39662
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
111
/
Monday,
June
10,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Dated:
May
16,
2002,
Robert
W.
Varney,
Regional
Administrator,
EPA
New
England.
[FR
Doc.
02–
14488
Filed
6–
7–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
70
[FRL–
7223–
6]

Clean
Air
Act
Approval
of
Revisions
to
Operating
Permits
Program
in
Oregon
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve,
as
a
revision
to
Oregon's
title
V
air
operating
permits
program,
a
1999
statute
addressing
the
State's
requirements
for
judicial
standing
to
challenge
State­
issued
title
V
permits.
In
a
Notice
of
Deficiency
published
on
November
30,
1998
(63
FR
65783),
EPA
notified
Oregon
of
EPA's
finding
that
the
State's
requirements
for
judicial
standing
did
not
meet
minimum
Federal
requirements
for
program
approval.
This
program
revision
would
resolve
the
deficiency
identified
in
the
Notice
of
Deficiency.
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
approve,
as
a
revision
to
Oregon's
title
V
air
operating
permits
program,
changes
to
Oregon's
title
V
regulations
made
in
1999
that
reorganize
and
renumber
the
regulations
and
increase
title
V
fees.
In
the
Final
Rules
section
of
this
Federal
Register,
the
EPA
is
publishing
its
approval
as
a
direct
final
rule
without
prior
proposal
because
the
Agency
views
this
as
a
noncontroversial
determination
and
anticipates
no
adverse
comments.
A
detailed
rationale
for
the
approval
is
set
forth
in
the
direct
final
rule.
If
no
adverse
comments
are
received
in
response
to
this
action,
no
further
activity
is
contemplated.
If
the
EPA
receives
adverse
comments,
the
direct
final
rule
will
be
withdrawn
and
all
public
comments
received
will
be
addressed
in
a
subsequent
final
rule
based
on
this
proposed
rule.
The
EPA
will
not
institute
a
second
comment
period.
Any
parties
interested
in
commenting
on
this
action
should
do
so
at
this
time.

DATES:
Written
comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
July
10,
2002.

ADDRESSES:
Written
comments
should
be
mailed
to
Denise
Baker,
Environmental
Protection
Specialist,
Office
of
Air
Quality,
Mailcode
OAQ–
107,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
10,
1200
Sixth
Avenue,
Seattle,
Washington,
98101.
Copies
of
Oregon's
submittal,
and
other
supporting
information
used
in
developing
this
action,
are
available
for
inspection
during
normal
business
hours
at
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
10,
1200
Sixth
Avenue,
Seattle,
Washington,
98101.
Interested
persons
wanting
to
examine
these
documents
should
make
an
appointment
with
the
appropriate
office
at
least
24
hours
before
the
visiting
day.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Denise
Baker,
Office
of
Air
Quality,
Mailcode,
OAQ–
107,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
10,
1200
Sixth
Avenue,
Seattle,
Washington
98101,
(206)
553–
8087.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
For
additional
information,
see
the
Direct
Final
rule
which
is
located
in
the
Rules
section
of
this
Federal
Register.

Dated:
May
22,
2002.
Elbert
Moore,
Acting
Regional
Administrator,
Region
10.
[FR
Doc.
02–
13973
Filed
6–
7–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
258
[F–
2001–
RDMP–
FFFFF;
FRL–
7228–
3]

RIN
2050–
AE92
Research,
Development,
and
Demonstration
Permits
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
is
proposing
to
add
a
new
section
to
the
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
(MSWLF)
to
allow
states
to
issue
research,
development,
and
demonstration
(RD&
D)
permits
for
landfill
operations
at
variance
with
some
parts
of
the
MSWLF
criteria,
provided
landfill
operators
demonstrate
that
these
operations
will
not
result
in
an
increased
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
EPA
is
proposing
this
alternative
to
promote
innovative
technologies
for
the
landfilling
of
municipal
solid
waste.
Variance
from
the
following
MSWLF
criteria
would
not
be
allowed:
location
restrictions,
ground
water
monitoring,
corrective
action
requirements,
the
financial
assurance
criteria,
procedures
for
excluding
hazardous
waste,
and
explosive
gases
control
requirements.
DATES:
EPA
must
receive
your
comments
or
your
comments
must
be
postmarked
by
August
9,
2002.
ADDRESSES:
Commenters
must
send
an
original
and
two
copies
of
their
comments
referencing
docket
number
F–
2002–
RDMP–
FFFFF
to:
(1)
if
using
regular
US
Postal
Service
mail:
RCRA
Docket
Information
Center,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(5305G),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Headquarters
(EPA,
HQ),
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460–
0002,
or
(2)
if
using
special
delivery,
such
as
overnight
express
service:
RCRA
Docket
Information
Center
(RIC),
Crystal
Gateway
One,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
First
Floor,
Arlington,
VA
22202.
Commenters
are
encouraged
to
submit
their
comments
electronically
through
the
Internet
to:
rcradocket
epa.
gov.
Comments
in
electronic
format
should
also
be
identified
by
the
docket
number
F–
2002–
RDMP–
FFFFF.
You
must
provide
your
electronic
submittals
as
ASCII
files
and
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
Commenters
should
not
submit
electronically
any
confidential
business
information
(CBI).
An
original
and
two
copies
of
CBI
must
be
submitted
under
separate
cover
to:
RCRA
CBI
Document
Control
Officer,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(5305W),
U.
S.
EPA,
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460–
0002.
Public
comments
and
supporting
materials
are
available
for
viewing
in
the
RCRA
Information
Center
(RIC),
located
at
Crystal
Gateway
I,
First
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA.
The
RIC
is
open
from
9
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
federal
holidays.
To
review
docket
materials,
it
is
recommended
that
the
public
make
an
appointment
by
calling
703
603–
9230.
The
public
may
copy
a
maximum
of
100
pages
from
any
regulatory
docket
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
cost
$0.15/
page.
The
index
and
some
supporting
materials
are
available
electronically.
See
the
``
Supplementary
Information''
section
for
information
on
accessing
them.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information,
contact
the
RCRA
Hotline
at
800
424–
9346
or
TDD
800
553–
7672
(hearing
impaired).
In
the
Washington,
DC,
metropolitan
area,
call
703
412–
9810
or
TDD
703
412–
3323.
For
information
on
specific
aspects
of
this
document:
contact
Dwight
Hlustick,
Municipal
and
Industrial
Solid
Waste
Division
of
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
11:
51
Jun
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
10JNP1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
10JNP1
39663
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
111
/
Monday,
June
10,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(mail
code
5306W),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Headquarters
(EPA,
HQ),
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
703/
308–
8647,
hlustick.
dwight@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Supporting
Materials,
and
Official
Record
The
index
and
the
following
supporting
materials
are
available
on
the
Internet:
``
Finding
a
Better
Cover,
''
Stephen
F.
Dwyer,
Civil
Engineering,
January
2001,
pages
58–
63;
``
USEPA
Workshop
for
Bioreactor
Landfills,
September
6–
7,
2000,''
U.
S.
EPA,
September
2001;
``
Prediction
and
Measurement
of
Leachate
Head
on
Landfill
Liners,
''
Debra
R.
Reinhart,
Florida
Center
for
Solid
and
Hazardous
Waste
Management,
Report
#98–
3,
July
1998;
``
Technical
Resource
Document:
Assessment
and
Recommendations
for
Improving
the
Performance
of
Waste
Containment
Systems,
''
EPA,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Grant
#
CR–
821448–
01–
0,
February
2002,
(R.
Bonaparte,
D.
Daniel,
and
R.
M.
Koerner).
You
can
find
these
materials
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
nonhw
muncpl/
mswlficr/
index.
htm.
The
official
record
for
this
action
will
be
kept
in
paper
form.
Accordingly,
EPA
will
transfer
all
comments
received
electronically
into
paper
form
and
place
them
in
the
official
record,
which
will
also
include
all
comments
submitted
directly
in
writing.
The
official
record
is
the
paper
record
maintained
at
the
address
in
ADDRESSES
at
the
beginning
of
this
document.
EPA
responses
to
comments,
whether
the
comments
are
written
or
electronic,
will
be
in
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
or
in
a
response
to
comments
document
placed
in
the
official
record
for
this
rulemaking.
EPA
will
not
immediately
reply
to
commenters
electronically
other
than
to
seek
clarification
of
electronic
comments
that
may
be
garbled
in
transmission
or
during
conversion
to
paper
form,
as
discussed
above.

Affected
Entities.

Entities
potentially
affected
by
this
action
are
public
or
private
owners
or
operators
of
landfills.
Affected
categories
and
entities
include
the
following:

Category
Examples
of
affected
entities
Federal
Government
Agencies
procuring
waste
services
Industry
..............
Owners
or
operators
of
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
Category
Examples
of
affected
entities
Municipalities,
including
Tribal
Governments.
Owners
or
operators
of
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
This
table
is
a
guide
for
readers
that
describes
which
entities
are
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action.
It
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
aware
could
potentially
be
impacted
by
today's
action.
It
is
possible
that
other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
could
also
be
affected.
To
determine
whether
you
would
be
impacted
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria.
If
you
have
questions
about
whether
this
action
applies
to
a
particular
facility,
please
consult
Mr.
Dwight
Hlustick,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(5306W),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
703
308–
8647,
hlustick.
dwight@
epamail.
epa.
gov.

Outline
I.
Authority
for
this
Proposed
Rule
II.
EPA's
Role
in
Developing
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfill
Criteria
III.
Proposed
Research,
Development,
and
Demonstration
Permits
A.
Duration
of
RD&
D
Permit
B.
Size
Limitations
C.
Testing,
Monitoring,
and
Reporting
Requirements
IV.
State
and
Tribal
Implementation
V.
Applicable
statutes
and
executive
orders
A.
Executive
Order
12866
(Regulatory
Planning
and
Review)
B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(SBREFA),
5
USC
601
et.
seq.
C.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
D.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
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.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
I.
Executive
Order
12898:
Environmental
Justice
J.
Executive
Order
13211:
Energy
Effects
I.
Legal
Authority
for
This
Proposed
Rule
The
authority
for
this
proposed
revision
to
the
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
(40
CFR
part
258)
is
sections
1008,
2002(
a),
4004,
4005(
c)
and
4010
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
of
1976
(RCRA),
as
amended,
42
U.
S.
C.
6907,
6912(
a),
6944,
6945(
c),
6949a.
II.
EPA's
Role
in
Developing
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfill
Criteria
Subtitle
D
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
provides
that
states
will
have
the
primary
authority
for
regulating
municipal
solid
waste.
The
role
of
the
federal
government
is
to
establish
an
overall
regulatory
direction
through
the
development
of
minimum
national
standards
for
nonhazardous
solid
waste
disposal
facilities,
which
include
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
(MSWLFs).
On
October
9,
1991,
EPA
issued
revised
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
(56
FR
50978).
These
criteria,
codified
in
40
CFR
part
258,
establish
minimum
national
standards
to
ensure
that
``
no
reasonable
probability
of
adverse
effects
on
health
or
the
environment''
will
result
from
solid
waste
disposal
facilities
receiving
hazardous
household
waste
and
small
quantity
generator
hazardous
wastes
(56
FR
50979).
Today,
EPA
is
proposing
an
amendment
to
the
MSWLF
criteria
to
allow
for
the
issuance
of
limited
permits
for
research,
development,
and
demonstration
projects.
States
with
permit
programs
determinated
to
be
adequate
pursuant
to
RCRA
section
4005(
c)
and
40
CFR
part
239
(``
approved
States'')
would
decide
whether
or
not
to
adopt
this
provision
in
their
approved
programs.

III.
Research,
Development,
and
Demonstration
Permits
Today's
proposed
rule
would
allow
the
Director
of
an
approved
State
to
issue
research,
development,
and
demonstration
(RD&
D)
permits
to
owners
and
operators
of
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
The
Director
of
a
nonapproved
State
would
not
have
the
option
of
issuing
RD&
D
permits.
EPA
is
proposing
this
provision
to
stimulate
the
development
of
new
technologies
and
alternative
operational
processes
for
the
landfilling
of
municipal
solid
waste.
This
proposed
rule
would
allow
the
State
director
to
waive
specific
provisions
of
the
MSWLF
criteria,
including
the
(1)
operating
criteria,
except
procedures
for
excluding
hazardous
waste
and
explosive
gas
control
in
subpart
C;
(2)
the
design
criteria
in
subpart
D;
and
(3)
the
closure
and
post­
closure
care
criteria
in
subpart
F.
In
order
to
issue
an
RD&
D
permit
waiving
any
of
these
criteria,
the
State
Director
must
be
satisfied
that
a
landfill
operating
under
an
RD&
D
permit
will
pose
no
additional
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
beyond
that
which
would
result
from
a
landfill
operating
under
the
current
MSWLF
criteria.
Today's
proposed
rule
is
modeled
on
VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
17:
01
Jun
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
10JNP1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
10JNP1
39664
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
111
/
Monday,
June
10,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
the
research,
development,
and
demonstration
permit
provisions
in
40
CFR
270.65.
That
provision
allows
states
with
approved
hazardous
waste
management
programs
to
issue
RD&
D
permits
for
innovative
and
experimental
treatment
technologies
or
processes
at
hazardous
waste
treatment
facilities.
The
permit
variance
proposed
today
is
similar
to
that
already
allowed
by
some
States
which
have
more
restrictive
or
stringent
standards
than
those
established
in
the
1991
MSWLF
criteria.
However,
under
the
present
federal
standards
set
forth
in
the
criteria,
these
state
research
permits
are
very
limited
in
their
scope,
i.
e.,
state
rules
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
MSWLF
criteria.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
allow
more
latitude
in
these
existing
state
programs
as
well
as
allowing
the
development
of
new
programs
in
other
States.
EPA
is
proposing
to
allow
permits
for
alternative
design
and
operating
requirements
because
EPA
has
become
aware
of
new
or
improved
technologies
for
landfill
operations
and
design
since
the
promulgation
of
the
MSWLF
criteria
in
1991.
These
include:
(1)
Improvements
in
liner
system
design
and
materials;
(2)
improvements
in
the
design
of,
and
materials
used
in
leachate
drainage
and
recirculation
systems;
(3)
new
processes
for
more
rapid
degradation
of
waste
which
require
the
addition
of
water
or
steam;
(4)
new
liquid
distribution
techniques
(see
EPA
Docket
Number
F–
2000–
ALPA–
FFFFF
for
FR
Notice:
Alternative
Liner
Performance,
Leachate
Recirculation,
and
Bioreactor
Landfills:
Request
for
Information
and
Data,
April
6,
2000,
FR18014);
and
(5)
improvements
in
various
monitoring
devices
(i.
e.,
``
Prediction
and
Measurement
of
Leachate
Head
on
Landfill
Liners,
''
Debra
R.
Reinhart,
Florida
Center
for
Solid
and
Hazardous
Waste
Management,
Report
#98–
3,
July
1998).
As
a
result,
the
approved
States
would
have
flexibility
in
allowing
the
operation
of
new
and
innovative
technologies
in
permitting
the
landfilling
of
municipal
solid
waste.
The
State
and
the
owner/
operator
must
assure
there
is
no
increased
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
when
instituting
any
of
the
new
techniques
or
processes
which
would
be
allowed
by
today's
proposed
rule
changes.
EPA
has
determined
that
in
order
to
ensure
that
human
health
and
the
environment
are
protected,
specific
criteria
developed
for
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
should
not
be
able
to
be
waived.
Therefore,
today's
proposed
rule
would
not
allow
State
directors
to
deviate
from
the
requirements
addressing:
(1)
Location
restrictions
in
subpart
B;
(2)
ground­
water
monitoring
and
corrective
action
in
subpart
E;
(3)
financial
assurance
in
subpart
G;
(4)
explosive
gases
control
in
40
CFR
258.23
of
subpart
C;
and
(5)
hazardous
waste
control
in
40
CFR
258.20
of
subpart
C.
EPA
believes
that
these
provisions
are
necessary
to
assure
a
national
minimum
level
of
protection
by
requiring
(1)
landfills
to
be
properly
located
safe
distances
from
airports,
outside
of
wetlands,
and
floodplains;
(2)
ground­
water
to
be
adequately
monitored
and
corrective
action
measures
to
be
implemented,
if
needed;
(3)
adequate
financial
safeguards
to
be
in
place
for
closure
and
post­
closure
action;
(4)
explosive
gases
to
be
monitored
and
controlled;
and
(5)
procedures
to
be
in
place
to
prevent
the
dumping
of
regulated
quantities
of
hazardous
waste
in
MSW
landfills.
An
example
of
a
modification
to
the
operation
of
an
MSWLF
that
would
be
allowed
to
be
issued
under
an
RD&
D
permit
would
be
the
addition
of
nonhazardous
liquids
to
accelerate
decomposition
in
a
MSWLF
unit
constructed
with
an
alternative
liner
(i.
e.,
a
liner
that
complies
with
the
performance
design
criteria
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1)
rather
than
a
liner
that
complies
with
the
design
specifications
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2)).
This
practice
is
not
allowed
under
the
existing
municipal
landfill
criteria.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
grant
State
Directors
in
approved
States
the
authority
to
issue
permits
allowing
for
the
addition
of
these
liquids,
provided
the
owner/
operator
demonstrates
that
there
will
be
no
increased
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
MSWLF
owner/
operator
would
therefore
be
required
to
demonstrate
groundwater
protection,
landfill
stability,
as
well
as
earlier
landfill
gas
collection
and
control
sooner
than
is
currently
required
under
EPA
air
regulations
(40
CFR
part
60,
subparts
CC
and
WWW).
The
plan
for
landfill
gas
control
would
need
to
be
included
as
a
requirement
in
the
RD&
D
permit.
Another
example
of
a
variance
for
which
an
RD&
D
permit
could
be
issued
is
use
of
an
alternate
landfill
cover
rather
than
that
which
is
specified
in
the
MSWLF
criteria.
Although
the
current
regulations
provide
approved
States
with
flexibility
regarding
covers
for
landfills,
this
proposed
rule
would
allow
State
directors
in
approved
States
additional
flexibility,
while
maintaining
the
assurance
that
human
health
and
the
environment
are
protected.
EPA
believes
that
flexibility
is
warranted
due
to
varying
climates,
topography,
and
waste
handling
techniques
in
approved
States.
However
with
additional
flexibility,
there
is
the
need
to
more
closely
monitor
the
operations
of
those
landfills
that
have
been
issued
RD&
D
permits.
EPA
has
also
considered
the
applicability
of
this
proposed
rule
to
owners/
operators
of
small
landfills
that
are
exempt
from
part
258
subparts
D
and
E
as
specified
in
40
CFR
258.1(
f).
EPA
concluded
that
these
small
landfills
should
also
be
allowed
to
apply
and
receive
RD&
D
permits
under
today's
rule
for
the
following
reason:
EPA
is
proposing
to
allow
this
because
permits
will
be
issued
on
a
site­
specific
basis
and
the
State
Director
has
the
authority
to
modify
or
eliminate
the
above
exemptions
as
is
needed
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Therefore,
the
exemptions
for
these
facilities
would
remain
applicable
if
the
owner/
operator
applies
for
a
permit
under
today's
proposal,
unless
the
State
Director
determines
otherwise.
EPA
is
not
proposing
a
process
or
methodology
for
obtaining
an
RD&
D
permit,
but
is
leaving
permit
application
and
issuance
procedures
up
to
the
States
wishing
to
issue
these
permits.
EPA
will
work
with
interested
States
in
developing
these
procedures
and
will
issue
guidance
if
we
determine
that
there
is
sufficient
interest
and
need
for
such
guidance.

A.
Duration
of
RD&
D
Permits
Today's
proposed
rule
would
limit
the
duration
of
initial
RD&
D
permits
to
three
years.
EPA
believes
that
three
years
is
an
appropriate
length
of
time
to
initially
test
and
assess
the
performance
of
an
innovative
technology
or
process
in
an
MSWLF.
Similar
to
the
RD&
D
permit
provision
for
hazardous
waste
treatment
facilities,
this
rule
would
allow
the
permit
to
be
renewed
for
three
years
up
to
three
times.
Therefore,
this
proposal
would
allow
for
a
maximum
permit
period
of
12
years.
While
this
is
a
relatively
short
time
in
the
life
of
a
landfill
and
a
longer
time
may
be
needed
for
some
projects,
EPA
believes
that
this
is
sufficient
time
to
determine
whether
a
project
will
be
successful
in
meeting
its
stated
goals.
If
a
project
proves
successful
and
the
owner/
operator
and
State
agree
that
it
should
continue
longer
than
12
years,
EPA
may
develop
a
site­
specific
rule
or
other
appropriate
regulatory
modification
to
the
MSWLF
criteria.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
three
years
is
an
appropriate
permit
duration
and
whether
three
permit
renewals
for
a
total
project
duration
of
12
years
is
also
appropriate.

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
11:
51
Jun
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
10JNP1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
10JNP1
39665
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
111
/
Monday,
June
10,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
B.
Size
Limitations
EPA
considered
placing
a
size
limitation
on
the
RD&
D
projects
to
be
permitted.
This
included
the
area
of
the
landfill,
as
well
as
the
quantity
of
waste
placed
in
the
landfill.
EPA
determined
that
due
to
the
variation
in
types
of
projects,
limitations
based
on
size
of
landfill,
quantity
of
waste,
or
other
limitations
should
be
determined
by
the
State
Director
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
proposing
to
establish
any
limitations
based
on
size
or
waste
quantity,
but
rather,
recommends
that
the
Directors
of
approved
States
consider
whether
size
or
capacity
limitations
are
warranted,
based
on
the
project
goals,
in
order
to
protect
the
environment
and
human
health
and
stay
within
the
maximum
duration
of
the
RD&
D
permit.
However,
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
there
should
be
any
limitations
on
the
size
of
the
landfill
or
quantity
of
waste
placed
in
the
landfill.

C.
Testing,
Monitoring,
and
Reporting
Requirements
To
ensure
that
projects
operating
under
an
RD&
D
permit
meet
the
expectations
of
the
research,
development,
or
demonstration
project,
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
require
that
the
permittee
test,
monitor,
and
submit
information
to
the
State
Director
as
specified
in
the
RD&
D
permit
in
order
for
the
Director
to
determine
the
progress
of
the
project,
insure
proper
operation
of
the
landfill,
and
assure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
EPA
is
not
proposing
particular
monitoring
testing,
or
recordkeeping
requirements,
nor
does
the
proposal
specify
monitoring
frequency.
The
Agency
believes
that
each
project
should
be
evaluated
individually
to
determine
the
appropriate
monitoring,
testing,
and
records
to
be
kept,
as
well
as
to
determine
how
often
such
monitoring
or
testing
should
take
place.
Therefore,
under
the
proposed
rule,
the
State
Director
would
make
this
assessment
and
include
specific
monitoring,
testing,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
in
each
permit.
Similarly,
EPA
is
proposing
that
the
State
Director
specify
the
reporting
requirements
in
the
permit
on
a
sitespecific
basis.
As
a
separate
requirement,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
the
landfill
owner/
operator
to
submit
an
annual
report
to
the
State
Director
summarizing
progress
on
how
well
the
project
is
attaining
its
goals.
Examples
of
goals
include
environmental
protection,
cost
benefits,
community
benefits,
compost
recovery,
improved
ground
water
protection,
more
rapid
and/
or
complete
decomposition
of
waste,
improved
landfill
gas
recovery.
These
goals
should
be
clearly
stated
in
the
permit
in
objective,
measurable
terms
where
possible.
EPA
specifically
requests
comments
on
whether
these
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
are
appropriate.

IV.
State
and
Tribal
Implementation
The
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
criteria
are
implemented
in
one
of
two
ways.
The
first,
and
preferred
alternative,
is
that
each
State
implements
the
criteria
after
EPA
reviews
its
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
permit
program
or
other
system
of
prior
approval
and
finds
it
to
be
adequate
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
239.
The
criteria
contain
provisions
that
allow
States
to
develop
and
rely
on
alternative
approaches
to
address
sitespecific
conditions.
Therefore,
the
actual
planning
and
direct
implementation
of
solid
waste
programs
is
principally
a
function
of
State
governments
and
those
owners
and
operators,
including
local
governments,
of
MSWLFs,
rather
than
the
federal
government.
The
criteria
can
also
be
``
self­
implementing''
by
landfill
owners
and
operators
in
those
States
that
have
not
received
EPA
approval
of
their
MSWLF
permitting
programs.
In
this
case,
the
regulations
provide
less
flexibility
for
owners
and
operators.
As
of
January
1,
2002,
49
States
and
territories
had
received
approval
of
their
programs
and
are
implementing
these
regulations.
As
discussed
in
a
prior
Federal
Register
notice
(63
FR
57027,
October
23,
1998),
Tribes
are
not
included
in
the
definition
of
State
under
RCRA,
and
therefore
EPA
does
not
have
authority
under
RCRA
to
approve
tribal
MSWLF
permitting
programs.
However,
tribes
can
seek
the
same
flexibility
as
afforded
owners
and
operators
located
in
approved
States
through
a
site­
specific
rulemaking
as
discussed
in
the
EPA
draft
guidance
entitled,
``
Site
Specific
Flexibility
Requests
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
in
Indian
Country,
''
EPA530–
97–
016,
August
1997.
Today's
proposed
rule
to
allow
RD&
D
permits
would
not
be
self
implementing.
MSWLF
owners/
operators
would
only
be
able
to
obtain
an
RD&
D
permit
in
approved
States
that
adopt
authority
to
issue
such
permits.
Because
today's
proposed
rule
provides
more
flexibility
than
existing
federal
criteria,
States
would
not
be
required
to
amend
their
permit
programs
which
have
been
determined
to
be
adequate
under
40
CFR
part
239.
States
would
have
the
option
to
amend
statutory
or
regulatory
definitions
pursuant
to
today's
proposed
rule.
If
a
State
chooses
to
amend
its
statutory
or
regulatory
authority,
and
if
doing
so
modifies
the
State's
solid
waste
permit
program,
the
State
would
be
required
to
notify
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator
of
the
modification
as
provided
by
40
CFR
239.12.
Whether
a
State
chooses
to
incorporate
today's
proposed
rule
into
its
solid
waste
program
would
have
no
effect
on
its
existing
status
with
respect
to
EPA
approval,
i.
e.,
State
revisions
to
issue
RD&
D
permits
will
not
open
previously
approved
solid
waste
programs
for
Federal
review.
Tribes
may
also
receive
RD&
D
permits
allowed
by
today's
proposed
rule
similar
to
owners
and
operators
located
in
approved
States
through
a
sitespecific
rulemaking
outlined
in
the
previously
referenced
draft
guidance
document,
``
Site
Specific
Flexibility
Requests
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
in
Indian
Country.
''

V.
How
Does
This
Proposed
Rule
Comply
With
Applicable
Statues
and
Executive
Orders?

A.
Executive
Order
12866
(Regulatory
Planning
and
Review)

Under
Executive
Order
12866
[58
FR
51735
(October
4,
1993)],
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
significant
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
A
significant
regulatory
action
is
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866
as
one
that
may:
(1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
rights
and
obligations
or
recipients
thereof;
or
(4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
Executive
Order
12866.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
allow,
but
would
not
require,
States
to
provide
RD&
D
permits
to
individual
MSWLFs.
The
proposed
rule
would
not
require
any
MSWLF
to
apply
for
such
a
permit,
but
would
provide
an
opportunity
to
those
MSWLFs
seeking
to
try
innovative
or
new
technology
or
processes
with
respect
to
landfilling
municipal
solid
waste.

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
11:
51
Jun
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
10JNP1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
10JNP1
39666
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
111
/
Monday,
June
10,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
It
has
been
determined
that
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
review.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
impose
no
new
requirements
and
is
intended
to
give
more
flexibility
to
the
regulated
community
with
significant
potential
net
cost
savings.
Although
net
cost
savings
are
expected,
EPA
is
unable
to
estimate
the
magnitude
of
the
savings
because
it
is
yet
to
be
seen
how
many
RD&
D
permits
will
be
authorized
or
what
kinds
of
permit
changes
or
innovations
might
be
undertaken.

B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(1)
a
small
business
that
is
primarily
engaged
in
the
collection
and
disposal
of
refuse
in
a
landfill
operation
as
defined
by
NAICS
codes
562212
and
924110
(also
defined
by
SIC
codes
4953
and
9511)
with
annual
receipts
less
than
10
million
dollars,
as
defined
in
accordance
with
the
Small
Business
Administration
(SBA)
size
standards
established
for
industries
listed
in
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(see
http://
www.
sba.
gov/
size/
NAICS­
cover­
page.
html);
(2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
SBREFA
amended
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
to
require
Federal
Agencies
to
provide
a
statement
of
the
factual
basis
for
certifying
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
(SISNOSE).
The
following
discussion
explains
EPA's
determination.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
(SISNOSE),
since
the
rule
has
direct
effects
only
on
state
agencies.
The
purpose
of
this
rule
is
to
add
flexibility
to
the
MSWLF
criteria.
This
rule
would
add
no
new
requirements
to
the
MSWLF
criteria
for
either
existing
or
new
facilities,
nor
will
it
increase
costs
for
new
or
existing
MSWLFs
regardless
of
size.
In
conclusion,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
would
not
impose
significant
new
burdens
on
small
entities.
Instead,
this
rule
is
expected
to
provide
net
annual
benefits
(in
the
form
of
regulatory
relief;
potential
research,
development,
and
innovation
advancements;
and
long­
term
benefits)
from
the
voluntary
participation
by
facilities
in
the
private
sector.

C.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(UMRA),
Public
Law
104–
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objective
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
EPA's
analysis
of
compliance
with
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
found
that
this
proposed
rule
imposes
no
additional
enforceable
burden
on
any
State,
local
or
tribal
governments
or
the
private
sector.
Thus,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202,
203,
and
205
of
UMRA.

D.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
proposed
rule
will
be
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
An
Information
Collection
Request
(ICR)
document
will
be
prepared
by
EPA
and
a
copy,
when
completed,
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(2822);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
email
at
auby.
susan@
epamail.
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(202)
260–
2740.
A
copy
can
also
be
downloaded
off
the
internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr
when
it
is
available.
The
ICRs
affected
by
this
rule
are
for
40
CFR
parts
239,
Requirements
for
State
Permit
Program
Determination
of
Adequacy
and
part
258,
MSWLF
Criteria.
EPA
has
submitted
the
ICR
for
part
239
(ICR#
1608.03,
OMB#
2050–
152)
to
OMB
for
review.
EPA
included
estimates
of
the
cost
for
approved
States
to
revise
their
existing
program
for
today's
rule.
The
estimated
cost
was
$5,680
per
respondent.
EPA
is
requesting
comments
from
States
which
plan
to
make
these
revisions
so
that
EPA
can
better
understand
the
expected
burden
that
would
be
incurred
by
states
who
wish
to
make
these
changes.
EPA
is
estimating
that
approximately
five
states
will
revise
their
rules
to
take
advantage
of
today's
proposal.
In
addition,
EPA
is
also
requesting
information
from
MSWLF
owners/
operators
on
the
reporting
burden
that
they
would
incur
due
to
this
rule
under
the
part
258,
MSWLF
criteria
ICR
(ICR#
1381.06,
OMB#
2050–
0122).
Information
which
States
are
expected
to
require
include
the
annual
report
specified
in
the
rule
as
well
as
additional
monitoring
and
testing
requirements
which
may
be
specified
by
a
State
authority.
Additional
monitoring
requirements
could
include
the
measurement
of
leachate
head
on
the
liner;
landfill
temperature
at
various
locations;
type,
application
rate
and
application
method
of
various
wastes
including
liquid
wastes
and
water
that
maybe
placed
in
the
landfill;
additional
hydraulic
studies;
landfill
settlement
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
11:
51
Jun
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
10JNP1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
10JNP1
39667
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
111
/
Monday,
June
10,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
rate
determinations,
etc.
At
present
EPA
estimates
that
only
two
to
three
landfills
a
year
will
be
permitted
under
this
proposed
rule
over
the
next
few
years.
Reporting
requirements
are
estimated
to
cost
between
$15,000
and
$25,000
per
year
per
landfill.
So
total
reporting
costs
are
estimated
at
$30,000
to
$75,000
per
year
for
the
first
year
and
increasing
at
a
rate
of
$50,000
per
year
for
the
next
three
years
thereafter.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
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
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
Comments
are
requested
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
Send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(2823);
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.,
Washington,
DC
20460–
0001;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
St.,
N.
W.,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
June
10,
2002,
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
July
10,
2002.
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
are
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
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.
''
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
would
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
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.
Implementation
of
this
proposed
rule
by
a
State
would
be
at
the
State's
discretion
and
would
not
be
required.
Nevertheless,
although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule,
EPA
has
consulted
with
States
through
the
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
during
the
development
of
this
proposal.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule
change.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
are
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.
''
Under
section
5(
b)
of
Executive
Order
13175,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
tribal
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
tribal
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
tribal
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
Under
section
5(
c)
of
Executive
Order
13175,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
tribal
implications
and
that
preempts
tribal
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
tribal
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
has
concluded
that
this
proposed
rule
would
have
no
new
tribal
implications.
It
would
not
present
any
additional
burden
on
the
tribes,
but
would
allow
more
flexibility
for
compliance
with
the
MSWLF
criteria.
It
would
neither
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
tribal
governments,
nor
preempt
State
law.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
sections
5(
b)
and
5(
c)
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045,
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
rule
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
it
would
not
affect
decisions
involving
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
to
children.

H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(``
NTTAA''),
Public
Law
No.
104–
113,
12(
d)
(15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
11:
51
Jun
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
10JNP1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
10JNP1
39668
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
111
/
Monday,
June
10,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
explanations
to
Congress,
through
OMB,
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
proposed
rulemaking
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

I.
Executive
Order
12898:
Environmental
Justice.

Under
Executive
Order
12898,
``
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations,
''
as
well
as
through
EPA's
April
1995,
``
Environmental
Justice
Strategy,
OSWER
Environmental
Justice
Task
Force
Action
Agenda
Report,
''
and
National
Environmental
Justice
Advisory
Council,
EPA
has
undertaken
to
incorporate
environmental
justice
into
its
policies
and
programs.
EPA
is
committed
to
addressing
environmental
justice
concerns,
and
is
assuming
a
leadership
role
in
environmental
justice
initiatives
to
enhance
environmental
quality
for
all
residents
of
the
United
States.
The
Agency's
goals
are
to
ensure
that
no
segment
of
the
population,
regardless
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
or
income,
bears
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities,
and
all
people
live
in
clean
and
sustainable
communities.
The
Agency
believes
that
today's
proposed
rule
which
would
provide
for
research,
development,
and
demonstration
permits
for
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
would
not
have
an
adverse
environmental
or
economic
impact
on
any
minority
or
low­
income
group,
or
on
any
other
type
of
affected
community
since
these
standards
would
not
significantly
affect
the
location
of
any
solid
waste
collection
facility.

J.
Executive
Order
13211:
Energy
Effects
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(66
FR
28355
(May
22,
2001))
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
258
Environmental
protection,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Municipal
Landfills,
Waste
treatment
and
disposal.
Dated:
May
31,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
preamble,
EPA
is
proposing
to
amend
40
CFR
part
258
as
follows:

PART
258—[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
258
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
1345(
d)
and
(e);
42
U.
S.
C.
6902(
a),
6907,
6912(
a),
6944,
6945(
c)
and
6949a(
c).

2.
New
§
258.4
is
added
to
part
258
to
read
as
follows
§
258.4
Research,
development,
and
demonstration
permits.
(a)
The
Director
of
an
approved
State
may
issue
a
research,
development,
and
demonstration
permit
for
a
new
or
existing
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
for
which
the
owner
or
operator
proposes
to
utilize
innovative
and
new
methods
for
operation,
design,
or
landfill
cover
which
vary
from
any
of
the
following
criteria:
(1)
The
operating
criteria
in
subpart
C
of
this
part
except
the
procedures
for
excluding
the
receipt
of
hazardous
waste
in
§
258.20
and
the
explosive
gases
control
requirements
in
§
258.23;
(2)
The
design
criteria
in
subpart
D
of
this
part;
and
(3)
The
final
cover
criteria
in
§
258.60(
a)
and
(b).
(b)
Any
permit
issued
under
this
section
must
include
such
terms
and
conditions
as
least
as
protective
as
the
criteria
in
the
part
to
assure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Such
permits
shall:
(1)
Provide
for
the
construction
and
operation
of
such
facilities
as
necessary,
for
not
longer
than
three
years
unless
renewed
as
provided
in
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section;
(2)
Provide
for
the
receipt
by
the
landfill
of
only
those
types
and
quantities
of
municipal
solid
waste
and
non­
hazardous
wastes
which
the
State
Director
deems
appropriate
for
the
purposes
of
determining
the
efficacy
and
performance
capabilities
of
the
technology
or
process;
(3)
Include
such
requirements
as
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
(including
but
not
limited
to,
requirements
regarding
monitoring,
design,
operation,
financial
responsibility,
closure
and
post­
closure,
and
remedial
action),
including
such
requirements
as
necessary
regarding
testing
and
providing
information
to
the
State
Director
with
respect
to
the
operation
of
the
facility;
(4)
Require
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
landfill
permitted
under
this
section
to
submit
an
annual
report
to
the
State
Director
showing
whether
and
to
what
extent
the
site
is
progressing
in
attaining
project
goals.
The
report
will
also
include
a
summary
of
all
monitoring
and
testing
requirements
as
well
as
any
other
operating
information
specified
by
the
State
Director
in
the
permit;
and
(5)
Require
compliance
with
the
criteria
in
subpart
B
(location
restrictions),
subpart
E
(ground
water
monitoring
and
corrective
action),
and
subpart
G
(financial
assurance)
of
this
part.
(c)
The
Director
of
an
approved
State
may
order
an
immediate
termination
of
all
operations
at
the
facility
at
any
time
he
determines
that
the
overall
goals
of
the
projects
are
not
being
attained,
including
protection
of
human
health
or
the
environment.
(d)
Any
permit
issued
under
this
section
may
not
be
renewed
more
than
three
times
by
the
Director
of
an
approved
State.
Each
such
renewal
shall
be
for
a
period
of
not
more
than
three
years.

[FR
Doc.
02–
14489
Filed
6–
7–
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE
INTERIOR
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
50
CFR
Part
18
Marine
Mammals:
Incidental
Take
During
Specified
Activities
AGENCY:
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Interior.

ACTION:
Notice
of
intent
to
prepare
an
environmental
impact
statement
(EIS).

SUMMARY:
Pursuant
to
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
(NEPA),
we,
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
intend
to
prepare
an
EIS
to
evaluate
the
effects
of
authorizing
the
incidental,
unintentional
take
of
small
numbers
of
Florida
manatees
(Trichechus
manatus
latirostris).
Pursuant
to
the
Marine
Mammal
Protection
Act
(MMPA),
we
are
currently
in
the
process
of
developing
incidental
take
regulations
for
government
activities
related
to
the
operation
of
watercraft
and
watercraft
access
facilities
within
the
geographic
area
of
the
species'
range
in
Florida
for
a
period
of
not
more
than
five
years.

DATES:
We
will
consider
comments
on
the
proposed
Programmatic
Environmental
Impact
Statement
that
are
received
by
July
25,
2002.

ADDRESSES:
If
you
wish
to
comment,
you
may
submit
your
comments
by
any
one
of
several
methods:

VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
17:
01
Jun
07,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
10JNP1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
10JNP1
