Virtual Public Listening Sessions on EPA's draft Lead Strategy to Reduce Lead Exposures and Disparities in U.S. Communities
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0762
R1 Listening Session
Date: March 8, 2022
Start Time: 6:00 PM ET
Record of Public Comments
(To view a recording of the listening session, please visit: https://youtu.be/2CvYb5x5vtQ)

37:47
[Pamela Howland, Old Window Workshop] *Pamela Howland: Well thank you I really appreciate this opportunity to share some of my observations around disparate health effects of urban renewal, specifically in in cities, especially in the northeast.
38:10
*Pamela Howland: I have been restoring old windows for many years and teaching women from a very economically depressed neighborhood to learn the skills of restoring windows, and of course, we believe and follow the CRP procedures as well as the hazardous waste procedures
38:41
*Pamela Howland: that are required in dealing with toxic wastes.
38:46
*Pamela Howland: We can do it safely.
38:50
*Pamela Howland: We can deal with lead paint and also with asbestos, which is often include contained in caulk around window glazing.
39:01
*Pamela Howland: The thing that I want to talk about is how whole communities can can be empowered to contain lead in their own buildings, but also to restrict the the ambient air contamination of the activity involved in any kind of urban renewal project, any kind
39:28
*Pamela Howland: of community revitalization project that involves the practice of demolition.
39:36
*Pamela Howland: We have--
39:38
*Pamela Howland: we have noticed many houses in our neighborhoods, being demolished with mechanically with one large piece of machinery, a big dumpster and one person standing behind a fire hydrant hose to keep, and that is considered lead abatement, and also asbestos abatement.
40:04
*Pamela Howland: It is nearly ineffective as you can see when you're walking by a project that's being a house that's being demolished, or a commercial building that's being demolished, that the, the effort to contain or to dampen that dust is minimal.
40:03
*Pamela Howland: So.
40:29
*Pamela Howland: So I would like in my last 20 seconds to just emphasize that I will be writing comments, identifying each section of the action plan but I would urge that you, that the draft plan include emphasis on demolition and deconstruction of buildings, rather than
40:51
*Pamela Howland: mechanical demolition.
40:54
*Pamela Howland: Thank you.
41:16
[Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University] *Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: Thank you.
41:17
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: Good evening out as much appreciation for this opportunity to comment on the draft strategy.
41:24
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: I would like to introduce myself and then make a specific suggestion for a strategy.
41:30
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: I am a research assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Tufts University, I research air quality and health impacts of transportation emissions specifically those originating from airports and I worked at near commercial
41:45
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: and general aviation airports.
41:47
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: I draw upon that direct research experience and other scientific findings in my comments today that pertain to Goal 1, Objective D, in particular the bullet point, 'reduce lead from piston engine aircraft' under Approach Three. Conversion of AV gas, the only
42:04
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: leaded fuels still in use in U.S. and consumed by piston aircraft contributes nearly half of the airborne lead in the country,
42:13
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: although unleaded fuel alternatives already exist.
42:17
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: The communities and vicinity of GAAs experience these impacts disproportionately.
42:24
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: I want to bring to your attention, a very recent good, and perhaps even a successful example of a mitigation strategy from Region 9, but just as applicable in Region 1.
42:36
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: In 2017 the city of Santa Monica and FAA entered into a landmark consent decree to close the airport by 2028.
42:45
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: But they also reduce the runways operation land by 1500 feet, primarily to restrict larger jet aircraft operations. Me and my colleagues made measurements for air quality before the runway was shortened, while the runway was shut down for shortening, and post--
43:03
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: the runway operations resumed on a shortened runway--
43:04
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: operations resumed on a shortened runway. After the runway was shortened, largely due to enhance dispersion resulting from this increased distance to the newly shortened runway,
43:16
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: airborne -- airborne lead concentrations at a home just a block away from the airport were approximately 75% reduced, even though there was little to no change in piston engine activity. Shortening the runway provided a wider buffer, where there was previously
43:33
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: none or little, and it's that is a very common situation around GAAs where residents can be in very close proximity to runways. At airports where shortening is not a viable option, relocation of piston airplane operations, away from the runway edge,
43:50
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: closest to downwind communities could be just as effective. Existing unleaded fuel alternatives should be developed and promoted widely, but until that happens, changes in operations and practices at airports should be leveraged as a mitigation strategy.
44:07
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: This will require whole of government approach, and I'm very encouraged to see that mentioned in the draft strategy. I hope specific measures would be specified by EPA to address airborne lead disparities near general aviation aircraft.
44:22
*Neelakshi Hudda, Tufts University: Thank you.
44:50
[Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center] *Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: Yes. So hello everyone my name is Rakia Islam, I am the Deputy Director at the Refugee Dream Center.
44:57
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: We are a community-based organization based in Providence, Rhode Island. And this is home -- Rhode Island is home to a large number of refugees and refugee children are actually disproportionately affected by lead poisoning. The Rhode Island-- Rhode Island
45:14
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: Department of Health reports said they're 4.3 times more likely to be affected by lead compared to other groups.
45:22
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: So the Refugee Dream Center is an organization that was founded by refugees and serves primarily refugees. And from that foundation we do public health, education, and at the root of public health issues really education and addressing the social determinants
45:41
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: of health.
45:42
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: So an approach --the approaches that we take are doing preventative health education, doing home visits. One of the reasons that the center was founded, founded on which was back in 2015 was because we were noticing that a lot of refugees when they arrived
45:59
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: to the State, their place oftentimes is really crowded and crowded households. And also, in homes with presence of lead.
46:07
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: So we really were born as an advocacy agency for that for that issue.
46:12
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: So one thing that I would encourage is just reaching out to smaller community organizations.
46:19
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: That's one of the most effective ways to reach minority groups and historically disenfranchised groups, and also keeping in mind that you know we recently just received, we, we actually continue to receive refugees from Afghanistan, from other countries
46:36
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: Congo, Haiti, Somalia, and as we are seeing right now with Ukraine, we may be receiving more refugees to the country.
46:47
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: So with this in mind, I think, appropriate action needs to be taken to engage community organizations and reaching these communities who know the community, and can step in to provide preventative health because prevention, I believe is the best intervention.
47:08
*Rakia Islam, Refugee Dream Center: So, so that that's really what I would leave you with, and we're also very -- on behalf of the organization, I'd like to say we're very grateful to the EPA for funding us over the years to do this work so thank you very much for that.
47:52
[Andy Johnson, South Burlington Fire District NO 1] *Andy Johnson, South Burlington Fire District: I'm an operator for a small water system, we have 100 curb stops.
47:59
*Andy Johnson, South Burlington Fire District: And I typed my comments that I wanted to get recorded in the chat.
48:05
*Andy Johnson, South Burlington Fire District: But I also wanted to add some things.
48:08
*Andy Johnson, South Burlington Fire District: I like the idea of being able to measure with the lead test, which houses I have to work at because I have no records of what they had for pipes, other than the ones I've actually been able to see.
48:19
*Andy Johnson, South Burlington Fire District: So, that's in my comments that I typed in.
48:22
*Andy Johnson, South Burlington Fire District: And if the test shows I need to replace it can I add replacing galvanized lines with the funding might be available, rather than just lead lines.
48:35
*Andy Johnson, South Burlington Fire District: Those are my primary comments as a small water system. I will emphasize putting water districts and fire districts and along with communities, we often don't get included unless somebody remembers that we're actually water systems.
48:51
*Andy Johnson, South Burlington Fire District: Thank you.
49:25
[Gary Keller, Citizens Against Gillespie Expansion and Low Flying Aircraft] *Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: Thank you, Jean. I will also be talking about leaded general aviation fuel.
49:31
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: Currently there are about 20,000 general aviation airports in the U.S. All of these airports cater to planes still using leaded aviation fuel.
49:42
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: A recent study by Dr. Sammy Zahran at Reid-Hillview Airport in San Jose, California has proven not only that children who live near these airports have elevated blood, blood levels, some of them higher than those found in the Flint water crisis, but
49:58
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: also that the 2008 EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead at .15 micrograms per cubic meter is still way too high. The childhood lead poisoning prevention branch of the California Department of Public Health has warned that children
50:16
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: should not play or spend time near general aviation airports. Why isn't the EPA warning all parents with children who live near these airports?
50:26
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: It is estimated that 16 million people, including about 3 million children live within a kilometer of those airports. How many attend school or at daycare centers near these airports?
50:38
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: Many or most of these children come from poor economic backgrounds.
50:43
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: It doesn't really matter if a person breathes in, swallows, or absorbs lead particles, the health effects are the same.
50:52
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: However, the body absorbs higher levels of lead when it is breathed in. Each year general aviation aircraft are responsible for 1 million pounds of lead emissions across U.S. On an average, general aviation aircraft makeup 70% of all new airborne lead
51:11
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: emissions in the U.S., each year.
51:14
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: Region number 1, puts out 34,243 pounds, or 17 tons of it every year. The Federal Aviation Administration, the lead federal entity for these issues, is simply not equipped to meaningfully address the environmental justice and health equity challenges
51:35
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: of emissions. The 2021 National Academy of Sciences study on AV gas is woefully short of giving real recommendations for fixing the problems.
51:46
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: The research proposal by the aviation industry to work eight more years on finding a miracle fuel will mean 8 million more pounds of lead on our children.
51:56
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: We do not need any more testing, we already have compelling results of elevated blood lead levels in children.
52:04
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: I was watching in the early 1970s when the Clean Air Act and the EPA help take away lead from automobile fuel. I am still watching 50 years later, and there's still leaded fuel being used.
52:17
*Gary Keller, CAGE L.F.A: Please put the P back into the EPA and put a stop to this continuous poisoning of our children, finish the job your Agency started. Thank you.
53:48
[Jennifer Pederson, Mass Water Works Association] *Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Jennifer Pederson. I'm the executive director of Massachusetts Water Works Association. We are a nonprofit member -- membership organization representing public water systems across Massachusetts.
54:00
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: I appreciate this opportunity to comment on EPA draft-- draft lead strategy. Our members are responsible for protecting public health by providing drinking water quality that meets Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
54:13
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: Mass Water Works has worked closely with EPA Region 1's drinking water team to achieve the goals set by the Safe Drinking Water Act, including finding ways to reduce lead in drinking water.
54:24
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: I'd like to congratulate Regional Administrator Cash on his recent appointment. And we look forward to working with him in this new role.
54:31
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: Tonight, I'd like to focus my remarks on Objective B: Reducing lead in drinking water. We support efforts to keep the focus on getting the lead out and at looking at this from a whole of government approach. Mass Water Works believes there needs to be realistic
54:45
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: timelines to achieve these goals. EPA needs to give states flexibility to work with utilities to accomplish the goal of removing lead service lines. Full lead service line removal is often contingent upon the homeowner undertaking removal of their portion
55:00
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: of the service line. This work can be expensive, and many homeowners simply cannot afford it.
55:05
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: The new funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL will help utilities and homeowners fund lead service line replacement, but please know that the funding authorized is a down payment to address the problem, the funding will not cover all
55:19
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: the needs across the nation, and that needs to be recognized. More money will need to be devoted to this issue. We would encourage EPA to align the timeframes with compliance on lead service line inventories and lead service line removal, to the timelines
55:34
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: for the BIL funding. As EPA looks to address lead and drinking water, EPA must work to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and reduce redundant reporting requirements. Our utilities have many, many regulatory obligations and we need to make this
55:50
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: as streamlined as possible. We also believe EPA must reduce confusion with the new rule trigger levels that are different from action levels create confusion for the public.
56:00
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: Well, we certainly support transparency and timely notification of elevated levels, EPA needs to provide more time for utilities to make that notification, and to provide informed messaging to customers.
56:13
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: While we are certainly cognizant of lead's harmful impacts and the need for people to be quickly informed, the current time frames are unrealistic and will only lead to inadvertent violation and non compliance.
56:26
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: Finally, EPA has committed to making improvements to the Lead and Copper Rule, while continuing to move some aspects of the rule forward. This is creating confusion for water systems regarding the deadlines for action.
56:37
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: EPA must provide guidance and they must do so soon. As I said, our water systems must comply with many regulations and they increasingly have less resources to accomplish all the regulatory mandates.
56:48
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: We need training and technical assistance to help our water systems do what their sole work is-- which is to provide safe drinking water. Thank you for the opportunity to comment tonight and we look forward to working with EPA as they look at the revised
57:04
*Jennifer Pederson, Massachusetts Water Works Association: Lead and Copper Rule, and implement the portions that are moving forward now, and making improvements to them in the future. Thank you.
58:43
[Cynthia Walter, NH Safe Water Alliance] *Cynthia Walter: I am a retired professor with 35 years of experience with a focus on pollution science. I'm not speaking for the New Hampshire Safe Water Alliance, but I am a member, and a science advisor for citizen groups in my former homes in southwest Pennsylvania,
58:59
*Cynthia Walter: and the Chicago, Northwest Indiana area.
59:02
*Cynthia Walter: People in all these three areas suffer from lead pollution and environmental injustice. I applaud your desire to reduce lead exposure and recommend three specifics. One:
59:14
*Cynthia Walter: Expand efforts in places like East Chicago and Northwest Indiana. The EPA draft highlighted East Chicago for its creative community efforts, but you imply that the job is done in '21.
59:28
*Cynthia Walter: I think that job there has just begun. Soil lead for many re -- for many people there still remains untested and unremediated. Now cities like Hammond, Indiana are funding piecemeal projects, because as city leaders stated, "EPA work there was finished".
59:47
*Cynthia Walter: Second: Air laced with lead still poisons East Chicago residents living near Arc Mattel's ancient lead battery smelters, even though, best available technology would capture lead.
60:04
*Cynthia Walter: The EPA should require VAT and reduce lead limits for air permits. Item 2: To reduce lead exposure for renters. Over 120 million Americans are renters. By, and you can do this by updating Title 10 landlord responsibilities.
60:25
*Cynthia Walter: First, you could require landlords to test exposed paint for lead in all properties built before '78.
60:33
*Cynthia Walter: Right now, the current disclosure form under Title 10 allows landlords to check a box, stating they "have no knowledge of lead based paint or hazards", they're off the hook.
60:46
*Cynthia Walter: Instead, landlords can use new low cost tests, and new products that seal old exposed paint.
60:55
*Cynthia Walter: Second, you can require landlords to test water for lead and other toxins in rentals, with private and public water supplies. Example: private wells serve half of New Hampshire and parts of Southwest Pennsylvania, and many are rentals, but neither state
61:13
*Cynthia Walter: requires landlord water testing.
61:15
*Cynthia Walter: Also, even good public water is contaminated from old pipes, as in my rental house. I knew to test the water and find filters, but many renters do not know that. Item 3: Update air standards for lead and other toxins to reflect new science of health
61:35
*Cynthia Walter: impacts and new monitoring.
61:38
*Cynthia Walter: For example, regulate short term pulses of contaminants, new technology for constant monitoring means you can require -- you the EPA can require industries to reveal, and control pulses of pollution that currently are not under regulation, You can--
61:56
*Cynthia Walter: Second: You can update emission permits to reduce aggregate pollutants in an airshed. Now permits regard nearby emissions only in a few limited situations, but new models would allow new regulations over pollutants from more industries and protect more
62:15
*Cynthia Walter: people. Finally, develop regulations to control contaminants with similar health impacts. Now we review, only a few separate air measures, but we know people suffer and die from multiple stressors.
62:29
*Cynthia Walter: For example, people in East Chicago, Northwest Indiana exposed to chronic lead oxides are also inhaling toxic particulates, but each of those many other industries, each have a separate emission permit.
62:44
*Cynthia Walter: In sum, I know the EPA can do better and I encourage you. Thank you.
63:31
[Andrea Watson, Private Citizen] *Andrea Watson: My name is Andrea Watson, and I am not what you call a stakeholder, because I don't run a membership organization, a lot of scientists, but I had to get a quick PhD 101.
63:45
*Andrea Watson: And I'm glad that the EPA is doing something. Again, I'm concerned about the time frame. I don't think we have a lot of time to wait any longer, and when we talk specifically about water we're talking about flights and I would agree with Jennifer is very
64:01
*Andrea Watson: closely.
64:03
*Andrea Watson: I don't think there's a lot of wiggle room for time, maybe that's because my own personal experiences, and my seeing many people who have been
64:13
*Andrea Watson: it's the lead in many different ways but certainly the water and a concern of mine, also is, we will change those lead pipes, correct, or lead lines whatever are calling them.
64:23
*Andrea Watson: This week, but if you don't change the other stuff.
64:28
*Andrea Watson: What good it's gonna do? How long before all of that sediment flushes out of the hot water systems and everything else. I think we have to find a way to not panic people not freak them out but we have to be more transparent.
64:42
*Andrea Watson: Because human lives are at stake. And, you know, every sip they take even more so ingesting it, then breathing it, it's coming out in breast milk.
64:54
*Andrea Watson: And we talked about health disparities, no matter how you get it. Let's include much more than having to receive special education services, because there is a lot more.
65:05
*Andrea Watson: And I do have some questions and I'm going to put all of that in writing and I'd like to close by saying one thing, please stop comparing your numbers to Flint, they are untrue.
65:18
*Andrea Watson: I know this.
65:19
*Andrea Watson: Don't do it for your tactics in your ways because there are people there, and children there still dying from the lead, plus. Okay, So, and I'm here back in Massachusetts.
65:35
*Andrea Watson: I'm not here to cause trouble but transparency is crucial. And one more thing before I go, they can't wait for going running, and I know Jennifer had said disparities across the state and different things.
65:47
*Andrea Watson: I see this, not just in Massachusetts and other states. When you do have a problem. No, you don't need more time to alert the community that should be one of the first things you do. The first, above all, health, welfare, safety. I've been saying these things since
66:03
*Andrea Watson: the 80s and 90s, whether it be about water, education, children, you name it. Health, welfare, and safety is always a priority. But let's have some direction whether it comes from the EPA down to the States.
66:17
*Andrea Watson: And I understand this, you guys are here, you set a standard, the states can raise them.
66:23
*Andrea Watson: And municipalities can raise them, and in some cases you have a big chunk of county in between, and they can as well so when you're not the end all be all -- well you are in a sense you're setting a standard and some direction and support.
66:41
*Andrea Watson: But you need you some more uniformity because I look at this stuff, stick up filter on and that's okay. You know, I mean, and it's it's harmful to people.
66:52
*Andrea Watson: So those are just some my immediate concerns I'm glad things are happening, I'm frustrated that here we are, I'm going to say this, we're talking about air, and the airplanes, and the lead gas and all of that and I think back to when I had to get my quick
67:06
*Andrea Watson: PhD 101.
67:09
*Andrea Watson: And somebody had mentioned the name and it was familiar to me and googled it. Needleman longer Jen, we're talking about 80s into the 90s Chuck right here in Region 1, I think it was Chelsea.
67:28
*Andrea Watson: Um, I don't remember if it was one or not. And they didn't they, they had some as the doctors come in and things but when you look at the behaviors and the other things that were going on there. And then, when the MTV did their switch.
67:41
*Andrea Watson: You know you can tell it comes to light so the impact is just so great, no matter how you got it. We've got to stop this. It's generational, it is generational and we're talking about bald eagles they have it.
67:55
*Andrea Watson: I care about them, but this has got to stop and the EPA is not the end all be all how do we get the other agencies to coincide and work along, and then continue this on.
68:05
*Andrea Watson: So when another administration comes in, it doesn't fall apart, and we can keep making progress, but I'll put the other stuff in writing.
68:14
*Andrea Watson: And I thank you.
70:23
[Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District] *Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: Great. Well thanks for hosting this listening session tonight.
70:26
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: So I'm Damon Yakovleff, an environmental planner at Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District which serves the Portland, Maine area, and our conservation district has worked on a number of community urban agriculture initiatives, over the last
70:46
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: six years or so.
70:48
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: And two of those initiatives have been healthy communities grants, where the district works to provide outreach about the dangers of soil lead contamination to home gardeners, as well as facilitated soil testing with an emphasis on outreach to underserved
71:12
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: communities, using multilingual methods.
71:17
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: So, I believe this work is more important than ever.
71:21
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: So I wanted to highlight a few things that have come together, and I like to see EPA, you know, continue to support this and focus on soil--
71:32
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: Objective C: Reduce soil exposure exposure to lead in soils. Excuse me.
71:39
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: So, for one thing, researchers at the University of Maine and University of Vermont, did some research recently. And they found that food insecurity reached record high levels during the pandemic --during the first year of it specifically, and during the
71:56
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: second year in 2021, food insecurity was still very high, but they also found something interesting that many more people were growing food in places that they had not grown it before.
72:13
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: So. Furthermore, climate change goals often emphasize increasing local food production. So in Maine, for example, the goal is to increase local food consumption
72:26
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: from 10% to 30% within the next 10 years.
72:33
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: And finally, the third thing, this nexus of factors is that the survey that the soil and water district conducted and the Healthy Communities grant work would back this up that there's a lack of awareness about the risk posed by soil lead in our region.
72:51
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: And I think that's true --air-- within the larger New England region as well.
72:57
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: So I think that some of the suggestions for improving or rounding out the draft lead strategy document would be for there to be more emphasis on testing of soil, especially in conjunction with initiatives to promote food security or overall increase food
73:19
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: production locally, and especially in urban areas. And also a focus on outreach, that is not alarmist in nature, which emphasizes that people can grow food in areas that may have moderate levels of lead contamination.
73:40
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: However, they should do so with various safety practices, such as increased washing of produce, care to make sure that clothing or shoes that may be contaminated soil, you know, don't you don't track the soil into your house.
74:02
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: And I think an overall focus on on pathways and sort of the, sort of, you know, the factors that that are most likely to lead to lead exposure are really important here and we don't want to undermine other work to promote local food production and
74:21
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: food security,
74:22
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: while we're also promoting
74:24
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: lead-safe practices. So, we've got to find ways to balance those things and I'd encourage EPA to look at that in as it finalizes this strategy and considers those nexus of factors that may lead to greater numbers of people growing food in soil that may
74:46
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: be contaminated with lead.
74:48
*Damon Yakovleff, Cumberland County: So thank you very much for hosting this again and I'll look forward to seeing the strategy as it moves forward through the process.
84:53
[Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Project] *Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: Yes, I am. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so my name is Liz Colon. I have been--
85:02
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: I have been with the Childhood Lead Action Project for 26 of its 30 years. We are based in Providence, Rhode Island. And we are an organization-- a nonprofit organization that is fully devoted to advocacy, education, and parent support dealing with lead
85:24
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: poisoning prevention.
85:26
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: Um, over the last, I don't know how many years when I got involved in the very early 90s after my son was hospitalized for lead poisoning. Um, a lot of things have changed the lead levels have dropped a little bit.
85:42
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: Um, testing has increased.
85:45
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: But there are so many things that have not changed.
85:50
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: And a few of the things that I just wanted to bring up. Um, I just wanted to talk a couple of minutes about being proactive. So Rhode Island has been very proactive in their approach to lead hazard mitigation, as well as lead hazard reduction, but lead
86:07
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: hazards are still badly needed, and because of the housing crisis and COVID, and you know, children being home, and not in school, a lot of issues have come into play in regards to just the practices and the programs, and a lot of people and a lot of
86:27
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: children have been overlooked. One particular population, um, I know that when we work with is the refugee population. And that continues to be a problem.
86:47
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: The number of kids poisoned and the rate of kids poisoned has actually gone up since the pandemic has started. Two things that I really picked up on, and I think that all of you can relate to this, are that still unsafe work practices continue to be an ongoing issue in regards to our RRP
86:58
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: and in regards to pre-'78 structures especially where I come from in Rhode Island so in New England.
87:06
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: You know we have a long standing history of very old housing structures and that continues to be a huge issue. Lead pipe replacements are also a big issue for us.
87:18
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: We continue to see children with elevated blood lead, because of partial lead line replacements and I know recently, the EPA has looked at some comments in regards to changing that but it's long overdue.
87:31
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: And it's time to finally put your money where the mouth is, and get this done. We have a lot of good ideas. We have a lot of plans, but we really need to have one cohesive plan that is going to take care of all of these pieces so we can finally get the
87:48
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: job done.
87:49
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: Childhood lead poisoning has been an epidemic in Rhode Island, and is the long -- well not even in Rhode Island, across the US -- and it's the longest running childhood epidemic in U.S. history.
88:01
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: It's a huge problem. And we need to make sure that we address this issue, and that we are protecting children, and not causing additional harm.
88:12
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: Lastly, I just wanted to quickly say that in regards to some of the supplemental provisions in the use of eligible funds that are going to be needed for water because the Biden administration supports this so much is essential to finally, once and for all,
88:31
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: closing this gap and making permanent sustainable change.
88:38
*Liz Colon, Childhood Lead Action Network: Thank you.
88:59
[Miki Barnes, Private Citizen] *Miki Barnes: I believe I am unmuted. You pronounced my name exactly right. And I want to state my appreciation for hearing my comments on this lead issue. I will focus on
89:16
*Miki Barnes: leaded aviation fuel.
89:18
*Miki Barnes: And what I'm going to do is to read, part of a letter. It was written by four California representatives-- Zoe Lofgren, Anna Eshoo, Ro Khanna, and Jimmy Panetta, and it was sent to the Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg.
89:41
*Miki Barnes: They are anticipating a meeting with-- with the Transportation Secretary tomorrow to discuss the concerns raised in this letter.
89:52
*Miki Barnes: The letter, very, um in a very detailed way demonstrates the disproportionate impact of lead pollution on minority and low income communities. So now I'm going to start reading from the letter.
90:08
*Miki Barnes: 'As members of Congress representing the residents of Santa Clara County, California. We write to express our grave concerns regarding the harms of unleaded aviation gasoline and the Federal Aviation Administration's lack of cooperation with local governments,
90:26
*Miki Barnes: such as the county of Santa Clara, to protect low income communities of color from lead poisoning.
90:38
*Miki Barnes: Lead exposure from AV gas is an environmental justice crisis. We urge you to make nationwide elimination of leaded AV gas a priority, and to instruct the FAA to take the necessary actions to support efforts by local governments, like Santa Clara County, to protect vulnerable communities from exposure, rather than interfering
90:58
*Miki Barnes: with these efforts.'
91:01
*Miki Barnes: Now I'm going to move further into the letter... 'over 60% of the fifty highest admitting airports are located in communities with larger racial minority populations than the national average.
91:16
*Miki Barnes: Reid-Hillview airport in Santa Clara County, one of the busiest general aviation airports in the nation, embodies this trend. Of the 52,000 people living within 1.5 miles of the airport, 97%, identify as non-white and 79% speak a primary language other
91:39
*Miki Barnes: than English at home.
91:41
*Miki Barnes: A recent peer reviewed study found that children living nearby the airport, experienced blood lead level increases on par with, or even worse than, those found at the height of the Flint water crisis.'
91:56
*Miki Barnes: So that's the end of what I'm going to read, for now, but I do want to comment that if you take a look at the budget. The amount of money the FAA spends on these general aviation airports, and it's, you know, tens of millions of dollars, and you redirect
92:15
*Miki Barnes: that money to addressing this lead-- lead exposure and toxicity in the air, in the water, in the soil, we can begin addressing this issue without concerns about where the money's going to come from.
92:32
*Miki Barnes: So thank you so very much I appreciate it, and I appreciate the EPA for making this up opportunity available.

Comments in Private Chat
[Anonymous] Whole of government - include Water districts and Fire Districts. Allow testing, at 1 ppt to determine where to replace water valves and lines.
[Anonymous] My suggestions are:
Ensure the entire lead pipe and service line is replaced during system updates and maintenance. Revise protocols and local ordinances to ensure that all units in multifamily housing are made lead-safe when a child with a BLL greater than or equal to their RV is identified in any unit. Work with nonprofit and advocacy groups to advocate for increased resources for lead hazard abatement. Work with refugee resettlement agencies to ensure that families are placed in lead-safe housing and children have BLL tests. Work with local public housing authorities to ensure that properties with rental subsidies comply with lead-safe regulations. Work with local code enforcement and building departments to ensure that renovation of older homes is done safely.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15426-15428]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6241]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66563; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Weeklys Program

March 9, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 7, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to amend Rules 5.5 and 24.9 to allow the Exchange to
open Short Term Option Series (``Weeklys options'') that are opened by
other securities exchanges in option classes selected by such exchanges
under their respective short term option rule. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rules 5.5 and
24.9 to allow the Exchange to open Short Term Option Series (``Weeklys
options'') that are opened by other securities exchanges in option
classes selected by other exchanges under their respective short term
option rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On July 12, 2005, the Commission approved the Weeklys
Program on a pilot basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
52011 (July 12, 2005), 70 FR 41451 (July 19, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-
63). The Weeklys Program was made permanent on April 27, 2009. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59824 (April 27, 2009), 74 FR
20518 (May 4, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange may select up to 30 currently listed option
classes on which Weekly options may be opened in the Weeklys Program
and the Exchange may also match any option classes that are selected by
other securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their
respective rules. For each option class eligible for participation in
the Weeklys Program, the Exchange may open up to 30 Short Term Option
Series for each expiration date in that class.
    This proposal seeks to allow the Exchange to open Weekly option
series that are opened by other securities exchanges in option classes
selected by other exchanges under their respective short term option
rules. This change is being proposed notwithstanding the current cap of
30 series per class under the Weeklys Program. This is a competitive
filing and is based on

approved filings and existing rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC for
the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.
(``PHLX'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65775 (November 17,
2011), 76 FR 72476 (November 23, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-138) and
65776 (November 17, 2011), 76 FR 72482 (November 23, 2011) (SR-PHLX-
2011-131).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is competitively disadvantaged since it operates a
substantially similar Weeklys Program as NOM and PHLX but is limited to
listing a maximum of 30 series per options class that participates in
its Weeklys Program (whereas PHLX and NOM are not similarly
restricted).
    The Exchange is not proposing any changes to the Weeklys Program
other than the ability to open Weekly option series that are opened by
other securities exchanges in option classes selected by other
exchanges under their respective short term option rules.
    The Exchange notes that the Weeklys Program has been well-received
by market participants, in particular by retail investors. The Exchange
believes that the current proposed revision to the Weeklys Program will
permit the Exchange to meet increased customer demand and provide
market participants with the ability to hedge in a greater number of
option classes and series.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with
trading of an expanded number of series for the classes that
participate in the Weeklys Program.
    The proposed increase to the number of series per classes eligible
to participate in the Weeklys Program is required for competitive
purposes as well as to ensure consistency and uniformity among the
competing options exchanges that have adopted similar Weeklys Programs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \7\ of the Act and the rules and regulations under
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that expanding
the Weeklys Program will result in a continuing benefit to investors by
giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment
decisions and hedging decisions in a greater number of securities. The
Exchange also believes that expanding the Weeklys Program will provide
the investing public and other market participants with additional
opportunities to hedge their investment thus allowing these investors
to better manage their risk exposure. While the expansion of the
Weeklys Program will generate additional quote traffic, the Exchange
does not believe that this increased traffic will become unmanageable
since the proposal remains limited to a fixed number of classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the
Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive
response to existing NOM and PHLX rules. CBOE believes this proposed
rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options
exchanges with respect to their short term options programs.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to those of
other exchanges that have been approved by the Commission and permit
such exchanges to open Weekly option series that are opened by other
securities exchanges under their respective short term option
rules.\11\ Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative
upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 6.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-026 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-026. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-026 and should be
submitted on or before April 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6241 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52162-52168]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20897]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215; FRL-9928-96-OAR]
RIN 2060-AM08

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental proposal.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this
supplemental proposal for the Standards of Performance for Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills to address the nonmethane organic compound
(NMOC) emission rate threshold at which an affected MSW landfill must
install controls. The EPA is in the process of reviewing the Standards
of Performance for MSW Landfills based on changes in the landfills
industry since the standards were promulgated in 1996 and issued a
proposed rulemaking on July 17, 2014. The EPA's review of the Standards
of Performance for MSW Landfills (also referred to as the New Source
Performance Standards or NSPS for MSW Landfills) applies to landfills
that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after July
17, 2014.
    This document proposes to achieve additional reductions of landfill
gas (LFG) and its components, including methane, through a lower
emission threshold at which MSW landfills must install and operate a
gas collection and control system (GCCS). This document supplements the
proposed July 17, 2014, rulemaking by further lowering, from 40
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) to 34 Mg/yr, the proposed NMOC emissions
threshold at which controls would be required. This change to the 2014
proposed threshold is based on additional data we have reviewed that
indicate greater potential for reductions in methane emissions from
these sources than we originally estimated that can be achieved at
reasonable cost. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to establish the
NMOC emission rate threshold for installing a GCCS at 34 Mg/yr and is
requesting comment specifically on whether this is appropriate. The EPA
is also soliciting comment on the number of facilities that might
ultimately become subject to proposed new subpart XXX. The EPA intends
to consider the information received in response to this supplemental
proposal prior to finalizing revised Standards of Performance for MSW
Landfills. The EPA is seeking comment only on the two issues addressed
by this supplemental proposal and the supplemental proposal does not
otherwise reopen the comment period for the July 17, 2014, proposed
rule.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 26,
2015. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before September 28, 2015.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing by September 1, 2015, the EPA will hold a public hearing on
September 11, 2015 from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) to 5:00 p.m.
(Eastern Standard Time) at the location in the ADDRESSES section. If no
one contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing to be held concerning
this proposed rule by September 1, 2015, a public hearing will not take
place. Information regarding whether or not a hearing will be held will
be posted on the rule's Web site located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.htm. Please contact Ms. Aimee St. Clair at
(919) 541-1063 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to register to speak at the
hearing. The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be
September 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0215, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Information regarding whether
or not a hearing will be held will be posted on the rule's Web site
located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.htm.
    Please see section I.C of the Supplementary Information for
detailed information on the public hearing.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
supplemental proposal, contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and Incineration
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (E143-05), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax

number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GCCS Gas collection and control system
GHG Greenhouse gas
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
ICR Information collection request
LFG Landfill gas
m\3\ Cubic meters
Mg Megagram
Mg/yr Megagram per year
MSW Municipal solid waste
mtCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NMOC Nonmethane organic compound
NSPS New source performance standards
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management & Budget
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory impacts analysis
U.S. United States
VCS Voluntary consensus standard

    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose of This Regulatory Action
    A. Background
    B. Proposed NMOC Emission Rate Threshold
    C. Public hearing
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background and Purpose of This Regulatory Action

    The purpose of this regulatory action is to propose and take
comment on a supplemental change to the proposed Standards of
Performance for MSW Landfills resulting from the EPA's ongoing review
of the standards under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111. The EPA is also
soliciting comments on the number of facilities that might ultimately
become subject to proposed new 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX.

A. Background

    On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed a new NSPS subpart (40 CFR part
60, subpart XXX) based on its ongoing review of the MSW Landfills NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) (79 FR 41796) (referred to as ``NSPS
proposal'' in this document). The NSPS proposal is consistent with
President Obama's Climate Action Plan and corresponding Methane
Strategy. The June 2013 Climate Action Plan directed federal agencies
to focus on ``assessing current emissions data, addressing data gaps,
identifying technologies and best practices for reducing emissions, and
identifying existing authorities and incentive-based opportunities to
reduce methane emissions.'' Methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG)
that has a warming potential that is 28-36 times greater than carbon
dioxide (CO2) and has an atmospheric life of about 12 years.
Given methane's potency as a GHG and its atmospheric life, reducing
methane emissions is one of the best ways to achieve near-term
beneficial impact in mitigating global climate change. The March 2014
``Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions'' (the
Methane Strategy) directed the EPA to continue to pursue emission
reductions through regulatory updates and to encourage LFG energy
recovery through voluntary programs.
    The proposed new subpart retained the same design capacity size
thresholds of 2.5 million cubic meters (m\3\) and 2.5 million Mg as 40
CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW, but lowered the NMOC emission rate at
which an MSW landfill must install controls to 40 Mg/yr. Several
additional options for revising the NMOC emission rate were also
presented, including an NMOC emission rate of 34 Mg/yr. Since
presenting these options, the EPA has updated its model that estimates
the emission reductions and cost impacts of changes to the design
capacity thresholds and/or the NMOC emission rate trigger based on
public comments and new data. This supplemental proposal provides
information about these updates for public review and comment.

B. Proposed NMOC Emission Rate Threshold

    For the reasons presented below, the EPA is now proposing to
establish the NMOC emissions threshold for requiring installation of a
GCCS in proposed subpart XXX (of 40 CFR part 60) at 34 Mg/yr, rather
than the 40 Mg/yr proposed on July 17, 2014, and is requesting specific
comments on whether this is appropriate. The EPA is not proposing to
revise the design capacity threshold of 2.5 million m\3\ and 2.5
million Mg.
    For the July 17, 2014, NSPS proposal, the EPA estimated the
emission reductions and costs associated with 17 new ``greenfield'' MSW
landfills that the EPA projected to commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification between 2014 and 2018 and have a design
capacity of 2.5 million m\3\ and 2.5 million Mg. The basis of the
projected number of new landfills and associated emission reductions
are presented in the MSW Landfills NSPS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0215 (see the docketed memorandum ``Methodology for Estimating Cost and
Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014''). Multiple
commenters on the MSW Landfills NSPS proposal stated that the EPA
underestimated the cost impacts of the proposed NSPS because the EPA
failed to consider the number of MSW landfills that are expected to
become subject to the proposed NSPS through modification.
    In response to these comments, the EPA consulted with its Regional
Offices, as well as state and local authorities, to identify landfills
expected to undergo a modification as defined in proposed 40 CFR part
60, subpart XXX within the next 5 years. Based on this information, the
EPA estimated the number of existing landfills likely to modify after
July 17, 2014, and thereby become subject to proposed subpart XXX. In
addition, the EPA made several changes to its underlying dataset and
methodology used to analyze the impacts of potential control options,
as discussed in the docketed memoranda, ``Updated Methodology for
Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations.
2015,'' and ``Updated Methodology for Estimating Testing and Monitoring
Costs for the MSW Landfill Regulations. 2015.'' The EPA also updated
the technical attributes of over 1,200 landfills based on new detailed
data reported to 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH of the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program (GHGRP). A detailed discussion of updates made to the
landfill dataset is in the docketed

memorandum, ``Summary of Updated Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and
Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2015.''
    As a result of the changes to the dataset, the number and
characteristics of new landfills that the EPA projected to commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification between 2014 and 2018 and
modified landfills that are expected to become subject to proposed 40
CFR part 60, subpart XXX have changed.\1\ Based on the revised dataset,
the number of landfills estimated to be affected by proposed subpart
XXX went from 17 new landfills to 140 new or modified landfills,
assuming a design capacity of 2.5 million m\3\ and 2.5 million Mg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under CAA section 111(a) and proposed 40 CFR part 60,
subpart XXX the term new landfills encompasses both greenfield
facilities and facilities that meet proposed subpart XXX's
definition of ``modification''. Because the characteristics of a
greenfield site and an existing landfill that undergoes modification
are different, the dataset distinguishes between the two types of
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the revised dataset, the EPA re-ran the model using control
options similar to the options presented in the proposed NSPS. The
EPA's analysis showed that lowering the NMOC emission rate threshold to
34 Mg/yr NMOC would accelerate the schedule for installing a GCCS and
also increase the number of landfills required to install controls,
thereby achieving additional reductions in emissions of both NMOC and
methane.
    On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed an NMOC threshold of 40 Mg/yr
and discussed an alternative NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr in the
NSPS proposal and in an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
for the Emission Guidelines (for existing landfills). The EPA
considered the information received in response to the ANPRM in
evaluating whether additional changes beyond those in the proposed
revisions for new sources are warranted (79 FR 41772). Commenters on
the proposed NSPS for new landfills and the ANPRM for existing
landfills expressed mixed reactions to a lower NMOC emission rate
threshold. Several nongovernmental organizations and a local government
entity supported a reduction in the NMOC emissions threshold. One state
agency provided examples of existing landfills controlling emissions in
its state with estimated NMOC emission rates as low as 8.1 Mg/yr.
    In contrast, several commenters were concerned with the financial
and technical implications of lowering the threshold, including whether
landfills were financially prepared to install controls at an earlier
time, or whether landfills would lose potential carbon credit revenue
from voluntary projects. Another state agency expressed concerns that
landfills in arid areas would have difficulty continuously operating a
flare at landfills with lower quality gas that emit between 40 and 50
Mg/yr.
    Table 1 of this document shows the emission reductions and costs
for control options, when using a 7 percent discount rate, in year 2025
at new and modified landfills. At the baseline size and emissions
thresholds (i.e., 50 Mg/yr NMOC), 112 of the 140 new or modified
landfills are expected to control emissions in 2025. At an emission
threshold of 40 Mg/yr NMOC and a design capacity threshold of 2.5
million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\, as proposed in the NSPS proposal, the
incremental number of new (or modified) landfills estimated to require
a GCCS in 2025 went from three to 11, for a total of 123 landfills with
controls. An emission threshold level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC, which was
presented as an option for consideration in the NSPS proposal, results
in an estimated 15 additional new or modified landfills requiring
controls in year 2025, for a total of 127 landfills with controls.
    The incremental emission reductions for an NMOC emission rate of 40
Mg/yr would be 300 Mg/yr NMOC and 44,400 Mg/yr methane (1.1 million
metric tons of CO2 equivalent (mtCO2e)) beyond
the baseline. The incremental emission reductions for an NMOC emission
rate of 34 Mg/yr NMOC would be 300 Mg/yr NMOC and 51,400 Mg/yr methane
(1.3 million mtCO2e) beyond the baseline. These incremental
emission reductions represent a 2.4- and 2.8-percent reduction in
emissions beyond the baseline. The cost effectiveness between an NMOC
emission rate of 34 Mg/yr and 40 Mg/yr is comparable, but by lowering
the NMOC emissions threshold to 34 Mg/yr, this action achieves
additional reductions of 50 Mg/yr NMOC \2\ and 7,000 Mg/yr methane
(175,000 mt/yr CO2e) in 2025. These pollutants are
associated with substantial health effects, climate effects, and other
welfare effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The unrounded annual NMOC reductions in Table 1 of this
preamble are 330 Mg/yr NMOC for option 2.5 million Mg design
capacity threshold and 40 Mg/yr NMOC threshold; and 280 Mg/yr NMOC
for option 2.5 million Mg design capacity/34 Mg/yr NMOC threshold.
Thus, the difference between the NMOC reductions for these two
options is 50 Mg/yr NMOC.

                                          Table 1--Emission Reductions and Costs for Control Options in Year 2025 at New and Modified Landfills (2012$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                           Number of   Number of    landfills   Annual Net    Annual      Annual     Annual CO2e     NMOC cost     Methane cost      CO2e cost
                         Option                            landfills   landfills    reporting      Cost        NMOC       methane    reductions    effectiveness   effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                           affected   controlling    but not     (million   Reductions  reductions  (million mt/      ($/Mg)          ($/Mg)          ($/mt)
                                                                        in 2025    controlling  $2012) \a\    (Mg/yr)     (Mg/yr)        yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline:
    Baseline (2.5 design capacity/50 Mg/yr NMOC)........         140          112           28        61.4      11,640   1,834,000          45.9           5,270              33             1.3
Incremental values vs. the Baseline:
    Option (2.5 design capacity/40 Mg/yr NMOC)..........           0           11          -11         7.4         300      44,400           1.1          26,100             166             6.6
    Option (2.5 design capacity/34 Mg/yr NMOC)..........           0           15          -15         8.5         300      51,400           1.3          26,100             166             6.6
    Option (2.0 design capacity/34 Mg/yr NMOC)..........           7           19          -12        10.2         400      62,500           1.6          25,600             163             6.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Based on the current reported design capacity of landfills, independent of time horizon used in analysis shown in the four cost-effectiveness summary tables. For some modified landfills,
  landfills may report in early years under the Emission Guidelines and then also report under the NSPS after modification commenced (or year 2016, whatever is later).

    The only categories of benefits monetized for this supplemental
proposal are methane-related climate impacts and minor secondary
CO2-related climate effects. In particular, we estimated the
global social benefits of methane emissions 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.
    A similar metric, the social cost of CO2 (SC-
CO2), estimates the monetary value of impacts associated
with

marginal changes in CO2 emissions in a given year.\3\ The
SC-CO2 estimates were developed over many years by an
interagency working group, using the best science available, and with
input from the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The SC-CO2 Technical Support Document presents
the SC-CO2 estimates as well as a detailed discussion of
the underlying methodology. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495,
Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866,
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, with
participation by Council of Economic Advisers, Council on
Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic Council, Office
of Energy and Climate Change, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury
(May 2013, Revised November 2013). Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-CH4 estimates used in this analysis were
developed by Marten et al. (2014) and are discussed in greater detail
in section 4.2 of the Regulatory Impacts Analysis (RIA), which is in
the MSW Landfills NSPS docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. The four SC-
CH4 estimates are: $700, $1,500, $1,900, and $4,000 per
metric ton of methane emissions in the year 2025 (2012$). The first
three values are based on the average SC-CH4 from the three
integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5
percent, respectively. Estimates of the SC-CH4 for several
discount rates are included because the literature shows that the SC-
CH4 is 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 across all three models at 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.
    The methodology used to calculate methane climate benefits is
discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the RIA. Applying the approach
discussed in the RIA to the methane reductions estimated for this
supplemental proposal, the 2025 methane benefits of this supplemental
proposal vary by discount rate and range from $36 million (2012$) to
$210 million (2012$); the mean SC-CH4 at the 3 percent
discount rate results in an estimate of $78 million (2012$) in 2025 for
the proposed 34 Mg/yr emission threshold (see Table 2 of this
preamble). Monetizing the minor secondary CO2 emissions
impacts with the SC-CO2 estimates, also described in Section
4.2 of the RIA, yields disbenefits of $0.03 million (2012$) in 2025.

                                            Table 2--Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025 \a\
                                                                  [In millions, 2012$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Discount rate and statistic
                                                                           CO2e      -------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Methane reductions  (million mt)                      Reductions                                                          3%  (95th
                                                                       (million mt)    5%  (average)    3%  (average)   2.5%  (average)    percentile)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.051..............................................................             1.3              $36              $78             $100             $210
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts. See Section 4.2
  of the RIA for a complete discussion about the methodology.

    Consistent with the Methane Strategy that was developed as part of
the President's Climate Action Plan, the EPA considered control options
to achieve additional reductions of methane and NMOC for new landfills.
The Climate Action Plan directed the EPA and five other federal
agencies to develop a comprehensive interagency strategy to reduce
methane emissions. Specifically, the federal agencies were instructed
to focus on ``assessing current emissions data, addressing data gaps,
identifying technologies and best practices for reducing emissions and
identifying existing authorities and incentive-based opportunities to
reduce methane emissions.'' With respect to landfills, the Methane
Strategy directs the agency to build upon progress to date through
updates to the EPA's rules for reducing emissions from new, modified,
and reconstructed landfills. Based on the Climate Action Plan and
Methane Strategy, the revised analysis described above, and
consideration of comments received on the proposed NSPS and ANPRM, the
EPA is proposing to lower the NMOC emission rate threshold to 34 Mg/yr
for new (new, modified, and reconstructed) sources subject to proposed
40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX. The EPA is not proposing changes to the
design capacity thresholds.
    The EPA believes a level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC is achievable for new and
modified landfills. Greenfield and modified landfill owners or
operators are expected to employ the latest technology and practices to
minimize emissions and will have the time to consider the latest
technology and practices as they plan the construction of a new
landfill or construction of a new cell of a modified landfill. Because
the emission threshold level of 34 Mg/yr is more stringent than the
level the EPA proposed on July 17, 2014, and the impacts associated
with this proposed level of control have a different basis than those
outlined in the original proposal, the EPA is soliciting comments on
the revised analysis of the proposed NSPS in this supplemental
proposal. The EPA is also soliciting comments and data that would help
identify landfills that are expected to modify, as defined in the
proposed NSPS, during the next 5 years (2014-2018). Comments on an NMOC
emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr and comments or data on landfills
modifying in the next 5 years should be submitted to Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0215. The EPA is not otherwise reopening proposed 40 CFR
part 60, subpart XXX for additional comment.

C. Public hearing

    Please contact Ms. Aimee St. Clair at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to register to speak at the hearing. The last day
to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be September 8, 2015.
Requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing
registration desk, although preferences on speaking times may not be
able to be fulfilled. If you require the service of a translator or
special accommodations such as audio description, please let us know at
the time of registration.
    If a hearing is held, it will provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed
action. The

EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and
register. Because this hearing, if held, will be at a U.S. government
facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared
to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to
gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act,
passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering
federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska,
American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, or the state of Washington, you
must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal
building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include:
Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and
military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a
property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon
leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass
to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building,
cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations
will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations,
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing. Commenters
should notify Ms. St. Clair if they will need specific equipment, or if
there are other special needs related to providing comments at the
hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements
will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make
every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day
of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either
ahead of schedule or behind schedule. A public hearing will not be held
unless requested. Please contact Ms. Aimee St. Clair at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request or register to speak at the
hearing or to inquire as to whether a hearing will be held.

II. 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 supplements a prior proposed action that was determined
to be an economically significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis, ``Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Emission Guidelines
for Existing Sources and Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance
Standards in the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Sector'' is available
in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection requirements in this supplemental
proposal have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared for
this supplemental proposal has been assigned EPA ICR number 2498.02.
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 NSPS and to ensure their
compliance with the proposed NSPS and this supplemental proposal. 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.
    The information collection requirements in the proposed NSPS (79 FR
41828, July 17, 2014) were submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA.
The ICR document that the EPA prepared was assigned EPA ICR number
2498.01. Since the NSPS review was proposed on July 17, 2014, the EPA
updated the number of existing landfills likely to modify after July
17, 2014, and, thus, become subject to proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart
XXX, as discussed in this preamble. The supplemental proposal to lower
the emission threshold for new and modified sources affects the burden
estimates the EPA presented in EPA ICR number 2498.01. As a result, the
EPA updated the EPA ICR number 2498.01 and re-submitted it to OMB for
approval as EPA ICR 2498.02 to reflect the estimated number of
respondents and a lower NMOC emission rate. A copy of the ICR is in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215, and it is briefly summarized here.
    Respondents/affected entities: MSW landfills that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart XXX).
    Estimated number of respondents: 144 MSW landfills that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 101,031 Hours (per year) for the responding
facilities and 2,790 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: $6,724,350 (per year), which includes
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, for the
responding facilities and $177,680 (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 rules.

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. The
small entities subject to the requirements of the

supplemental proposal may include private small businesses and small
governmental jurisdictions that own or operate landfills. Although it
is unknown how many new landfills will be owned or operated by small
entities, recent trends in the waste industry have been towards
consolidated ownership among larger companies. The EPA has determined
that approximately 10 percent of the existing landfills subject to
similar regulations (40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc or the
corresponding state or federal plan) are small entities. It was
determined that the July 2014 proposed NSPS subpart would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Given the changes in the number of landfills anticipated to become
subject to the new proposed NSPS, the potential impact on small
entities has been reanalyzed. The EPA has determined that, with a size
threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\ and an NMOC emission
rate threshold of 34 Mg/yr, approximately two small entities may
experience an impact of greater than 1 percent of revenues. Details of
the analysis are presented in ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Proposed Revisions to the Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources and
Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance Standards in the Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills Sector,'' located in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0215.
    Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because the EPA has now determined that
the proposed NSPS would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the EPA originally convened a
panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity
representatives potentially subject to this rule's requirements. A copy
of the Summary of Small Entity Outreach is included in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215.

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. This supplemental
NSPS proposal applies to landfills that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting
from the proposed NSPS are far below the applicable threshold. Thus,
the proposed NSPS is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or
205 of the UMRA. However, in developing the proposed NSPS, 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 held meetings as discussed in section II.E of this
preamble under Federalism consultations.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The EPA has concluded that the supplemental proposal for the NSPS
does not have Federalism implications. The proposed NSPS will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The supplemental proposal will not
have impacts of $25 million or more in any one year. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the supplemental proposal.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the
supplemental NSPS proposal, the EPA consulted with state and local
officials and representatives of state and local governments early in
the process of developing the proposed rules for MSW landfills (both
the NSPS and Emission Guidelines) to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development.
    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.
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. The comment period for the outreach
meetings related to the NSPS proposal was extended to allow sufficient
time for interested parties to review briefing materials and provide
comments. 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

    The supplemental proposal does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Based on methodology used to predict future landfills as outlined in
the docketed memorandum ``Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost
and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014,''
future tribal landfills are not anticipated to be large enough to
become subject to the proposed NSPS or this supplemental proposal.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA
specifically solicits comment on this action from tribal officials.

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 supplemental NSPS proposal is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk. We also note that the methane
and NMOC reductions expected from the proposed NSPS will have positive
health effects, including for children.

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 NSPS and supplemental NSPS proposal 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 LFG
energy projects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This supplemental NSPS proposal does not involve technical
standards, however, the NSPS proposed on July 17, 2014 involves
technical standards. For the proposed NSPS, the EPA has proposed to use
EPA Methods 2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 21, 25, and 25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. While the EPA identified nine voluntary consensus standards (VCS) as
being potentially applicable (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASTM
D3154-00 (2006), ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO
12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-
M86 (1999), ISO 14965:2000(E)), the agency decided not to use these
methods. The EPA determined that the nine 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 EPA's review, including review
comments for these nine methods, is documented in the memorandum,
``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Standards of Performance for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX'' in the
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215.

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 NSPS and this supplemental proposal will not have
potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous
populations because the proposed NSPS and this supplemental proposal
would reduce emissions of LFG, which contains both NMOC and methane.
These avoided emissions will improve air quality and reduce public
health and welfare effects associated with exposure to LFG emissions.
Regarding the NSPS proposal and this supplemental proposal, the EPA has
concluded that it is not practicable to determine whether there would
be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations from the
proposed NSPS and supplemental proposal because it is unknown where new
or modified facilities will be located. The demographic analysis
results and the details concerning their development are presented in
the April 22, 2014 document titled, ``2014 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).

    Dated: August 14, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-20897 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P