Revision to the Research, Development and Demonstration Permits Rule for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 28720-28724 [2016-10993]
Download as PDF
28720
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
State effective
date
Title/subject
*
*
*
*
Notice of final rule
date
*
NFR citation
*
*
(9) Yellowstone County
*
*
*
*
Billings 2010 SO2 Maintenance Plan .........................................................................
3. Section 52.1398 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1398
Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
(a) Redesignation to attainment. The
EPA has determined that the Billings
2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
nonattainment area has met the criteria
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for
redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. The EPA is therefore
*
12/14/2015
redesignating the Billings 2010 SO2
nonattainment area to attainment.
(b) The EPA is approving the
maintenance plan for the Billings
nonattainment area for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS submitted by the State of
Montana on December 14, 2015.
PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES
4. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
*
5/10/2016 ...............
*
[Insert Federal
Register citation].
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment
Status Designations
5. Section 81.327, table ‘‘Montana—
2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)’’
is amended by revising the entry for
‘‘Yellowstone County (part)’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 81.327
*
Montana.
*
*
*
*
Designation
Designated area
Date
*
*
*
*
*
Yellowstone County (part) ....................................................................................................................
The area originates at the point defined as the southwest corner of Section 11, Township 1S,
Range 26E. From that point the boundary proceeds north along the western section line of Section 11 to the point of intersection with the midline of Interstate Highway 90. From that point the
boundary follows the midline of Interstate Highway 90, across the Yellowstone River, to the point
where the highway midline intersects the northern boundary of Section 35, Township 1N, Range
26E. From that point the boundary proceeds east along the northern section line of Sections 35
and 36 to the point where Old US 87/Hardin Road leaves the section line and turns southeast.
The boundary follows the midline of Old US 87/Hardin Road southeast to the point where the
road intersects the western boundary of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 31, Township 1N,
Range 27E. From that point the boundary proceeds south along the 1/4 section line to the
southern boundary of Township 1N, then east to the northeast corner of Section 5, Township
1S, Range 27E. The boundary then proceeds south along the eastern section line of sections 5
and 8 to the southeast corner of Section 8, Township 1S, Range 27E, where it turns west and
follows the south section line of Sections 8 and 7, Township 1S, Range 27E; and Sections 12
and 11, Township 1S, Range 26E, back to the point of origin.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–10451 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am]
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:17 May 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
*
5/10/2016
Type
*
Attainment.
to revise the maximum permit term for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
(MSWLF) units operating under
40 CFR Part 258
Research, Development and
[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126; FRL–9943–87– Demonstration (RD&D) permits. The
RD&D permit program, which began in
OLEM]
2004, allows landfill facilities to utilize
RIN 2050–AG75
innovative methods that vary from the
run-on control systems, liquids
Revision to the Research,
restrictions, and final cover criteria
Development and Demonstration
prescribed in 40 CFR part 258 if these
Permits Rule for Municipal Solid Waste systems are determined by the Director
Landfills
of an approved State to be at least as
protective as those criteria. The current
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
rule limits permits for these units to
Agency (EPA).
three years, and they are renewable
ACTION: Final rule.
three times for a total permit term of 12
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection years. This revision allows the Director
of an approved State to increase the
Agency (EPA) is publishing a final rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
number of permit renewals to six, for a
total permit term of up to 21 years.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
November 10, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. 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, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. What action is the agency taking?
The EPA is revising the maximum
permit term for MSWLF units operating
under RD&D permits. The rule allows
the Director of an approved State to
issue up to six, 3-year permit renewals,
for a total permit term of 21 years. The
RD&D rule previously limited the total
permit term to 12 years.
The primary basis for this extension
of the permit period to up to 21 years
is to provide the EPA more time to
characterize the performance of RD&D
projects without making the permit
period so long as to be open-ended. The
EPA believes that the period of 21 years
strikes an appropriate balance between
providing more time for projects to
continue operations as research
facilities, while providing enough time
Jkt 238001
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this
rule are public or private owners or
operators of MSWLFs. These entities
include:
Example of affected entities
The affected entities may also fall
under the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code
924110, Sanitation engineering
agencies, government; or 562212, Solid
Waste Landfill. This list of sectors is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of
entities that the EPA believes could
potentially be regulated by this action.
Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To
determine whether your entity is
regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability
criteria found in 40 CFR part 258 and
the Research, Development and
Demonstration Permits for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills final rule, referred
to as the ‘‘2004 RD&D rule’’ (69 FR
13242, March 22, 2004). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
15:17 May 09, 2016
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and
Waste Management Division of the
Office of Land and Emergency
Management (mail code 5304P), U.S.
State Governments ...................................................................................
Industry .....................................................................................................
Municipalities, including Tribal Governments ...........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone: 703–308–9037;
email: Dufficy.craig@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Category
28721
Regulatory agencies and agencies operating landfills.
Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills.
Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills.
for the EPA to consider making
additional changes to the part 258
MSWLF regulations.
C. What is the agency’s authority for
taking this action?
The authority for this rulemaking is
sections 1008, 2002(a), 4004, 4005(c),
4010 and 8001(a) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907,
6912(a), 6944, 6945(c), 6949a, 6981(a).
D. What are the anticipated effects and
benefits of this action?
The anticipated effect of this action is
to provide the Director of an approved
State the ability to issue renewals to
existing RD&D permits, as well as new
RD&D permits, for up to 21 years
instead of 12 years. During this time, the
EPA will continue to evaluate data from
these facilities. There are approximately
30 facilities currently operating with
RD&D permits. It is also relevant to one
facility operating on tribal lands under
a site-specific action. Additional
facilities may also seek an RD&D permit
in the future. The EPA has no
information with which to estimate
whether any new facilities will seek
RD&D permits. Owners/operators
operating under existing RD&D permits
are not expected to incur any new costs
as a result of this final rule. The annual
costs for ongoing recordkeeping and
annual reporting requirements are
estimated at $2,410 per facility.
It is important to note that applying
for a RD&D permit remains voluntary.
This action does not impose any new
regulatory burden. This action allows
the Director of an approved State to
increase the number of extensions of the
permit period for existing facilities, or
offer more extensions of the permit term
for new facilities, for those owners and
operators who choose to participate in
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
this research program. Increasing the
possible number of extensions of the
RD&D permit term may benefit current
owners and operators of RD&D units by
providing additional time to recover
their costs, if the Director of an
approved State chooses to extend
existing permits. For example, data from
one RD&D permitted facility show a
projected increase of 3% in the rate of
return for 20 years compared to 12
years.1
Increasing the possible number of
extensions of RD&D permit terms is also
expected to provide more time for the
EPA to collect additional data on the
potential benefits of the approaches
being taken under these RD&D permits.
These potential benefits include:
Decreased costs for leachate treatment
due to leachate recirculation in
bioreactors; increased revenue from the
sale of landfill gas for use as a
renewable source of fuel; decreased risk
due to a reduction in the transportation
of leachate for treatment; accelerated
production and capture of landfill gas
for use as a renewable fuel; and
accelerated stabilization and
corresponding decreased post-closure
care activities, for facilities as a result of
the accelerated decomposition of waste.
II. Background
Under Subchapter IV of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6941–6949a, the EPA has
promulgated minimum national
standards for MSWLFs at 40 CFR part
258 (56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991). As
specified in 42 U.S.C. 6981(a), RCRA
also directs EPA to encourage research
and development for, among other
things, the development and application
of new and improved methods of
collecting and disposing of solid waste.
1 See docket item EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126–
0012, Smiths Creek Bioreactor Report.
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
28722
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The initial 1991 MSWLF regulations
addressed seven basic areas: Location
restrictions; operation; design;
groundwater monitoring; corrective
action; closure and post-closure care;
and financial assurance. These MSWLF
landfill regulations focused on dry-tomb
landfills to minimize the possibility of
groundwater contamination from the
production and subsequent leakage of
leachate. After the promulgation of
those standards, the EPA became aware
that landfill technology had advanced
sufficiently that some alternative
designs and operations could benefit
from further study through research and
demonstration projects. For example,
some of these methods, particularly the
addition of liquids and leachate
recirculation, could accelerate
biodegradation and provide additional
potential benefits. These include:
—Acceleration of landfill gas generation
which can be collected as a source of
renewable fuel;
—minimization of leachate treatment
requirements during the operational
life of the landfill;
—more rapid reduction in concentration
of leachate constituents of concern,
thereby limiting the corresponding
post-closure activities for leachate
control; and
—an increase in the rate of landfill
settlement resulting in the more
efficient use of permitted landfill
capacity.
As a means to advance innovation in
landfill design, in 2000 the EPA selected
four landfills to participate in its Project
XL program,2 all of which involved
some use of bioreactor technology or
leachate recirculation. The landfills are
located in Buncombe County, North
Carolina; Yolo County, California; King
George County, Virginia; and the
Maplewood facility in Amelia Country,
Virginia.
In addition to Project XL, in 2001 the
EPA began using Cooperative Research
and Development Agreements
(CRADAs) to promote collaborative
research between federal and nonfederal scientists as an additional means
to explore the addition of liquids to
landfills to promote faster
biodegradation and stabilization.
Bioreactor landfill sites operating with
CRADAs include the Outer Loop
landfill in Louisville, Kentucky; and the
Polk County landfill in Florida.
2 EPA began Project XL in 1995, and accepted
projects until 2002, as a national pilot program to
help business, state and local governments, and
federal facilities work with EPA to develop and test
innovative approaches to achieve better and more
cost-effective environmental and public health
protection. The provisions for the four Project XL
landfills discussed here are codified in § 258.41.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:17 May 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
Subsequently, in 2004, the EPA
amended the part 258 MSWLF
regulations to create a broader RD&D
research program. The 2004 RD&D
action (69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004),
which added § 258.4, enabled the
Director of an approved State to allow
RD&D projects with variances to specific
provisions of the MSWLF criteria,
including variances from operating
criteria in part 258 with respect to runon controls (§ 258.26(a)(1)) and the
liquids restrictions in § 258.28(a). In
addition, the 2004 RD&D rule allows an
additional variance for the final cover
requirements set forth in the closure
criteria in § 258.60(a)(1), (a)(2) and
(b)(1). The 2004 RD&D rule limits the
duration of the initial permit to three
years, and the permit can be renewed
for up to three additional 3-year terms,
for a total of 12 years.
As of March 2014, in the most recent
compilation of data available to the
EPA, there were 30 active RD&D
projects in 11 approved states and one
project on tribal lands.3 The maximum
permit period for the first of these
projects is coming to an end. This final
rule allows the Director of an approved
State to continue to extend the permit
period for up to a total of 21 years to
allow for continued research.
A. What did EPA propose?
EPA proposed this rulemaking
through an action in the Federal
Register published at 80 FR 70180,
November 13, 2015. EPA proposed to
allow the Director of an approved State
to increase the maximum term for RD&D
permits from 12 to 21 years at
§ 258.4(e)(1), in order to provide the
EPA more time to continue to support
research into the performance of
bioreactors, alternative covers and runon systems. In effect, the proposal
would allow the Director of an approved
State to increase the number of permit
renewals from three to six. The EPA did
not propose any other changes to the
RD&D permit program and made it clear
that EPA was not reopening at this time
any other provision of the existing
RD&D rule or MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR
part 258.
Separately from this final rule, the
EPA plans to publish an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) seeking comment on the
possibility of revising other sections of
the MSWLF criteria (40 CFR part 258)
to authorize the operation of wet
landfills and bioreactors and other
possible changes to the national criteria
3 Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten years After the RD&D Rule, EPA document
number EPA/600/R–14/335.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
on a permanent basis. Interested parties
will have an opportunity to comment on
broader issues relating to bioreactor
operation during the public comment
period on that ANPRM.
In response to the 80 FR 70180,
November 13, 2015 proposed rule, the
Agency received six sets of comments
during the comment period that closed
on December 14, 2015. The six sets of
comments were from: The States of
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan and Nebraska;
the Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments, and the Solid Waste
Disposal and Conversion Task Force of
the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials. All
comments can be reviewed on-line at
https://www.regulations.gov/, using
‘‘EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126’’ in the
search box, and then by opening the
docket folder and select ‘view
comments’ to review any or all of the
comments.
Five of the six commenters expressed
support for extending maximum permit
term for RD&D permits to EPA’s
proposed term of 21 years. Several
commenters (including the one
commenter that did not support an
extension to 21 years) indicated support
for eliminating the overall permit term
entirely, arguing that any time limit may
discourage entities from making
investments. Several commenters also
encouraged the EPA to establish a
mechanism to convert RD&D permits
into permanent designs and operational
practices subject to appropriate
monitoring and performance standards
as administered by an approved state.
Commenters indicated support for
making permanent changes to the
regulations at 40 CFR part 258 to
authorize bioreactor operations.
After consideration of these
comments, and in light of other
information in the record, the EPA has
decided to issue the final rule as
proposed. The EPA disagrees with the
comments that the RD&D permit
program should not be time-limited,
which is consistent with the EPA
position since the original RD&D rule
was promulgated in 2004. The RD&D
permits have always been intended to
be used for innovation and
experimentation for a limited period of
time. As such, the RD&D rule is not
intended to authorize activities on a
permanent basis, as unlimited renewals
could effectively allow. In addition,
EPA notes that the commenters did not
suggest an alternative, discrete,
maximum time frame other than EPA’s
proposal for a maximum permit term of
21 years.
The issue of making changes to the
part 258 regulations to authorize
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
bioreactor operations on a permanent
basis is outside the scope of this rule, as
EPA stated in the proposed rule (80 FR
70180, November 13, 2015). As
discussed previously, EPA plans to
publish an ANPRM requesting data
relating to wet landfills and bioreactors.
EPA intends this ANPRM to begin the
process of considering additional
changes to the part 258 regulations. In
that proceeding, the commenters are
free to raise concerns about how
existing RD&D projects can be
appropriately addressed under any
potential future amendments to the
existing MSWLF regulations. Thus, the
comments did not change EPA’s view
that a maximum term of 21 years is an
appropriate balance between allowing
more time for continued research by
EPA and allowing the facilities to
continue operating for a significant but
not open-ended period of time.
B. Basis for This Final Rule
In the 2004 RD&D final rule, the EPA
made clear its intention that MSWLF
RD&D permits be of limited duration
while also providing data to support
future rulemaking. This final rule is
intended to further these dual goals.
Although the EPA does not expect that
all RD&D permits will necessarily
extend to the full permit term, the EPA
believes that the current 12-year time
limit may not be sufficient to realize
potential benefits in all cases. Thus,
extending the permit period for up to 21
years will provide more time to collect
data on potential benefits and any
problems without making the permit
period so long as to be open-ended.
Extending the maximum permit term
will help continuing efforts to collect
data at existing RD&D units. If the EPA
did not take this action, owners and
operators using existing RD&D permits
would need to make significant
modifications to their disposal units or
cease operation altogether, before
reaching the end of their normal
operations or closure. Because of the
potential environmental benefits that
may be derived from bioreactors,
alternative cover designs, and run-on
systems, the EPA believes that it is
important to extend the maximum
permit period to 21 years to provide
more time to characterize the
performance of RD&D projects without
making the permit period so long as to
be open-ended.
The EPA also wishes to enhance the
economic feasibility to build and
operate bioreactors or employ
alternative approaches for final covers,
which would provide additional sources
of data in the future. The EPA has heard
from stakeholders that limiting the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:17 May 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
permit period to 12 years has the
unintended consequence of
discouraging the development of
bioreactors.
C. Implementation of This Final Rule
This rule does not require states with
EPA-approved RD&D programs to
modify their solid waste permit
programs. Since this change to the 2004
RD&D rule provides more flexibility
than existing federal criteria, states are
not required to amend existing solid
waste permit programs that have been
determined by EPA to be adequate
under 40 CFR part 239. At the same
time, the RD&D rule (including the
revised maximum permit term) is not
self-implementing, and states are
required to adopt the RD&D rule and
obtain EPA approval for their RD&D
program in order to issue a RD&D
permit. States previously approved to
issue RD&D permits that wish to
increase the total length of time for
which RD&D permits can be issued will
need to notify the EPA in accordance
with 40 CFR part 239. States with EPAapproved solid waste permit programs
that have not previously sought
approval for an RD&D program and now
wish to do so will need to apply to EPA
for approval of an RD&D program,
including approval of the longer time
period allowed by this rulemaking. Any
state without an EPA-approved solid
waste permit program may submit an
application to EPA for a determination
of adequacy under 40 CFR part 239 and
may include a request for approval of
the RD&D permit provisions reflecting
the longer time period allowed by this
rule. For MSWLF units located in
Indian Country, EPA intends to consider
the longer maximum permit term when
issuing or modifying any site-specific
RD&D rule. EPA has previously issued
draft guidance on the site-specific
flexibility request process in Indian
Country. See ‘‘Site-Specific Flexibility
Requests for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills in Indian Country,’’ EPA 530–
R–97–016, August 1997.
III. Statutory and Executive Orders
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28723
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
Information Collection Request (ICR)
burden under the PRA. The purpose of
this action is to extend the maximum
allowable permit period for this
program, and this change to the RD&D
program itself does not impose any
additional reporting requirements. The
OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations in
two different, applicable ICRs. The ICRs
affected by this proposal are for 40 CFR
part 239, Requirements for State Permit
Program Determination of Adequacy
and part 258, MSWLF Criteria. The
OMB has reviewed the ICR for part 239
(ICR# 1608.07, OMB# 2050–0152). The
EPA will request comments under the
ICR review process from states that plan
to make these revisions so that the EPA
can better understand the expected
burden that would be incurred by states
who wish to make these changes. In
addition, the EPA will also be
requesting information from MSWLF
owners/operators on the reporting
burden that they would incur under an
extended permit term provided in
accordance with this rule under the part
258, MSWLF criteria ICR (ICR# 1381.09,
OMB# 2050–0122) when that review
process begins. This process is
scheduled to be completed in June 2016.
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. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities. An agency may
certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, has
no net burden or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This rule
will not create any additional burden for
small entities. Small entities are not
required to take any action as a
consequence of this rule, and this action
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We
have therefore concluded that this
action will have no net regulatory
burden for all directly regulated small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
28724
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
The costs involved in this action are
imposed only by voluntary participation
in a federal program.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. The EPA has concluded
that this action will have no new tribal
implications, nor would it present any
additional burden on the tribes. It will
neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments,
nor preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The underlying RD&D rule
requires all RD&D permits to include
terms and conditions that are at least as
protective as the criteria for municipal
solid waste landfills to assure protection
of human health and the environment,
and this rule does not reopen or
otherwise change that requirement.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health
and environmental risk addressed by
this action will not have a new
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations. The underlying RD&D
regulations require all RD&D permits to
include terms and conditions that are at
least as protective as the criteria for
municipal solid waste landfills to assure
protection of human health and the
environment. This final rule is an
administrative action to extend the
maximum permit period, and it does not
reopen or otherwise change the
requirement for protectiveness.
Therefore, the EPA finds that the human
health and environmental risks
addressed by this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations, because this action does
not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the
environment.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Municipal
landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal.
Dated: April 29, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 258
as follows:
PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
1. The authority citation for part 258
continues to read as follows:
■
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42
U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c)
and 6949a(c), 6981(a).
Subpart A—General
2. Revise § 258.4(e)(1) to read as
follows:
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
■
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
§ 258.4 Research, development, and
demonstration permits.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:17 May 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00036
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
(e) * * *
(1) The total term for a permit for a
project including renewals may not
exceed twenty-one (21) years; and
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–10993 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 204, 209, 212, 227, 237,
and 252
[Docket DARS–2014–0017]
RIN 0750–AH54
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Disclosure to
Litigation Support Contractors (DFARS
Case 2012–D029)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is adopting as final, with
changes, an interim rule amending the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS) to implement a
section of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
that provides DoD the authority to allow
its litigation support contractors access
to ‘‘sensitive information’’ subject to
certain restrictions.
DATES: Effective May 10, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372–
6106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
DoD published an interim rule in the
Federal Register at 79 FR 11337 on
February 28, 2014, to implement section
802 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Pub. L. 112–81), which provides DoD
the express authority to allow its
litigation support contractors access to
‘‘sensitive information,’’ provided that
the litigation support contractor is
subject to certain restrictions on using
and disclosing such information. Two
respondents submitted public
comments in response to the interim
rule.
II. Discussion and Analysis
DoD reviewed the public comments in
the development of the final rule. A
discussion of the comments received
and the changes made to the rule as a
result of those comments follows:
E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM
10MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28720-28724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10993]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126; FRL-9943-87-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AG75
Revision to the Research, Development and Demonstration Permits
Rule for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing a
final rule to revise the maximum permit term for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill (MSWLF) units operating under Research, Development and
Demonstration (RD&D) permits. The RD&D permit program, which began in
2004, allows landfill facilities to utilize innovative methods that
vary from the run-on control systems, liquids restrictions, and final
cover criteria prescribed in 40 CFR part 258 if these systems are
determined by the Director of an approved State to be at least as
protective as those criteria. The current rule limits permits for these
units to three years, and they are renewable three times for a total
permit term of 12 years. This revision allows the Director of an
approved State to increase the
[[Page 28721]]
number of permit renewals to six, for a total permit term of up to 21
years.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 10, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and
Waste Management Division of the Office of Land and Emergency
Management (mail code 5304P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-308-
9037; email: Dufficy.craig@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this rule are public or private
owners or operators of MSWLFs. These entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Example of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Governments...................... Regulatory agencies and
agencies operating landfills.
Industry............................... Owners or operators of
municipal solid waste
landfills.
Municipalities, including Tribal Owners or operators of
Governments. municipal solid waste
landfills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The affected entities may also fall under the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 924110, Sanitation
engineering agencies, government; or 562212, Solid Waste Landfill. This
list of sectors is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA believes
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 258 and the Research,
Development and Demonstration Permits for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills final rule, referred to as the ``2004 RD&D rule'' (69 FR
13242, March 22, 2004). If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What action is the agency taking?
The EPA is revising the maximum permit term for MSWLF units
operating under RD&D permits. The rule allows the Director of an
approved State to issue up to six, 3-year permit renewals, for a total
permit term of 21 years. The RD&D rule previously limited the total
permit term to 12 years.
The primary basis for this extension of the permit period to up to
21 years is to provide the EPA more time to characterize the
performance of RD&D projects without making the permit period so long
as to be open-ended. The EPA believes that the period of 21 years
strikes an appropriate balance between providing more time for projects
to continue operations as research facilities, while providing enough
time for the EPA to consider making additional changes to the part 258
MSWLF regulations.
C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
The authority for this rulemaking is sections 1008, 2002(a), 4004,
4005(c), 4010 and 8001(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c),
6949a, 6981(a).
D. What are the anticipated effects and benefits of this action?
The anticipated effect of this action is to provide the Director of
an approved State the ability to issue renewals to existing RD&D
permits, as well as new RD&D permits, for up to 21 years instead of 12
years. During this time, the EPA will continue to evaluate data from
these facilities. There are approximately 30 facilities currently
operating with RD&D permits. It is also relevant to one facility
operating on tribal lands under a site-specific action. Additional
facilities may also seek an RD&D permit in the future. The EPA has no
information with which to estimate whether any new facilities will seek
RD&D permits. Owners/operators operating under existing RD&D permits
are not expected to incur any new costs as a result of this final rule.
The annual costs for ongoing recordkeeping and annual reporting
requirements are estimated at $2,410 per facility.
It is important to note that applying for a RD&D permit remains
voluntary. This action does not impose any new regulatory burden. This
action allows the Director of an approved State to increase the number
of extensions of the permit period for existing facilities, or offer
more extensions of the permit term for new facilities, for those owners
and operators who choose to participate in this research program.
Increasing the possible number of extensions of the RD&D permit term
may benefit current owners and operators of RD&D units by providing
additional time to recover their costs, if the Director of an approved
State chooses to extend existing permits. For example, data from one
RD&D permitted facility show a projected increase of 3% in the rate of
return for 20 years compared to 12 years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126-0012, Smiths Creek
Bioreactor Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing the possible number of extensions of RD&D permit terms
is also expected to provide more time for the EPA to collect additional
data on the potential benefits of the approaches being taken under
these RD&D permits. These potential benefits include: Decreased costs
for leachate treatment due to leachate recirculation in bioreactors;
increased revenue from the sale of landfill gas for use as a renewable
source of fuel; decreased risk due to a reduction in the transportation
of leachate for treatment; accelerated production and capture of
landfill gas for use as a renewable fuel; and accelerated stabilization
and corresponding decreased post-closure care activities, for
facilities as a result of the accelerated decomposition of waste.
II. Background
Under Subchapter IV of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6941-6949a, the EPA has
promulgated minimum national standards for MSWLFs at 40 CFR part 258
(56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991). As specified in 42 U.S.C. 6981(a), RCRA
also directs EPA to encourage research and development for, among other
things, the development and application of new and improved methods of
collecting and disposing of solid waste.
[[Page 28722]]
The initial 1991 MSWLF regulations addressed seven basic areas:
Location restrictions; operation; design; groundwater monitoring;
corrective action; closure and post-closure care; and financial
assurance. These MSWLF landfill regulations focused on dry-tomb
landfills to minimize the possibility of groundwater contamination from
the production and subsequent leakage of leachate. After the
promulgation of those standards, the EPA became aware that landfill
technology had advanced sufficiently that some alternative designs and
operations could benefit from further study through research and
demonstration projects. For example, some of these methods,
particularly the addition of liquids and leachate recirculation, could
accelerate biodegradation and provide additional potential benefits.
These include:
--Acceleration of landfill gas generation which can be collected as a
source of renewable fuel;
--minimization of leachate treatment requirements during the
operational life of the landfill;
--more rapid reduction in concentration of leachate constituents of
concern, thereby limiting the corresponding post-closure activities for
leachate control; and
--an increase in the rate of landfill settlement resulting in the more
efficient use of permitted landfill capacity.
As a means to advance innovation in landfill design, in 2000 the
EPA selected four landfills to participate in its Project XL
program,\2\ all of which involved some use of bioreactor technology or
leachate recirculation. The landfills are located in Buncombe County,
North Carolina; Yolo County, California; King George County, Virginia;
and the Maplewood facility in Amelia Country, Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA began Project XL in 1995, and accepted projects until
2002, as a national pilot program to help business, state and local
governments, and federal facilities work with EPA to develop and
test innovative approaches to achieve better and more cost-effective
environmental and public health protection. The provisions for the
four Project XL landfills discussed here are codified in Sec.
258.41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to Project XL, in 2001 the EPA began using Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) to promote collaborative
research between federal and non-federal scientists as an additional
means to explore the addition of liquids to landfills to promote faster
biodegradation and stabilization. Bioreactor landfill sites operating
with CRADAs include the Outer Loop landfill in Louisville, Kentucky;
and the Polk County landfill in Florida.
Subsequently, in 2004, the EPA amended the part 258 MSWLF
regulations to create a broader RD&D research program. The 2004 RD&D
action (69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004), which added Sec. 258.4, enabled
the Director of an approved State to allow RD&D projects with variances
to specific provisions of the MSWLF criteria, including variances from
operating criteria in part 258 with respect to run-on controls (Sec.
258.26(a)(1)) and the liquids restrictions in Sec. 258.28(a). In
addition, the 2004 RD&D rule allows an additional variance for the
final cover requirements set forth in the closure criteria in Sec.
258.60(a)(1), (a)(2) and (b)(1). The 2004 RD&D rule limits the duration
of the initial permit to three years, and the permit can be renewed for
up to three additional 3-year terms, for a total of 12 years.
As of March 2014, in the most recent compilation of data available
to the EPA, there were 30 active RD&D projects in 11 approved states
and one project on tribal lands.\3\ The maximum permit period for the
first of these projects is coming to an end. This final rule allows the
Director of an approved State to continue to extend the permit period
for up to a total of 21 years to allow for continued research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten years
After the RD&D Rule, EPA document number EPA/600/R-14/335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. What did EPA propose?
EPA proposed this rulemaking through an action in the Federal
Register published at 80 FR 70180, November 13, 2015. EPA proposed to
allow the Director of an approved State to increase the maximum term
for RD&D permits from 12 to 21 years at Sec. 258.4(e)(1), in order to
provide the EPA more time to continue to support research into the
performance of bioreactors, alternative covers and run-on systems. In
effect, the proposal would allow the Director of an approved State to
increase the number of permit renewals from three to six. The EPA did
not propose any other changes to the RD&D permit program and made it
clear that EPA was not reopening at this time any other provision of
the existing RD&D rule or MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR part 258.
Separately from this final rule, the EPA plans to publish an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on the
possibility of revising other sections of the MSWLF criteria (40 CFR
part 258) to authorize the operation of wet landfills and bioreactors
and other possible changes to the national criteria on a permanent
basis. Interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on
broader issues relating to bioreactor operation during the public
comment period on that ANPRM.
In response to the 80 FR 70180, November 13, 2015 proposed rule,
the Agency received six sets of comments during the comment period that
closed on December 14, 2015. The six sets of comments were from: The
States of Iowa, Kansas, Michigan and Nebraska; the Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments, and the Solid Waste Disposal and Conversion
Task Force of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials. All comments can be reviewed on-line at https://www.regulations.gov/, using ``EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126'' in the search
box, and then by opening the docket folder and select `view comments'
to review any or all of the comments.
Five of the six commenters expressed support for extending maximum
permit term for RD&D permits to EPA's proposed term of 21 years.
Several commenters (including the one commenter that did not support an
extension to 21 years) indicated support for eliminating the overall
permit term entirely, arguing that any time limit may discourage
entities from making investments. Several commenters also encouraged
the EPA to establish a mechanism to convert RD&D permits into permanent
designs and operational practices subject to appropriate monitoring and
performance standards as administered by an approved state. Commenters
indicated support for making permanent changes to the regulations at 40
CFR part 258 to authorize bioreactor operations.
After consideration of these comments, and in light of other
information in the record, the EPA has decided to issue the final rule
as proposed. The EPA disagrees with the comments that the RD&D permit
program should not be time-limited, which is consistent with the EPA
position since the original RD&D rule was promulgated in 2004. The RD&D
permits have always been intended to be used for innovation and
experimentation for a limited period of time. As such, the RD&D rule is
not intended to authorize activities on a permanent basis, as unlimited
renewals could effectively allow. In addition, EPA notes that the
commenters did not suggest an alternative, discrete, maximum time frame
other than EPA's proposal for a maximum permit term of 21 years.
The issue of making changes to the part 258 regulations to
authorize
[[Page 28723]]
bioreactor operations on a permanent basis is outside the scope of this
rule, as EPA stated in the proposed rule (80 FR 70180, November 13,
2015). As discussed previously, EPA plans to publish an ANPRM
requesting data relating to wet landfills and bioreactors. EPA intends
this ANPRM to begin the process of considering additional changes to
the part 258 regulations. In that proceeding, the commenters are free
to raise concerns about how existing RD&D projects can be appropriately
addressed under any potential future amendments to the existing MSWLF
regulations. Thus, the comments did not change EPA's view that a
maximum term of 21 years is an appropriate balance between allowing
more time for continued research by EPA and allowing the facilities to
continue operating for a significant but not open-ended period of time.
B. Basis for This Final Rule
In the 2004 RD&D final rule, the EPA made clear its intention that
MSWLF RD&D permits be of limited duration while also providing data to
support future rulemaking. This final rule is intended to further these
dual goals. Although the EPA does not expect that all RD&D permits will
necessarily extend to the full permit term, the EPA believes that the
current 12-year time limit may not be sufficient to realize potential
benefits in all cases. Thus, extending the permit period for up to 21
years will provide more time to collect data on potential benefits and
any problems without making the permit period so long as to be open-
ended.
Extending the maximum permit term will help continuing efforts to
collect data at existing RD&D units. If the EPA did not take this
action, owners and operators using existing RD&D permits would need to
make significant modifications to their disposal units or cease
operation altogether, before reaching the end of their normal
operations or closure. Because of the potential environmental benefits
that may be derived from bioreactors, alternative cover designs, and
run-on systems, the EPA believes that it is important to extend the
maximum permit period to 21 years to provide more time to characterize
the performance of RD&D projects without making the permit period so
long as to be open-ended.
The EPA also wishes to enhance the economic feasibility to build
and operate bioreactors or employ alternative approaches for final
covers, which would provide additional sources of data in the future.
The EPA has heard from stakeholders that limiting the permit period to
12 years has the unintended consequence of discouraging the development
of bioreactors.
C. Implementation of This Final Rule
This rule does not require states with EPA-approved RD&D programs
to modify their solid waste permit programs. Since this change to the
2004 RD&D rule provides more flexibility than existing federal
criteria, states are not required to amend existing solid waste permit
programs that have been determined by EPA to be adequate under 40 CFR
part 239. At the same time, the RD&D rule (including the revised
maximum permit term) is not self-implementing, and states are required
to adopt the RD&D rule and obtain EPA approval for their RD&D program
in order to issue a RD&D permit. States previously approved to issue
RD&D permits that wish to increase the total length of time for which
RD&D permits can be issued will need to notify the EPA in accordance
with 40 CFR part 239. States with EPA-approved solid waste permit
programs that have not previously sought approval for an RD&D program
and now wish to do so will need to apply to EPA for approval of an RD&D
program, including approval of the longer time period allowed by this
rulemaking. Any state without an EPA-approved solid waste permit
program may submit an application to EPA for a determination of
adequacy under 40 CFR part 239 and may include a request for approval
of the RD&D permit provisions reflecting the longer time period allowed
by this rule. For MSWLF units located in Indian Country, EPA intends to
consider the longer maximum permit term when issuing or modifying any
site-specific RD&D rule. EPA has previously issued draft guidance on
the site-specific flexibility request process in Indian Country. See
``Site-Specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills in Indian Country,'' EPA 530-R-97-016, August 1997.
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new Information Collection Request
(ICR) burden under the PRA. The purpose of this action is to extend the
maximum allowable permit period for this program, and this change to
the RD&D program itself does not impose any additional reporting
requirements. The OMB has previously approved the information
collection activities contained in the existing regulations in two
different, applicable ICRs. The ICRs affected by this proposal are for
40 CFR part 239, Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of
Adequacy and part 258, MSWLF Criteria. The OMB has reviewed the ICR for
part 239 (ICR# 1608.07, OMB# 2050-0152). The EPA will request comments
under the ICR review process from states that plan to make these
revisions so that the EPA can better understand the expected burden
that would be incurred by states who wish to make these changes. In
addition, the EPA will also be requesting information from MSWLF
owners/operators on the reporting burden that they would incur under an
extended permit term provided in accordance with this rule under the
part 258, MSWLF criteria ICR (ICR# 1381.09, OMB# 2050-0122) when that
review process begins. This process is scheduled to be completed in
June 2016.
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. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This rule will not create any additional
burden for small entities. Small entities are not required to take any
action as a consequence of this rule, and this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden
for all directly regulated small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small
[[Page 28724]]
governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local
or tribal governments or the private sector. The costs involved in this
action are imposed only by voluntary participation in a federal
program.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA has concluded that this action will have
no new tribal implications, nor would it present any additional burden
on the tribes. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The underlying RD&D rule requires all RD&D permits to include
terms and conditions that are at least as protective as the criteria
for municipal solid waste landfills to assure protection of human
health and the environment, and this rule does not reopen or otherwise
change that requirement.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health and environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have a new disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations. The underlying RD&D regulations require all
RD&D permits to include terms and conditions that are at least as
protective as the criteria for municipal solid waste landfills to
assure protection of human health and the environment. This final rule
is an administrative action to extend the maximum permit period, and it
does not reopen or otherwise change the requirement for protectiveness.
Therefore, the EPA finds that the human health and environmental risks
addressed by this action will not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations, because this action does not affect the
level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: April 29, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
258 as follows:
PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
0
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), 6981(a).
Subpart A--General
0
2. Revise Sec. 258.4(e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 258.4 Research, development, and demonstration permits.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) The total term for a permit for a project including renewals
may not exceed twenty-one (21) years; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-10993 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P