July 21, 2015 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

Enclosed for your consideration is the Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR 

Panel or Panel) convened for EPA’s planned proposed rulemakings entitled “Standards of Performance 

for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (supplemental notice) and the “Emissions Guidelines and Compliance 

Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” These notices of proposed rulemaking are being developed by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA Administrator to list categories of stationary 

sources, if such sources cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for 

such source categories. These standards are referred to as new source performance standards or NSPS. 

The EPA has the authority to define the source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards 

should be developed, identify the facilities within each source category to be covered, and set the 

emission level of the standards. Emission Guidelines are established for existing sources under CAA 

section 111(d) for source categories that emit pollutants not regulated under other parts of the CAA and 

to which an NSPS would apply if such existing source were a new source. The emission guidelines are 

implemented through individual state plans. If a state does not have an approved state plan, section 111 

of the CAA and the general provisions (40 CFR 60.27(c) and (d)) require EPA to develop, implement, and 

enforce a federal plan for existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in that state. 

On December 5, 2013, EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened this Panel under section 

609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). In addition to its chairperson, the Panel consists of the Director of 

the Sector Policies and Program Division within EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). It is important to note that the 

Panel’s findings and discussion are based on the information available at the time this report was drafted. 

EPA is continuing to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed rule, and additional information may be 

developed or obtained during this process as well as from public comment on the proposed rule. The 

options the Panel identified for reducing the rule’s economic impact on small entities will require further 

analysis and/or data collection to ensure that the options are practicable, enforceable, protective of public 

health, environmentally sound and consistent with the CAA. 

SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH 

Prior to convening the Panel, EPA conducted outreach with small entities that will potentially be affected 

by these regulations. In October 2013, EPA invited SBA, OMB, and potentially affected small entity 

representatives to a conference call and solicited comments from them on preliminary information sent to 

them. EPA shared the small entities’ written comments with the Panel as part of the Panel convening 

document. 

After the SBAR Panel was convened, the Panel distributed additional information to the small entity 

representatives (SERs) on December 5, 2013, for their review and comment and in preparation for 

another outreach meeting. On December 19, 2013, the Panel met with the SERs to hear their comments 

on the information distributed in these mailings. The SERs were asked to provide written feedback on 
ideas under consideration for the proposed rulemakings. Following the December 2013 outreach 

meeting, the EPA published on July 14, 2014 a notice of proposed rulemaking on the new source 

performance standards for municipal solid waste landfills and an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 

on the amendments to the emissions guidelines for municipal solid waste landfills. Subsequent to these 

published actions, the Panel again met with SERs for further outreach and engagement on April 14, 2015. 

Following each of these outreach meetings, the Panel received written comments from the SERs in 

response to the discussions at this meetings and the relevant outreach materials. See Section 7 of the 

Panel Report for a complete discussion of SER comments. Their full written comments are also attached. 

In light of these comments, the Panel considered the regulatory flexibility issues specified by 

RFA/SBREFA and developed the findings and discussion summarized below. 

PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

Under section 609(b) of the RFA, the Panel is to report its findings related to these four items: 

1) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule will apply. 

2) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of 

the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject 

to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 

or record. 

3) Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant federal rules which may duplicate, 

overlap or conflict with the proposed rule. 

4) A description of any significant alternatives to the planned proposed rule which would 

minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities consistent 

with the stated objectives of the authorizing statute. 

The Panel’s most significant findings and discussion with respect to each of these items are summarized 

below. To read the full discussion of the Panel findings and recommendations, see Section 8 of the 

Panel Report. 

A. Number and Types of Entities Affected 

For a complete description of the small entities to which the proposed rules may apply, see Section 4 of 

the Panel Report. 

B. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements 

The potential reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements are still under development. 

However, the Panel anticipates that the requirements will be the minimum required by the statute to 

ensure compliance with the emission limits. Compliance testing should be in accordance with EPA or 

other approved methods. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements should be streamlined if practicable. 

C. Related Federal Rules 

MSW landfills that are subject to the Emission Guidelines or NSPS are also likely to be subject to the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 

63, subpart AAAA). However, the landfills NESHAP works in conjunction with the Emission Guidelines 

and NSPS and points to the Emission Guidelines and NSPS for control requirements. Landfills that 

beneficially use landfill gas may also be subject to combustion-related NSPS or NESHAP, however, those 

rules do not conflict with the NMOC destruction or LFG treatment requirements of proposed subparts Cf 

and XXX. Further, the landfills expected to become subject to subpart Cf are currently subject to 40 CFR 

part 60 subpart WWW, 40 CFR part 62 subpart GGG, or the state plans implementing 40 CFR part 60 
subpart Cc. Once subpart Cf is fully finalized and implemented, the state and federal plans implementing 

this new subpart Cf will supersede the requirements of the subparts WWW and Cc. 

Many of the MSW landfills subject to the proposed Emission Guidelines and NSPS are subject to 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart HH of the GHG reporting rule. For both the landfills Emission Guidelines/NSPS and 

subpart HH of the GHG reporting rule, landfills must report (or use in calculations) data elements such as 

landfill capacity, open/closed status, and waste acceptance. Landfills subject to both the Emission 

Guidelines/NSPS and subpart HH of the GHGRP must calculate emissions. The Emission 

Guidelines/NSPS requires calculation of an annual NMOC emission rate, based on default values or sitespecific measurements of methane generation rate and NMOC concentration, whereas subpart HH of the 

GHGRP requires calculation of quantity of methane destroyed, based on monitoring data such as flow, 

moisture, and methane concentration. Although landfills will record or report similar data elements (i.e., 

design capacity, waste acceptance, methane concentration, GCCS details, flowrate) under the two sets of 

landfills rules, the rules have different objectives. The Emission Guidelines/NSPS requires landfill owners 

and operators to control NMOC emissions using a collection and control system, whereas subpart HH of 

the GHGRP reporting rule requires landfill owners and operators to report specific landfill parameters and 

to estimate methane emissions. 

The landfills Emission Guidelines and NSPS cover air emissions from MSW landfills and were not 

intended to be duplicative of, or overlap significantly with, RCRA requirements. Emission guideline and 

NSPS landfills may also receive Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle D waste (e.g., 

commercial solid waste, non-hazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and 

industrial waste). Subtitle D of RCRA addresses location, liner specifications, leachate collection and 

removal systems, operating practices, groundwater monitoring, corrective action measures, closure and 

post-closure care, and financial assurance of non-hazardous solid wastes. Under subtitle D, the state and 

local governments are the primary planning, permitting, regulating, implementing, and enforcement 

agencies for management and disposal of household and industrial or commercial non-hazardous solid 

wastes. EPA establishes technical design and operating criteria (which, at a minimum, the states include 

in their own regulations) for disposal facilities. 

While methane migration control measures are required under both subtitle D and the Landfill NSPS, 

subtitle D deals with explosive hazards in facility structures and at property boundaries. Surface 

monitoring requirements under the landfill NSPS were designed to ensure that the landfill cover or cap 

and gas collection system were properly designed and operated. Well monitoring under subtitle D is for 

leachate migration and not gas monitoring (which is required for the Landfills NSPS). 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives 

The Panel agrees that the EPA should explore regulatory alternatives and provide flexibility where 

appropriate. This flexibility can lessen impacts to small entities as well as entities not classified as small. 

Federal Plan 

SERs encouraged the EPA to develop a Federal plan or template for an approvable State plan. The 

Panel recommends that the EPA develop a Federal plan. The Panel agrees that a Federal plan is 

needed, and recommends that EPA set a schedule for development the Federal plan, if appropriate. 

Direct regulation of methane 

SERs expressed concerns about changes to the designated pollutant, including administrative burden 

and legal uncertainty. The Panel agrees that the pollutant of interest should continue to be landfill gas and 

that NMOC should continue to be measured as a surrogate. 

Site-specific emission threshold determinations (Tier 4) 
The current landfill regulatory requirements include use of a series of models to determine exceedance of 

the emission threshold. After exceedance of the threshold, landfills have 30 months to install controls. 

SERs expressed support for a new approach, known as Tier 4, which would allow for a site-specific 

measurement in addition to the current approved models. 

The Panel recommends that the EPA adjust the current requirements for determining when landfills are 

required to install GCCS. In addition to the current model requirements, the Panel recommends that the 

EPA allow the use of site-specific Tier 4 monitoring. The Panel recommends that the site-specific 

requirements be based on the thresholds and procedures outlined in EPA Method 21 and that Tier 4 be 

allowed after a failed Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 test. The Panel also recommends that EPA allow the Tier 4 

approach to be used to determine when a GCCS can be removed. 

Design capacity and emission threshold 

During the Pre-panel and Panel Outreach Meetings, the EPA presented various options that adjusted the 

design capacity and NMOC emission thresholds currently outlined in the landfill air regulations. SERs 

recognized that additional emission reductions could be achieved by lowering these thresholds. SERs 

however, encouraged the EPA to consider the impact (e.g., operations and costs) that significant lowering 

of these thresholds could have on small entities and landfills with low gas quality or flowrate. SERs 

specifically encouraged EPA to consider the remaining useful life when lowering the threshold. SERs also 

encouraged EPA to explore alternatives to modeled emission requirements and expressed concerns 

about the costs and benefits of lowering thresholds for landfills with declining gas flows. 

The Panel agrees that while significant emission reductions may be achievable, lowering of the design 

and/or emission thresholds should not occur without a practical assessment of barriers to compliance and 

an assessment of the cost effectiveness of such changes on small entities. Further, changes to design 

capacity will make additional landfills (that are often small) subject to new requirements. The Panel 

recommends that EPA consider options for subcategorization to minimize the burden on small entities. 

For example, closed landfills could be exempted from new requirements that increase stringency of the 

emission threshold. This would help to ensure that a disproportionate number of closed landfills (which 

are often small and have declining gas flows and revenues) would not have to incur the burden of 

additional compliance costs. It should also be noted that the streamlined wellhead monitoring 

requirements (outlined in Section 8.4.9 of this document) and surface emission-based thresholds for 

installing and/or removing controls (outlined in sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.6 of this document) would also 

provide flexibility for closed areas and closed landfills. 

Requirements for gas collection system installation and expansion 

The EPA presented various options that reduced timelines for gas collection system installation and 

wellfield expansion. SERs expressed concerns about the ability to meet compliance deadlines if timelines 

for gas collection system installation or expansion were reduced. SERs also expressed concerns about 

increased burden (e.g., permitting, construction, and operational costs) associated with tighter timelines. 

Additionally, SERs asserted that increased stringency of these parameters was not necessary. The Panel 

agrees that barriers associated with adjustments to timelines for gas collection installation and wellfield 

expansion (e.g. monitoring and costs) should be considered. The Panel recommends that EPA avoid 

making substantive changes to timelines established for collection system installation and expansion 

unless it his significant evidence that tightening these metrics would be cost effective. 

 

Removing a GCCS 

SERs expressed concerns about the current requirements for GCCS removal, specifically the minimum 

15-year time period for GCCS operation and the desire for intermittent operation of a GCCS in lieu of 

capping and removing the system. The Panel agrees EPA should account for declining gas flow by 

allowing site-specific measurements as part of the removal criteria. Those changes should allow for 

consideration of declining gas flow independent of the current 15 year GCCS requirement. 
Surface monitoring 

The EPA outlined its current approach to surface monitoring (EPA Method 21) during the Pre-Panel and 

Panel Outreach Meetings. The EPA also discussed its exploration of alternatives to the requirements 

currently outlined in Method 21, known as enhanced surface monitoring (modeled after key aspects of the 

California Landfill Methane Rule). SERs asserted that the current approach to surface monitoring should 

continue. Additionally, SERs discussed their familiarity with the alternative approaches explored and 

encouraged the EPA to recognize that those alternatives were not coupled with the monthly gas well 

monitoring requirements outlined in the landfill air regulations. Further, SERs asserted that surface 

monitoring was an effective means of ensuring proper operation of gas collection and control systems 

and, as such, eliminated the need for monthly gas well monitoring of temperature and nitrogen/oxygen 

(outlined in Section 8.4.8 of this document). SERs also encouraged the EPA to solicit data before 

adopting new surface monitoring requirements. 

The Panel believes that changes to the current surface monitoring requirements are not warranted based 

upon the information currently available. However, additional data should be considered. As such, the 

Panel recommends that EPA solicit comment on alternative approaches to surface monitoring and 

explore changes to current surface monitoring requirements if deemed appropriate. Additionally the Panel 

recommends that EPA request data on specific parameters such as wind speed, walking patterns, and 

integrated measurements. 

Organics diversion 

SERs expressed concerns with mandating or encouraging organics diversion. The Panel agrees that 

there are significant barriers to mandating organics diversion and that a mandate should not be pursued 

at this time. The Panel, however, recognizes the benefits of voluntary organics diversion programs. The 

EPA asserts that encouraging these practices are beneficial in that they reduce the amount of landfill gas 

generated and can serve as a useful compliance tool by postponing or preventing the need to install a 

GCCS. 

Gas well monitoring 

During its Pre-panel and Panel Outreach Meetings, the EPA encouraged SERs to discuss their practical 

experience with the landfill air regulations and recommend options that could potentially reduce regulatory 

burden while meeting or exceeding the levels of protection currently achieved by the rules. SERs, in turn, 

asserted that monthly gas well monitoring requirements for temperature and nitrogen/ oxygen were 

onerous and unnecessary. SERs asserted that it was in their best interest to ensure proper operation of 

gas wells. They also viewed recordkeeping and corrective action requirements associated with monthly 

gas well monitoring as overly burdensome. 

The Panel recommends that EPA remove the requirement to meet operating limits for temperature and 

nitrogen/oxygen as well as the associated corrective action requirements. The EPA however, asserts that 

monitoring of temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at wellheads, could be used to inform potential 

adjustments to the GCCS (while eliminating the requirement to meet a limit). The Panel recommends that 

EPA explore retention of the negative pressure requirement as well as its associated recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Landfill gas treatment 

The current landfill air regulations do not define landfill gas treatment. Amendments proposed in 2002 and 

2006 attempted to address landfill gas treatment by creating a definition. One approach, under the 

proposed amendments, sought to define treatment as filtration, dewatering, and compression of landfill 

gas. Another proposed approach, assigned numeric criteria to the treatment definition to address 

ambiguity and provide clarity for regulatory compliance. Over the course of Panel meetings, the EPA 

requested comments on both approaches from SERs. The EPA also presented an additional numeric 

approach that refined the numeric option outlined in the 2006 proposal.