremental reductions achieved by the
proposed option 2.5/34. Nearly all of these incremental reductions are
coming from the 343 landfills that are located in areas receiving 40
inches of precipitation or more. Based on this analysis, the NMOC
threshold of 34 Mg/yr in this proposal achieves significant reduction
in emissions from wet landfills.
    The EPA conducted a preliminary analysis to determine the
additional reductions that could be achieved if the initial lag time
was shortened by 1 year and the expansion lag time was shortened by 2
years and applied to open wet landfills in addition to the lower NMOC
emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr. The results of this analysis show

that an additional approximately 220 Mg/yr of reductions in NMOC
emissions and 35,200 Mg/yr of reductions in methane (879,000
mtCO2e/yr) could be achieved from these 377 wet landfills in
2025.
    It is important to note that the impacts of the options in Table 3
as well as this preliminary analysis of wet landfills were conducted
using a k value of 0.04 for any landfill that is located in an area
with at least 25 inches of rainfall, consistent with the analysis
discussed at 79 FR 41805. This modeling parameter was used for all but
nine of the 377 wet landfills discussed above. Those nine landfills,
which are either RD&D landfills or reported significant leachate
recirculation to subpart HH of the GHGRP were modeled using a k value
of 0.02 because they were located in arid areas.
    The results of the impacts analyses presented in Table 3 of this
preamble and above could differ significantly if alternative modeling
parameters (k and/or L\o\) were used to model emissions from this group
of wet landfills. For example, subpart HH of the GHGRP uses a k value
of 0.057 for landfills that exceed 40 inches per year when considering
both leachate recirculation and precipitation. The EPA also identified
a study containing alternative k values for five different bioreactor
landfills.\70\ One commenter urged the EPA to consider more
representative k values when calculating emission reductions from wet
landfills, and cited several studies for EPA review.71 72 73
This commenter also requested that the EPA adopt shorter lag times for
these wet landfills. Another commenter urged the EPA to finalize the
changes proposed in 2009 to AP-42 emission factors for MSW landfills,
which included a much higher k value of 0.3 for wet landfills, among
other changes.\74\ Another commenter provided input that leachate
recirculation will have negligible impact on the total precipitation
value that ultimately dictates which k value to use. This commenter
also referenced its prior comments expressing concerns that the draft
AP-42 k value for wet landfills was too high, and provided several
studies containing alternative k values for wet
landfills.75 76 77
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Barlaz, Morton et al., Performance of North American
Bioreactor Landfills II: Chemical and Biological Characteristics.
Journal of Environmental Engineering. Volume 136, No. 8. August
2010.
    \71\ Xiaoming Wang et al., Using Observed Data to Improve
Estimated Methane Collection From Select U.S. Landfills, Environ.
Sci. Technol. 3251, 3256 (2013).
    \72\ Hamid R. Amini et al., Comparison of First-Order Decay
Modeled and Actual Field Measured Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Methane Data, 33 Waste Management 2720, 2725 (2013).
    \73\ Barlaz et al., Controls on Landfill Gas Collection
Efficiency: Instantaneous and Lifetime Performance 59 J. Air & Waste
Mgmt. Ass'n 1399, 1402-03 (Dec. 2009).
    \74\ U.S. EPA AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 2, Draft
Section 2.4: Solid Waste Disposal http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf.
    \75\ Staley, B.F. and M.A. Barlaz, 2009, ``Composition of
Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon
Sequestration and Methane Yield,'' Journal of Environmental
Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 10, October 1, 2009.
    \76\ U.S. EPA, Landfill Bioreactor Performance, Second Interim
Report; EPN600/R-07/060, Office of Research and Development,
National Risk Management Laboratory: Cincinnati, OH, 2006.
    \77\ Tolaymat, T.M., Green, R.B., Hater, G.R., Barlaz, M.A.,
Black, P., Bronston, D., and J. Powell, ``Evaluation of Landfill Gas
Decay Constant for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Operated as
Bioreactors.'' Submitted to the Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association. 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the additional emission reductions that could be achieved
from shortening the lag times at wet landfills and in consideration of
the President's Methane Strategy, the EPA is soliciting input on
whether the wet landfills not subject to the requirements in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart AAAA should be subject to different schedules for
installing and expanding their GCCS under the Emission Guidelines.
Additionally, the EPA requests comment on how these wet landfills that
are not bioreactors (as defined in subpart AAAA) might be defined.
Finally, recognizing the wide range of k values used to model emissions
at wet landfills (0.057 to 0.3), the EPA requests comment and data to
support revising the k value used for assessing the impacts on wet
landfills, as well as the k value landfills should use in Tier 1 and
Tier 2 emission threshold determinations. The EPA also requests comment
on whether revisions to the k value for wet landfills would require
changes to the Lo modeling parameter for wet landfills.

D. Monitoring Wellhead Flowrate

    Based on comments received and discussed in section VI.B of this
preamble, as well as the proposal to eliminate the operating standards
for oxygen/nitrogen and temperature, the EPA is requesting input on
whether it should add a requirement to monitor wellhead flowrate to
help ensure a well-operated GCCS. Monitoring wellhead flow rate would
allow the landfill owner or operator to detect low gas flow and whether
a well is waterlogged, clogged, or pinched. The EPA is also requesting
comment on any other wellhead monitoring parameters that would help
ensure a well-operated GCCS.

E. Third-Party Design Plan Certification Program

    In the ANPRM for existing landfills (79 FR 41784, July 17, 2014),
the EPA solicited input on the possibility of establishing a third-
party design plan certification program and provided examples of
several rules and programs with third-party verification components.
The third-party program would supplement or replace the current
approach of requiring EPA or state review and approval of site-specific
design plans and plan revisions with a program whereby independent
third parties would review the design plans, determine whether they
conform to applicable regulatory criteria, and report their findings to
the approved state programs or the EPA (for states without approved
programs). The process of approving site-specific design plans and plan
revisions can be extremely resource-intensive for regulators and
regulated entities alike. The EPA believes modifying the regulations to
provide for the review and approval of the plans by competent and
independent third parties could reduce these burdens. Such an
independent program would need to be designed to ensure that, among
other things, the third parties are competent, accurate, independent,
and appropriately accredited. The program would also need to ensure
that the reviews are thorough, independent, and conducted pursuant to
clear and objective design plan review criteria. Finally, the program
would need to ensure that the system is transparent, including
requiring appropriate public disclosures, and that there is regular and
effective oversight of the third-party system. Some criteria for
auditor competence, independence, reporting, and oversight requirements
provisions might include the following:
     Engaging a third-party inspection team (team) and
submitting the members' resumes and qualifications to EPA;
     Requiring the team to have at least one person with
landfill industry expertise acceptable to the EPA, one expert in
environmental compliance auditing, and one expert in chemical process
safety management;
     Restricting team members to those who have not previously
performed work for the respondents;
     Restricting team members from working for the respondents
or any of the respondents' officers for 5 years after completion of
inspections;
     After giving the respondents notice of the first upcoming
inspection, restricting the team from

communicating with its respondents unless EPA is copied on the
communication (communications during on-site inspections are excepted);
     Unannounced follow-up inspections with no notice to
respondents but advance notice to the EPA;
     Restricting respondents from having control over the
timing of any of the follow-up inspections;
     Having the EPA or the delegated authority retain the right
to accompany the team on any inspection;
     Within 15 days of each inspection, requiring the team to
simultaneously submit to the EPA and the respondents an inspection
report, photographs, and digital video of the inspection;
     Denying the opportunity to review any draft or final
inspection report before its submittal.
    The EPA developed the above provisions based on the theoretical and
empirical research for best practices for independent third-party
audits.
    Commenters on the ANPRM generally did not support a third-party
design plan certification program and cited several reasons. Commenters
noted that the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) discussion of the program was overly
general and that the EPA did not adequately describe the possible
design features. One commenter expressed concerns that the examples of
third-party certification presented in the ANPRM are neither comparable
nor relevant to the review of MSW landfill GCCS design plans. One
commenter acknowledged that a third-party reviewer system could reduce
the burden and backlog experienced by reviewing agencies, but expressed
concern that the costs of verification would be significant. Another
commenter indicated the EPA did not present any economic and
implementation impacts concerning such a program in the ANPRM and
requested that EPA provide more details. Commenters also expressed
concern about finding consultants that would be free of conflicts of
interest given the consolidated nature of the MSW landfill industry.
One commenter noted that cost and potential conflicts of interest were
cited as reasons that the EPA did not adopt a third-party certification
program for the GHGRP. Another commenter agreed that there was the
potential for conflicts of interest and stated that design plan review
is an essential government oversight and should not be delegated.
Commenters also urged the EPA to thoroughly review the many issues that
could arise with a third-party certification program and urged the EPA
to take further notice and comment before promulgating such a program.
    Several commenters on the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) solicited additional
details on components of a proposed third-party certification program,
and the EPA is providing further details in this proposal. In this
document, the EPA is also seeking additional input on the possibility
of establishing a third-party design certification program. This
preamble discussion provides notice of the key features the EPA is
considering in such a program to ensure the integrity of such a
program, including the use of effective auditors and audits. See the
docketed memorandum ``Using Third-Party Audits to Improve Compliance''
for additional specificity regarding such third-party design features
with supporting studies, articles, and reports.
1. Definition and Characteristics of Independent Third-Party Compliance
Verification
    Third-party compliance verification occurs when an independent
third party verifies to a regulator that a regulated entity is meeting
or conforming to one or more compliance obligations (in the literature
and other regulations, the terms ``certifier,'' ``auditor,'' or
``inspector'' are also used to describe such verifiers). Independent
third-party programs are distinct from programs whereby regulated
sources employ contractors or consultants, even if they are separate
legal entities from the regulated facilities and are highly qualified.
When contractors or consultants report to facilities directly, have
other non-audit business or relationships with the facilities, and/or
the facilities are able to control or influence the audit reports' form
and/or content, this is not independent third-party verification but
rather enhanced self-auditing.
2. Third-Party Audit Program Considerations and Characteristics
    Based on careful review of the literature,\78\ the EPA believes
independent third-party programs can be effective, but only if properly
designed and overseen. The most critical considerations in designing
successful third-party auditing programs are building in provisions and
procedures for ensuring auditors are competent and independent. The EPA
seeks comment on the suitability of an independent third-party
verification program for landfills that includes the following design
elements to ensure its effectiveness and integrity: The use of
competent and independent auditors; accurate audits; public
transparency; and effective regulatory oversight. See also the docketed
memorandum ``Using Third-Party Audits to Improve Compliance'' for a
review of additional design features the EPA is considering and more
detailed information on the features listed below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Lesley K. McAllister, Regulation by Third-Party
Verification, 53 Boston C. L Rev. 1, 21-26 (Jan. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. A requirement that the auditing (verifying) firm, including any
corporate parent and/or subsidiaries and the actual persons responsible
for the audit, neither have had any prior business or family
relationship with the firm being audited in the past five years, nor
have worked on the development or implementation of the project/process
subject to the audit.
    b. A requirement that the auditing firm (including its corporate
parent and/or subsidiaries, if any) is prohibited from engaging in any
business transactions with the firm it is auditing for at least five
years after the audit is completed.
    c. A requirement that the verifying entity and the specific
auditors hold appropriate professional and educational credentials
issued by either the government entity that would otherwise review the
plan or an independent professional organization (accreditation board)
neither funded nor associated with the regulated sector.
    d. A requirement that the auditing firm share all drafts and the
final version of its audits with the government entity before, or at
the same time, as it shares them with the regulated entity.
    e. A requirement that appropriate auditing standards and protocols
be spelled out, including, if possible, by reference to identified
standards established by outside entities, e.g., International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), ASTM International (ASTM), etc.
    f. A requirement that audit reports, including names of key persons
involved in the audits, be made accessible to the public subject to
protecting confidential business information (CBI) and national
security information
    g. Requirements to ensure that the verifying firms operate with
integrity, competence, and independence and that the regulator audit,
i.e., review or ``backcheck,'' including some number of on-site
inspections, a significant percentage (e.g., 10 percent) of the
auditing firms and their audit reports.
    The EPA is requesting comments regarding the appropriate
professional and educational credentials

requirements for auditors. For example, should auditors be licensed
professional engineers? In addition based upon comments received, the
EPA also requests information concerning the costs associated with
third-party certification design plans.
    The EPA is also considering defining more specifically what it
means for an auditor to be independent, i.e., what potential conflicts
of interest such as being employees of parent company, affiliates, or
vendors/contractors that are currently working in the landfill
industry, could exclude an auditor from qualifying as independent.
Criteria for, and research on, competence and independence are
discussed further below.
    The EPA is also considering allowing a person at the facility who
is a registered professional engineer to conduct the audit at the
facility, i.e., first party/self-auditing, instead of requiring
independent third-party audits. If self-auditing is authorized, the EPA
seeks comment on how best to structure it to maximize auditor
independence and accurate auditing outcomes. Under the U.S. CARB v.
Hyundai Motor Company, et al. consent decree, for example, until the
consent decrees corrective measures are fully implemented, the
defendants must audit their fleets to ensure that vehicles sold to the
public conform to the vehicles' certification. The consent decree
provides that the audit team will be in the United States, will be
independent from the group that performed the original certification
work, and must perform their audits without access to or knowledge of
the defendants' original certification test data, which the consent
decree-required audits are intended to backcheck.\79\ The EPA seeks
comment as to whether similar restrictions should be placed on any
self-auditing conducted under the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Press Release: http://yosemite.epa.gov/OPA/ADMPRESS.NSF/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/15519081fbf4002285257d8500477615!OpenDocument; Detailed settlement
info.: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/hyundai-and-kia-clean-air-act-settlement; Consent Decree: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/hyundai-kia-cd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As another alternative approach, the EPA could require auditors to
have accreditation by a recognized accrediting body. Several of the
examples that have already been provided of existing or proposed
federal or state independent third-party auditing programs in rules use
this approach. The EPA thus seeks comment on whether third-party
auditors should be required to receive accreditation by a recognized
accrediting body. The EPA also seeks comment on the standards such
accrediting bodies should be required to meet, e.g., International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)/IEC 17011:2004(E), Conformity
Assessments--General Requirements for Accreditation Bodies Accrediting
Conformity Assessments Bodies (First Edition).
    There are advantages to third-party auditing, particularly with
strong auditor competence and independence criteria. According to the
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), ``Third-party auditors
(typically, consulting companies who can provide experienced auditors)
potentially provide the highest degree of objectivity.'' \80\ The
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), in its
Recommendation on Agency Use of Third-Party Programs to Assess
Regulatory Compliance (December 6, 2012), found that, when well-
designed and implemented per the Recommendation, ``[s]everal broad
reasons support the growing use of third-party programs in federal
regulation.'' Specifically, ACUS found that ``. . . federal regulatory
agencies are faced with assuring the compliance of an increasing number
of entities and products without a corresponding growth in agency
resources. Third-party programs may leverage private resources and
expertise in ways that make regulation more effective and less costly.
In comparison with other regulatory approaches, third-party programs
may also enable more frequent compliance assessment and more complete
and reliable compliance data'' \81\ A leading scholar on regulatory
third-party programs likewise found that, when well-designed and
implemented, ``third-party verification could furnish more and better
data about regulatory compliance'' while providing additional
compliance and resource savings benefits.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety, March 2007. CCPS.
http://www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/publications/books/guidelines-risk-based-process-safety.
    \81\ Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS);
Administrative Conference Recommendation 2012-7; Agency Use of
Third-Party Programs to Assess Regulatory Compliance (Adopted
December 6, 2012) at 3-4. https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/agency-use-third-party-programs-assess-regulatory-compliance.
    \82\ Lesley K. McAllister, Regulation by Third-Party
Verification, 53 Boston C. L Rev. 1, 21-26 (Jan. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All independent third-party compliance verification programs
establish criteria and standards for auditor competence. Typically,
such criteria and standards combine specified minimum levels of
education, knowledge, experience, and training. Auditors should be
knowledgeable and experienced with the facility type and processes
being audited. The applicable recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices, trained or certified in proper third-party
auditing techniques, and licensed professional engineers should be
employed where appropriate. The EPA seeks comment on whether these
criteria are appropriate and sufficient to ensure that auditors are
competent to perform high-quality auditing.
3. Public Disclosure/Transparency
    It is EPA policy that both the government and the public have
appropriate access to information about regulated entities and their
compliance status. This includes relevant information on the operation
of any independent third-party programs. The EPA seeks comment on what
information associated with such a program for landfills should be
publicly disclosed and how to disclose it.
4. E-Reporting of Audit Reports and Certifications
    Pursuant to EPA's Policy Statement on E-Reporting in EPA
Regulations (September 30, 2013), ``[t]he Policy of the [EPA] is to
[b]egin the regulatory development process with the assumption that all
reporting will be electronic, unless there is a compelling reason to
use paper reporting. Consistent with that policy, the EPA is requesting
comment on requiring independent third-party auditors to provide their
audit reports and associated certification statements (see discussion
below) to EPA electronically and seeks comment on how to best design
the e-reporting system to facilitate its use by the regulated
facilities and third-party auditors.
5. Facility and Third-Party Auditor Certification Statements
    EPA's experience shows that requiring a responsible corporate or
third-party official to attest to self-monitoring, reporting, and
third-party auditing can help ensure that appropriate officials are
personally familiar with the reported information and reminds them of
the penalties associated with knowingly submitting false information.
The EPA intends to require such language for any third-party audit
reports under these emission guidelines and requests comment on its
wording. The EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should,
for this rule, require regulated facilities and/or third-party auditors
to

publicly post their certifications to their qualifications to conduct
the audit and/or the accuracy and completeness of the audit reports.
6. Examples of Independent Third-Party Programs in Other Rules
    Third-party audits or other forms of compliance verification are
also required by a variety of final or proposed EPA programs to promote
compliance with regulatory standards. Examples of proposed or final
federal environmental regulatory programs with built-in third-party
verification include the following rules and rulemakings:
     EPA CAA Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program: The RFS
regulations include requirements for obligated parties to: (1) Meet
annual attest engagement requirements using independent certified
public accountants (the purpose of attest engagements is to provide
regulated parties an independent review of their compliance with both
the fuels requirements themselves as well as the regulated party's
internal systems to monitor and document compliance); (2) submit
independent third-party engineering reviews to the EPA before
generating Renewable Identification Numbers.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ EPA, Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ/fuels/renewablefuels/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EPA CAA wood stoves rule: Residential wood heaters (which
include stoves) contribute significantly to particulate air pollution.
Wood stove model lines that are in compliance with the wood stoves rule
are referred to as EPA-certified wood stoves. The EPA's certification
process requires manufacturers to verify that each of their wood stove
model lines meet a specific particulate emission limit by undergoing
emission testing at an EPA-accredited laboratory.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ EPA, Wood Heater Compliance Monitoring Program, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/03/16/2015-03733/standards-of-performance-for-new-residential-wood-heaters-new-residential-hydronic-heaters-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Use of Portable Analyzers for Monitoring Oxygen

    In the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), as well as 40 CFR 60.37f(a)(2)
of the proposed Emission Guidelines, landfill owners or operators must
use Method 3A or Method 3C when monitoring the oxygen and nitrogen
levels at the wellhead, unless an alternative test method is
established. Several commenters on the proposed NSPS requested that the
EPA specify that portable gas composition analyzers are an acceptable
alternative to Methods 3A or 3C, and noted that these devices are
commonly used in practice to measure wellhead parameters and calibrated
according to the manufacturer's specifications. Currently, approval of
these analyzers are done on a case-by-case basis. In proposed 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cf, the EPA has not listed portable gas composition
analyzers for determining oxygen or nitrogen levels. The EPA did not
receive any data supporting these comments as to why the analyzers
could not be calibrated according to Method 3A and maintains that
proper calibration of portable gas composition analyzers is important
for generating accurate results. The EPA is requesting data or
information on the use of a portable gas composition analyzer according
to Method 3A. The EPA is also requesting data on other reference
methods used for calibrating these analyzers.

XI. Impacts of Proposed Revisions

    For most Emission Guidelines, the EPA analyzes the impacts in the
year the standard is implemented. Assuming the Emission Guidelines are
promulgated in the summer of 2016, states have 9 months to prepare a
state plan implementing the guidelines (March 2017) and the EPA has 4
months to review the plan (July 2017). If necessary, the state has an
additional 2 months to revise and submit a corrected plan based on any
comments from the EPA (September 2017). Concurrently, the EPA must
promulgate a federal plan within 6 months after the state plan is due,
consistent with 60.27(d), or March 2018. So, the EPA-approved state
plan and updated federal plan implementing the Emission Guidelines are
expected to become effective in March 2018. While 2018 is the estimated
implementation year, the proposed reporting and control timeframe
allows 3 months to submit the first NMOC emission report and then 30
months after exceeding the NMOC emission threshold before the GCCS is
required to be installed. So, the first year of controls under the
proposed revisions would be 2021.
    The EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a representative year
for the landfills Emission Guidelines. While the year 2025 differs
somewhat from the expected first year of implementation for the
Emission Guidelines (year 2018), the number of existing landfills
required to install controls under the proposed 2.5/34 option in year
2025 is comparable (within 2 percent of those required to control in
the estimated first year of implementation. Further, year 2025
represents a year in which several of the landfills subject to control
requirements have had to expand their GCCS according the expansion lag
times set forth in proposed subpart Cf. The methodology for estimating
the impacts of the Emission Guidelines is discussed in section V.B of
this preamble and in the docketed memorandum ``Revised Methodology for
Cost and Emission Impacts of Landfill Regulations (2015).'' The results
of applying this methodology to the population of existing landfills
potentially subject to each of the regulatory options are in the
docketed memorandum ``Revised Cost and Emission Impacts Resulting from
the Landfill EG Review (2015).'' Table 3 of this preamble summarizes
the emission reductions and costs associated with the control options
considered.

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    This proposal would achieve nearly an additional 5 percent
reduction in NMOC from existing landfills, or 2,770 Mg/yr, when
compared to the baseline, as shown in Table 5 of this preamble. The
proposal would also achieve substantial reductions in methane
emissions. These reductions are achieved by reducing the NMOC threshold
from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr as proposed at open landfills.

 Table 5--Emission Reductions in 2025 for Existing Landfills Subject to
            Additional Controls Under Proposed Option 2.5/34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Parameter                             Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline NMOC Emission Reductions(Mg)  57,300.
 \a\.
Proposed Incremental NMOC Emission     2,770.
 Reductions (Mg).
Baseline Methane Emission Reductions   9,035,000.
 (Mg) \a\.
Proposed Incremental Methane Emission  436,100.
 Reductions (Mg).
Baseline Methane Emission Reductions   226.
 (million mtCO2e) \a\.

Proposed Incremental Methane Emission  10.9.
 Reductions (million mtCO2e).
% Emission Reduction from Proposal...  5% below baseline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These are the reductions that would be achieved from existing
  landfills if 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf retained the same gas
  collection and control requirements that are in 40 CFR part 60,
  subparts WWW and Cc.

B. What are the water quality and solid waste impacts?

    Leachate is the liquid that passes through the landfilled waste and
strips contaminants from the waste as the leachate percolates.
Precipitation generates the vast majority of leachate volume.
Installation of a gas collection system will generate additional
liquid, in the form of gas condensate, and it will be routed to the
same leachate treatment mechanisms in place for controlling
precipitation-based leachate. Collected leachate can be treated on site
or transported off site to wastewater treatment facilities. Some
landfills have received permits allowing for recirculation of leachate
in the landfill, which may further reduce the volume of leachate
requiring treatment. Additional liquid generated from gas condensate is
not expected to be significant and insufficient data are available to
estimate the increases in leachate resulting from expanded gas
collection and control requirements.
    The additional GCCS components required by this proposal have
finite lifetimes (approximately 15 years) and these pipes and wells
will be capped or disposed of at the end of their useful life. There
are insufficient data to quantify the solid waste resulting from
disposal of this control infrastructure.
    Further, the incremental costs of control for the proposal are not
expected to have an appreciable market effect on the waste disposal
costs, tipping fees, or the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills
because the costs for gas collection represent a small portion of the
overall costs to design, construct, and operate a landfill. There is
insufficient information to quantify the effect increased gas control
costs might have on the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills
versus other disposal mechanisms such as recycling, waste-to-energy, or
composting. Note that elements of this proposed rule--notably lowering
the NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr--provide additional incentives to
separate waste.

C. What are the secondary air impacts?

    Secondary air impacts may include grid emissions from purchasing
electricity to operate the GCCS components, by-product emissions from
combustion of LFG in flares or energy recovery devices, and offsets to
conventional grid emissions from new LFG energy supply.
    The secondary air impacts are presented as net impacts, considering
both the energy demand and energy supply resulting from the proposal.
The methodology used to prepare the estimated secondary impacts for
this preamble is discussed in the docketed memorandum ``Estimating
Secondary Impacts of the Landfills Emission Guidelines Review. 2015.''
    While we do expect NOX and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emission changes as a result of these guidelines, we
expect these changes to be small and these changes have not been
estimated. The net impacts were computed for CO2e. After
considering the offsets from LFG electricity, the impacts of the
proposal are expected to reduce CO2 emissions by 238,000
metric tons per year. These CO2 emission reductions are in
addition to the methane emission reductions achieved from the direct
destruction of methane in flares or engines presented in Table 3 of
this preamble.

D. What are the energy impacts?

    The proposal is expected to have a very minimal impact on energy
supply and consumption. Active gas collection systems require energy to
operate the blowers and pumps and the proposal will increase the volume
of landfill gas collected. When the least cost control is a flare,
energy may be purchased from the grid to operate the blowers of the
landfill gas collection system. However, when the least cost control
option is an engine, the engine may provide this energy to the gas
control system and then sell the excess to the grid. Considering the
balance of energy generated and demanded from the estimated least cost
controls, the proposal is estimated to supply 0.4 million megawatt
hours (MWh) of additional energy per year.

E. What are the cost impacts?

    To meet the proposed control requirements, a landfill is expected
to install the least cost control for combusting the landfill gas. The
cost estimates (described in sections V of this preamble) evaluated
each landfill to determine whether a gas collection and flare or a gas
collection with flare and engine equipment would be least cost, after
considering local power buyback rates and whether the quantity of
landfill gas was sufficient to generate electricity. The control costs
include the costs to install and operate gas collection infrastructure
such as wells, header pipes, blowers, and an enclosed flare. For
landfills where the least cost control option was an engine, the costs
also include the cost to install and operate one or more reciprocating
internal combustion engines to convert the landfill gas into
electricity. Revenue from electricity sales was incorporated into the
net control costs using state-specific data on wholesale purchase
prices, where engines were deemed to be the least cost control option.
Testing and monitoring costs at controlled landfills include the cost
to conduct initial performance tests on the enclosed flare or engine
control equipment, quarterly surface monitoring, continuous combustion
monitoring, and monthly wellhead monitoring. At uncontrolled landfills,
the testing and monitoring costs include calculation and reporting of
NMOC emission rates.
    The nationwide incremental annualized net cost for the proposal is
$46.8 million, when using a 7 percent discount rate, of which $0.7
million is testing and monitoring costs. Table 6 of this preamble
presents the costs.

    Table 6--Incremental Cost Impacts in 2025 for Existing Landfills Subject to Additional Controls Under the
                                                    Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                   Total number                       Average       annualized     Average  net
             Option                of landfills     Annualized      annualized      testing and        total
                                  incurring cost   control cost       revenue       monitoring      annualized
                                        \a\                                            cost            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Total Costs of Baseline ($2012)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 2.5/50 (2.5 million Mg              785           1,700           1,408             7.3             299
 design capacity/50 Mg/yr NMOC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Incremental Costs Above Baseline ($2012)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 2.5/34 (2.5                    0             101            55.3             0.7            46.8
 million Mg design capacity/34
 Mg/yr NMOC)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ At the baseline, 574 of the landfills are controlling in 2025 and an additional 211 landfills are expected
  to submit NMOC emission reports, but are not yet controlling for a total of 785. In the proposed option, the
  total landfills incurring cost are also 785, but the proposal is estimated to require controls at 680
  landfills and the remaining 105 landfills are expected to submit NMOC emission reports, but are not yet
  controlling.

F. What are the economic impacts?

    Because of the relatively low net cost of the proposed option
compared to the overall size of the MSW industry, as well as the lack
of appropriate economic parameters or model, the EPA is unable to
estimate the impacts of the options on the supply and demand for MSW
landfill services. However, because of the relatively low incremental
costs of the proposal, the EPA does not believe the proposal would lead
to substantial changes in supply and demand for landfill services or
waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in
landfills. Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be
minimal on the affected industries and their consumers.

G. What are the benefits?

    The proposal is expected to result in significant emissions
reductions from existing MSW landfills. By lowering the NMOC emissions
threshold to 34 Mg/yr, the proposal would achieve reductions of 2,770
Mg/yr NMOC and 436,100 Mg/yr methane (10.9 million mtCO2e/
yr). In addition, the proposal is expected to result in the net
reduction of 238,000 Mg CO2, due to reduced demand for
electricity from the grid as landfills generate electricity from
landfill gas.
    This rule is expected to result in significant health and welfare
benefits resulting from the climate benefits due to anticipated methane
and CO2 reductions. Methane is a potent GHG that, once
emitted into the atmosphere, absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation
that contributes to increased global warming and continuing climate
change. Methane reacts in the atmosphere to form tropospheric ozone and
stratospheric water vapor, both of which also contribute to global
warming. When accounting for the impacts of changing methane,
tropospheric ozone, and stratospheric water vapor concentrations, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report
(2013) found that historical emissions of methane accounted for about
30 percent of the total current warming influence (radiative forcing)
due to historical emissions of greenhouse gases. Methane is therefore a
major contributor to the climate change impacts described in section
III.B of this preamble. The remainder of this section discusses the
methane reductions expected from this proposed rule and the associated
monetized benefits.
    As discussed in section IV of this preamble, this rulemaking
proposes several changes to the Emission Guidelines for MSW landfills
that would decrease methane emissions from this sector. Specifically,
the proposed changes are expected to reduce methane emissions from all
landfills annually by about 436,100 metric tons of methane.
    We estimate the global social benefits of these methane emission
reductions using estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-
CH4), a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts
associated with marginal changes in methane emissions in a given year.
The SC-CH4 estimates applied in this analysis were developed
by Marten et al. (2014) and are discussed in greater detail below.
    A similar metric, the social cost of CO2 (SC-
CO2), provides important context for understanding the
Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates.\85\ The SC-CO2 is
a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with
marginal changes in CO2 emissions in a given year. It
includes a wide range of anticipated climate impacts, such as net
changes in agricultural productivity and human health, property damage
from increased flood risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as
reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air conditioning.
Estimates of the SC-CO2 have been used by the EPA and other
federal agencies to value the impacts of CO2 emissions
changes in benefit cost analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Previous analyses have commonly referred to the social cost
of carbon dioxide emissions as the social cost of carbon or SCC. To
more easily facilitate the inclusion of non-CO2 GHGs in
the discussion and analysis the more specific SC-CO2
nomenclature is used to refer to the social cost of CO2
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-CO2 estimates were developed over many years,
using the best science available, and with input from the public.
Specifically, an interagency working group (IWG) that included the EPA
and other executive branch agencies and offices used three integrated
assessment models (IAMs) to develop the SC-CO2 estimates and
recommended four global values for use in regulatory analyses. The SC-
CO2 estimates were first released in February 2010 and
updated in 2013 using new versions of each IAM.
    The 2010 SC-CO2 Technical Support Document (TSD)
provides a complete discussion of the methods used to develop these
estimates and the current SC-CO2 TSD presents and discusses
the 2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the
estimates).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Both the 2010 SC-CO2 TSD and the current TSD are
available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-CO2 TSDs discuss a number of limitations to the
SC-CO2 analysis, including the incomplete way in which the
IAMs capture catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts, their
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change,
uncertainty in the

extrapolation of damages to high temperatures, and assumptions
regarding risk aversion. Current IAMs do not assign value to all of the
important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change
recognized in the climate change literature due to a lack of precise
information on the nature of damages and because the science
incorporated into these models understandably lags behind the most
recent research. Nonetheless, these estimates and the discussion of
their limitations represent the best available information about the
social benefits of CO2 reductions to inform benefit-cost
analysis. The EPA and other agencies continue to engage in research on
modeling and valuation of climate impacts with the goal to improve
these estimates, and continue to consider feedback on the SC-
CO2 estimates from stakeholders through a range of channels,
including public comments received on Agency rulemakings, a separate
recent OMB public comment solicitation, and through regular
interactions with stakeholders and research analysts implementing the
SC-CO2 methodology. See the docketed Regulatory Impacts
Analysis (RIA) for additional details.
    A challenge particularly relevant to this proposal is that the IWG
did not estimate the social costs of non-CO2 GHG emissions
at the time the SC-CO2 estimates were developed. In
addition, the directly modeled estimates of the social costs of non-
CO2 GHG emissions previously found in the published
literature were few in number and varied considerably in terms of the
models and input assumptions they employed \87\ (EPA 2012). As a
result, benefit-cost analyses informing U.S. federal rulemakings to
date have not fully considered the monetized benefits associated with
CH4 emissions mitigation. To understand the potential
importance of monetizing non-CO2 GHG emissions changes, the
EPA has conducted sensitivity analysis in some of its past regulatory
analyses using an estimate of the GWP of CH4 to convert
emission impacts to CO2 equivalents, which can then be
valued using the SC-CO2 estimates. This approach
approximates the social cost of methane (SC-CH4) using
estimates of the SC-CO2 and the GWP of CH4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ U.S. EPA. 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis Final New Source
Performance Standards and Amendments to the National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Oil and Natural Gas
Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division. April. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/oil_natural_gas_final_neshap_nsps_ria.pdf. Accessed
March 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The published literature documents a variety of reasons that
directly modeled estimates of SC-CH4 are an analytical
improvement over the estimates from the GWP approximation approach.
Specifically, several recent studies found that GWP-weighted benefit
estimates for CH4 are likely to be lower than the estimates
derived using directly modeled social cost estimates for these
gases.\88\ The GWP reflects only the relative integrated radiative
forcing of a gas over 100 years in comparison to CO2. The
directly modeled social cost estimates differ from the GWP-scaled SC-
CO2 because the relative differences in timing and magnitude
of the warming between gases are explicitly modeled, the non-linear
effects of temperature change on economic damages are included, and
rather than treating all impacts over a hundred years equally, the
modeled damages over the time horizon considered (2300 in this case)
are discounted to present value terms. A detailed discussion of the
limitations of the GWP approach can be found in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Waldhoff et al (2011); Marten and Newbold (2012); and
Marten et al. (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the commenters on previous rulemakings strongly
encouraged the EPA to incorporate the monetized value of non-
CO2 GHG impacts into the benefit cost analysis. However they
noted the challenges associated with the GWP approach, as discussed
above, and encouraged the use of directly modeled estimates of the SC-
CH4 to overcome those challenges.
    Since these previous rulemakings, a paper by Marten et al. (2014)
has provided the first set of published SC-CH4 and social
cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) estimates in the peer-
reviewed literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions
underlying the SC-CO2 estimates.\89\ Specifically, the
estimation approach of Marten et al. used the same set of three IAMs,
five socioeconomic-emissions scenarios, equilibrium climate sensitivity
distribution, three constant discount rates, and aggregation approach
used to develop the SC-CO2 estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold &
A. Wolverton (2014). Incremental CH4 and N2O
mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-
CO2 estimates, Climate Policy, DOI: 10.1080/
14693062.2014.912981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-CH4 estimates from Marten, et al. (2014) are
presented in Table 7 of this preamble. More detailed discussion of the
methodology, results, and a comparison to other published estimates can
be found in the RIA and in Marten, et al.

                                   Table 7--Social Cost of CH4, 2012-2050 \a\
                          [In 2012$ per metric ton; (Source: Marten et al., 2014 \b\)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              SC-CH4
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                                                                            3% 95th
                                                    5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012............................................            $430           $1000           $1400           $2800
2015............................................             490            1100            1500            3000
2020............................................             580            1300            1700            3500
2025............................................             700            1500            1900            4000
2030............................................             820            1700            2200            4500
2035............................................             970            1900            2500            5300
2040............................................            1100            2200            2800            5900
2045............................................            1300            2500            3000            6600
2050............................................            1400            2700            3300            7200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The values are emissions-year specific. Estimates using several discount rates are included because the
  literature shows that estimates of the SC-CO2 (and SC-CH4) are sensitive to assumptions about the discount
  rate, and because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate to use in an intergenerational context (where
  costs and benefits are incurred by different generations). The fourth value is the 95th percentile of the SC-
  CH4 estimates across three models using a 3 percent discount rate. It is included to represent higher-than-
  expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SC-CH4 distribution.
\b\ The estimates in this table have been adjusted to reflect the recent minor technical corrections to the SC-
  CO2 estimates described above. See the RIA for more details.

    The application of these directly modeled SC-CH4
estimates from Marten et al. (2014) in a benefit-cost analysis of a
regulatory action is analogous to the use of the SC-CO2
estimates. In addition, the limitations for the SC-CO2
estimates discussed above likewise apply to the SC-CH4
estimates, given the consistency in the methodology.
    The EPA recently conducted a peer review of the application of the
Marten, et al. (2014) non-CO2 social cost estimates in
regulatory analysis and received responses that supported this
application. See the RIA for a detailed discussion.
    In light of the favorable peer review and past comments urging the
EPA to value non-CO2 GHG impacts in its rulemakings, the
agency has used the Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH4 estimates to
value methane impacts expected from this proposed rulemaking and has
included those benefits in the main benefits analysis. The EPA seeks
comments on the use of these directly modeled estimates, from the peer-
reviewed literature, for the social cost of non-CO2 GHGs in
this rulemaking.
    The CH4 benefits based on Marten et al. (2014) are
presented for the year 2025. Applying this approach to the methane
reductions estimated for this proposal, the 2025 methane benefits vary
by discount rate and range from about $310 million to approximately
$1.7 billion; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3-percent discount rate
results in an estimate of about $660 million in 2025, as presented in
Table 8 of this preamble.

                          Table 8--Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025
                                              [In millions, 2012$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Discount rate and statistic
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
           Million metric tons CH4                                                                   3% 95th
                                                 5% Average       3% Average      2.5% Average      percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.44........................................            $310             $660             $850           $1,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vast majority of this proposal's climate-related benefits are
associated with methane reductions. Additional climate-related benefits
are expected from the proposal's secondary air impacts, specifically, a
net reduction in CO2 emissions. Monetizing the net
CO2 reductions with the SC-CO2 estimates
described in this section yields benefits of $12 million in the year
2025 (average SC-CO2, 3 percent discount rate). See the RIA
for more details.
    In addition to the limitation discussed above, and the referenced
documents, there are additional impacts of individual GHGs that are not
currently captured in the IAMs used in the directly modeled approach of
Marten et al. (2014), and therefore not quantified for the rule. For
example, the NMOC portion of LFG can contain a variety of air
pollutants, including VOC and various organic HAP. VOC emissions are
precursors to both PM2.5 and ozone formation, while methane
is a GHG and a precursor to global ozone formation. These pollutants
are associated with substantial health effects, welfare effects, and
climate effects, which are discussed in section III.B of this preamble.
The ozone generated by methane, has important non-climate impacts on
agriculture, ecosystems, and human health. The RIA describes the
specific impacts of methane as an ozone precursor in more detail and
discusses studies that have estimated monetized benefits of these
methane generated ozone effects. The EPA continues to monitor
developments in this area of research and seeks comment on the
potential inclusion of health impacts of ozone generated by methane in
future regulatory analysis.
    Finally, this proposal is also expected to result in improvements
in air quality and resulting benefits to human health. With the data
available, we are not able to provide health benefit estimates for the
reduction in exposure to HAP, ozone, and PM2.5 for this
rule. This is not to imply that there are no benefits of the rules;
rather, it is a reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct
and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions for this sector
with the data currently available.\90\ In addition to health
improvements, there will be improvements in visibility effects,
ecosystem effects, and climate effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-
ton of reducing VOC emissions associated with the effect that those
emissions have on ambient PM2.5 levels and the health
effects associated with PM2.5 exposure (Fann, Fulcher,
and Hubbell, 2009). While these ranges of benefit-per-ton estimates
can provide useful context, the geographic distribution of VOC
emissions from the MSW landfills sector are not consistent with
emissions modeled in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). In addition,
the benefit-per-ton estimates for VOC emission reductions in that
study are derived from total VOC emissions across all sectors.
Coupled with the larger uncertainties about the relationship between
VOC emissions and PM2.5 and the highly localized nature
of air quality responses associated with HAP and VOC reductions,
these factors lead us to conclude that the available VOC benefit-
per-ton estimates are not appropriate to calculate monetized
benefits of these rules, even as a bounding exercise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling
available to provide quantitative estimates of the health benefits
associated with HAP, ozone, and PM2.5 reductions, we include
a qualitative assessment of the health effects associated with exposure
to HAP, ozone, and PM2.5 in the RIA for this rule. These
qualitative impact assessments are briefly summarized in section III.B
of this preamble, but for more detailed information, please refer to
the RIA, which is available in the docket.

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statues and Executive Orders can
be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an
economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with
the proposed Emission Guidelines. The analysis is documented in the
RIA, which is available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451 and is briefly
summarized in section V.E of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the proposed Emission
Guidelines have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared for
the proposed Emission Guidelines has been assigned EPA ICR number
[2522.01]. You can find a copy of the ICR in the

docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    The information required to be collected is necessary to identify
the regulated entities subject to the proposed rule and to ensure their
compliance with the proposed Emission Guidelines. The recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are mandatory and are being established under
authority of CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other
than emissions data submitted as part of a report to the agency for
which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according
to CAA section 114(c) and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR
part 2, subpart B.
    Respondents/affected entities: MSW landfills that accepted waste
after November 8, 1987 and commenced construction, reconstruction, or
modification on or before July 17, 2014.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf).
    Estimated number of respondents: 989 MSW landfills.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 621,947 hours (per year) for the responding
facilities and 16,054 hours (per year) for the agency. These are
estimates for the average annual burden for the first 3 years after the
rule is final. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $41,755,793 (per year), which includes
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, for the
responding facilities and $1,029,658 (per year) for the agency. These
are estimates for the average annual cost for the first 3 years after
the rule is final.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than
September 28, 2015. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in
the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
Specifically, Emission Guidelines established under CAA section 111(d)
do not impose any requirements on regulated entities and, thus, will
not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of
small entities. After Emission Guidelines are promulgated, states and
U.S. territories establish standards on existing sources, and it is
those state requirements that could potentially impact small entities.
    Our analysis here is consistent with the analysis of the analogous
situation arising when the EPA establishes National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), which do not impose any requirements on regulated
entities. As here, any impact of a NAAQS on small entities would only
arise when states take subsequent action to maintain and/or achieve the
NAAQS through their state implementation plans. See American Trucking
Assoc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043-45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do not
have significant impacts upon small entities because NAAQS themselves
impose no regulations upon small entities).
    Nevertheless, the EPA is aware that there is substantial interest
in the rule among small entities. The EPA has conducted stakeholder
outreach as detailed in section XI.C and XI.E of the preamble to the
proposed Standards of Performance for MSW Landfills (79 FR 41828-41829;
July 17, 2014) and in sections XII.D and XII.E of this preamble. The
EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel in 2013 for
the landfills rulemaking. The EPA originally planned a review of the
Emission Guidelines and NSPS in one action, but the actions were
subsequently divided into separate rulemakings. The SBAR Panel
evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues
related to the rule's potential effects and significant alternative
regulatory approaches. A copy of the Summary of Small Entity Outreach
is available in the rulemaking docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451. While
formulating the provisions of the rule, the EPA considered the input
provided over the course of the stakeholder outreach as well as the
input provided in the many public comments, and we have incorporated
many of the suggestions in this proposal.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. The proposed Emission
Guidelines apply to landfills that were constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after November 8, 1987, and that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification on or before July 17, 2014. Impacts
resulting from the proposed Emission Guidelines are below the
applicable threshold.
    We note however, that the proposed Emission Guidelines may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because small
governments operate landfills. The EPA consulted with small governments
concerning the regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect them. In developing this rule, the EPA consulted with
small governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of
the UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The EPA also
held meetings as discussed in section XII.E of this preamble under
Federalism consultations.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The EPA has concluded that the proposed Emission Guidelines have
federalism implications, because the rule imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on state or local governments, and the federal
government will not provide the funds necessary to pay those costs.
    The EPA conducted a Federalism Consultation Outreach Meeting on
September 10, 2013. Due to interest in that meeting, additional
outreach meetings were held on November 7, 2013 and November 14, 2013.
With the pending proposal of these Emission Guidelines, an additional
Federalism outreach meeting was conducted on April 15, 2015.
Participants included the National Governors' Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National
Association of Counties, the International City/County Management
Association, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the
County Executives of America, the Environmental Council of States,
National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, environmental agency
representatives from 43 states, and

approximately 60 representatives from city and county governments.
Concerns raised during the consultations include: Implementation
concerns associated with shortening of gas collection system
installation and/or expansion timeframes, concerns regarding
significant lowering of the design capacity or emission thresholds, the
need for clarifications associated with wellhead operating parameters
and the need for consistent, clear and rigorous surface monitoring
requirements.

F. 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 the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf identified
one tribe, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, which owns
three landfills potentially subject to the proposed Emission
Guidelines. One of these landfills is open, the Salt River Landfill,
and is already controlling emissions under the current NSPS/EG
framework, so while subject to this subpart, the costs of this proposal
are not substantial. The two other landfills are closed and anticipated
to meet the definition of the closed landfill subcategory. One of the
closed landfills, the Tri Cities Landfill, is already controlling
emissions under the current NSPS/EG framework and will not incur
substantial additional compliance costs under Cf. The other landfill,
North Center Street Landfill, is not estimated to install controls
under the current NSPS/EG framework.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. The proposed Emission Guidelines
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk. We also note that the methane
and NMOC reductions expected from the proposed Emission Guidelines will
have positive health effects including for children as previously
discussed in section XII.G of this preamble.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that the
proposed Emission Guidelines are not likely to have any adverse energy
effects because the energy demanded to operate these control systems
will be offset by additional energy supply from landfill gas energy
projects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The proposed Emission Guidelines involve technical standards. For
the proposed Emission Guidelines, the EPA has decided to use EPA
Methods 2, 2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 21, 25, 25A, and 25C of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. While the EPA identified 10 VCS as being potentially
applicable (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASME B133.9-1994 (2001),
ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2013), ASTM
D6522-11, CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ASTM D6060-96 (2009), ISO
14965:2000(E), EN 12619(1999)), the agency decided not to use these
methods. The EPA determined that the 10 candidate VCS identified for
measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to
emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important
technical and policy considerations. The agency identified no such
standards for Methods 2E, 21, and 25C. The EPA's review, including
review of comments for these 10 methods, is documented in the
memorandum, ``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills''
in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451).

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by the proposed Emission Guidelines will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because the
proposed subpart would reduce emissions of landfill gas, which contains
both nonmethane organic compounds and methane. These avoided emissions
will improve air quality and reduce public health and welfare effects
associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions. The results of the
proximity analysis conducted for the proposed Emission Guidelines are
located in the April 22, 2015 document entitled, ``2015 Environmental
Justice Screening Report for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' a copy
of which is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0215).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 14, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 60 as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

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

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

0
2. Part 60 is amended by adding Subpart Cf to read as follows:
Subpart Cf--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
Sec
60.30f Scope and delegated authorities.
60.31f Designated facilities.
60.32f Compliance times.
60.33f Emission Guidelines for municipal solid waste landfill
emissions.
60.34f Operational standards.
60.35f Test methods and procedures.
60.36f Compliance provisions.
60.37f Monitoring of operations.
60.38f Reporting guidelines.
60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines.
60.40f Specifications for active collection systems.
60.41f Definitions.

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

Sec.  60.30f  Scope and delegated authorities.

    This subpart establishes Emission Guidelines and compliance times
for the control of designated pollutants from certain designated
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in accordance with section 111(d)
of the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part.
    (a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program in a
State or United States protectorate with one or more existing MSW
landfills that commenced construction, modification, or

reconstruction on or before July 17, 2014, you must submit a State plan
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that implements the
Emission Guidelines contained in this subpart. The requirements for
State plans are specified in subpart B of this part.
    (b) You must submit a State plan to EPA by [date 9 months after the
final rule is published in the Federal Register].
    (c) The following authorities will not be delegated to state,
local, or tribal agencies:
    (1) Approval of alternative methods to determine the NMOC
concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k).
    (2) [Reserved]

Sec.  60.31f  Designated facilities.

    (a) The designated facility to which these Emission Guidelines
apply is each existing MSW landfill for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or before July 17,
2014.
    (b) Physical or operational changes made to an existing MSW
landfill solely to comply with an emission guideline are not considered
a modification or reconstruction and would not subject an existing MSW
landfill to the requirements of a standard of performance for new MSW
landfills.
    (c) For purposes of obtaining an operating permit under title V of
the Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of an MSW landfill subject to
this subpart with a design capacity less than 2.5 million megagrams or
2.5 million cubic meters is not subject to the requirement to obtain an
operating permit for the landfill under part 70 or 71 of this chapter,
unless the landfill is otherwise subject to either part 70 or 71. For
purposes of submitting a timely application for an operating permit
under part 70 or 71, the owner or operator of an MSW landfill subject
to this subpart with a design capacity greater than or equal to 2.5
million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters on the effective date of
EPA approval of the State's program under section 111(d) of the Clean
Air Act, and not otherwise subject to either part 70 or 71, becomes
subject to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  70.5(a)(1)(i) or
71.5(a)(1)(i) of this chapter 90 days after the effective date of such
section 111(d) program approval, even if the design capacity report is
submitted earlier.
    (d) When an MSW landfill subject to this subpart is closed as
defined in this subpart, the owner or operator is no longer subject to
the requirement to maintain an operating permit under part 70 or 71 of
this chapter for the landfill if the landfill is not otherwise subject
to the requirements of either part 70 or 71 and if either of the
following conditions are met:
    (1) The landfill was never subject to the requirement to install
and operate a gas collection and control system under Sec.  60.33f; or
    (2) The landfill meets the conditions for control system removal
specified in Sec.  60.33f(f).
    (e) When an MSW landfill subject to this subpart is in the closed
landfill subcategory, the owner or operator is not subject to the
following reports of this subpart, provided the owner or operator
submitted these reports under the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state plan implementing 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cc on or before August 27, 2015:
    (1) Initial design capacity report specified in Sec. Sec.
60.33f(d) and 60.38f(a)
    (2) Initial or subsequent NMOC emission rate report specified in
Sec. Sec.  60.33f(e) and 60.38f(c), provided that the most recent NMOC
emission rate report indicated the NMOC emissions were below 50 Mg/yr.
    (3) Collection and control system design plan specified in Sec.
60.38f(d).
    (4) Closure report specified in Sec.  60.38f(f).
    (5) Equipment removal specified in Sec.  60.38f(g).
    (6) Initial annual report specified in Sec.  60.38f(h).
    (7) Initial performance test report in Sec.  60.38f(i).

Sec.  60.32f  Compliance times.

    Planning, awarding of contracts, installing, and starting up MSW
landfill air emission collection and control equipment that is capable
of meeting the Emission Guidelines under Sec.  60.33f must be completed
within 30 months after the date an NMOC emission rate report shows NMOC
emissions equal or exceed 34 megagrams per year (50 megagrams per year
for the closed landfill subcategory) or within 30 months after the date
Tier 4 surface emissions monitoring shows a surface emission
concentration of 500 parts per million methane or greater.

Sec.  60.33f  Emission Guidelines for municipal solid waste landfill
emissions.

    (a) Landfills. For approval, a State plan must require each owner
or operator of an MSW landfill having a design capacity greater than or
equal to 2.5 million megagrams by mass and 2.5 million cubic meters by
volume to collect and control MSW landfill emissions at each MSW
landfill that meets the following conditions:
    (1) The landfill has accepted waste at any time since November 8,
1987, or has additional design capacity available for future waste
deposition.
    (2) The landfill commenced construction, reconstruction, or
modification on or before July 17, 2014.
    (3) The landfill has an NMOC emission rate greater than or equal to
34 megagrams per year or the Tier 4 surface emissions report shows a
surface emission concentration of 500 parts per million methane or
greater.
    (4) A landfill in the closed landfill subcategory that has an NMOC
emission rate greater than or equal to 50 megagrams per year or the
Tier 4 surface emissions report shows a surface emission concentration
of 500 parts per million methane or greater.
    (b) Collection system. For approval, a State plan must include
provisions for the installation of a collection and control system
meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (c) of
this section at each MSW landfill meeting the conditions in paragraph
(a) of this section.
    (1) Install and start up a collection and control system that
captures the gas generated within the landfill within 30 months after:
    (i) The first annual report in which the emission rate equals or
exceeds 34 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling
demonstrates that the emission rate is less than 34 megagrams per year,
as specified in Sec.  60.38f(c)(5)(i) or (ii),
    (ii) The emission rate at a landfill in the closed landfill
subcategory equals or exceeds 50 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or
Tier 3 sampling demonstrates that the emission rate is less than 50
megagrams per year, as specified in Sec.  60.38f(c)(5)(iv)(A) or (B),
or
    (iii) The Tier 4 surface emissions report shows that surface
methane emissions are below 500 parts per million methane for four
consecutive quarters, as specified in Sec.  60.38f(c)(5)(iii).
    (2) An active collection system must:
    (i) Be designed to handle the maximum expected gas flow rate from
the entire area of the landfill that warrants control over the intended
use period of the gas control system equipment.
    (ii) Collect gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the
landfill in which the initial solid waste has been placed for a period
of 5 years or more if active; or 2 years or more if closed or at final
grade.
    (iii) Collect gas at a sufficient extraction rate.

    (iv) Be designed to minimize offsite migration of subsurface gas.
    (3) A passive collection system must:
    (i) Comply with the provisions specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i),
(ii), and (iv) of this section.
    (ii) Be installed with liners on the bottom and all sides in all
areas in which gas is to be collected. The liners must be installed as
required under Sec.  258.40.
    (c) Control system. For approval, a State plan must include
provisions for the control of the gas collected from within the
landfill through the use of control devices meeting the following
requirements, except as provided in Sec.  60.24.
    (1) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with
the parameters established in Sec.  60.18 except as noted in Sec.
60.37f(c); or
    (2) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98
weight percent; or when an enclosed combustion device is used for
control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or reduce the
outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 parts per million by volume,
dry basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen or less. The reduction
efficiency or concentration in parts per million by volume must be
established by an initial performance test to be completed no later
than 180 days after the initial startup of the approved control system
using the test methods specified in Sec.  60.35f(d). The performance
test is not required for boilers and process heaters with design heat
input capacities equal to or greater than 44 megawatts that burn
landfill gas for compliance with this subpart.
    (i) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device,
the landfill gas stream must be introduced into the flame zone.
    (ii) The control device must be operated within the parameter
ranges established during the initial or most recent performance test.
The operating parameters to be monitored are specified in Sec.  60.37f.
    (iii) For the closed landfill subcategory, the initial or most
recent performance test conducted to comply with 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state plan implementing
subpart Cc of this part on or before August 27, 2015 is sufficient for
compliance with this subpart.
    (3) Route the collected gas to a treatment system that processes
the collected gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use such as fuel
for combustion, production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas
for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical
manufacturing process. Venting of treated landfill gas to the ambient
air or combustion in a flare is not allowed under this option. (If
flares are used, they must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
or (2) of this section.)
    (4) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment
system are subject to the requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section. For purposes of this subpart, atmospheric vents located on the
condensate storage tank are not part of the treatment system and are
exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
    (d) Design capacity. For approval, a State plan must require each
owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a design capacity less than
2.5 million megagrams by mass or 2.5 million cubic meters by volume to
submit an initial design capacity report to the Administrator as
provided in Sec.  60.38f(a). The landfill may calculate design capacity
in either megagrams or cubic meters for comparison with the exemption
values. Any density conversions must be documented and submitted with
the report. Submittal of the initial design capacity report fulfills
the requirements of this subpart except as provided in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must submit an amended design capacity
report as provided in Sec.  60.38f(b). [Guidance: Note that if the
design capacity increase is the result of a modification, as defined in
this subpart, that was commenced after July 17, 2014, the landfill will
become subject to subpart XXX of this part instead of this subpart. If
the design capacity increase is the result of a change in operating
practices, density, or some other change that is not a modification as
defined in this subpart, then the landfill remains subject to this
subpart.]
    (2) When an increase in the maximum design capacity of a landfill
with an initial design capacity less than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5
million cubic meters results in a revised maximum design capacity equal
to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters,
the owner or operator must comply with paragraph (e) of this section.
    (e) Emissions. For approval, a State plan must require each owner
or operator of an MSW landfill having a design capacity equal to or
greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters to
either install a collection and control system as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section or calculate an initial NMOC
emission rate for the landfill using the procedures specified in Sec.
60.35f(a). The NMOC emission rate must be recalculated annually, except
as provided in Sec.  60.38f(c)(3).
    (1) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is less than 34 megagrams
per year, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Submit an annual NMOC emission rate report according to Sec.
60.38f(c); and
    (ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission rate annually using the
procedures specified in Sec.  60.35f(a) until such time as the
calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams
per year, or the landfill is closed.
    (A) If the NMOC emission rate, upon initial calculation or annual
recalculation, is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams per year, the
owner or operator must either: submit a gas collection and control