[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 21, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19494-19496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8337]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 257

[SW-FRL-6319-5]


Texas; Final Full Program Adequacy Determination of State 
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final determination of full program adequacy for the 
State of Texas.

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

SUMMARY: Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires States to develop and implement 
permit programs to ensure that municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) 
which may receive household hazardous waste or conditionally exempt 
small quantity generator waste, comply with the revised Federal MSWLF 
Criteria (40 CFR part 258). Section 4005(c)(1)(C) of RCRA requires the 
EPA to determine whether States have ``adequate'' permit programs for 
MSWLFs, but does not mandate issuance of a rule for such 
determinations.
    Texas applied for a determination of adequacy under section 4005 of 
RCRA. The EPA reviewed Texas' application and made a tentative 
determination that Texas' MSWLF permit program is adequate to ensure 
compliance with the revised MSWLF criteria. After allowing for public 
comment, EPA today is granting final approval to Texas' full solid 
waste program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The determination of the adequacy of the Texas program 
shall be effective on April 21, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst, UST/Solid Waste Section 
(6PD-U), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone 
214/665-6454.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATON:

A. Background

    On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated revised criteria for MSWLFs (40 
CFR part 258). Subtitle D of RCRA, as amended by the HSWA of 1984, 
requires States to develop permitting programs to ensure that 
facilities comply with the Federal criteria in 40 CFR part 258. 
Subtitle D also requires, in section 4005, that EPA determine the 
adequacy of State municipal solid waste landfill permit programs to 
ensure that facilities comply with the revised Federal criteria at 40 
CFR part 258. As the first step to fulfill this requirement, the Agency 
drafted a State/Tribal Implementation Rule (STIR), in 1991, and 
published in 1996 (61 FR 2584, Jan. 26, 1996), which States used to 
apply for a determination of program adequacy and which EPA would use 
to approve, partially approve, or disapprove State landfill permit 
programs. Since 1992, the Agency has approved adequate State MSWLF 
permit programs as applications are submitted. Approved State permit 
programs provide interaction between the State and the owner/operator 
regarding site-specific permit conditions. Only those owners/operators 
located in States with approved permit programs can use the site-
specific flexibility provided by part 258 to the extent the State 
permit program allows such flexibility. The EPA notes that regardless 
of the approval status of a State and the permit status of any 
facility, the Federal criteria will apply to all permitted and 
unpermitted MSWLFs. Due to a recent decision by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Backcountry Against Dumps 
versus EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (DC Cir. 1996)), tribes are viewed as 
municipalities rather than as states under RCRA and therefore, the 
Agency cannot approve tribal landfill permitting programs. To reflect 
the court decision, references to tribes have been deleted from the 
final rule. Thus, although the proposed rule was titled STIR we refer 
to the final rule as the State Implementation Rule (SIR). On October 
23, 1998, EPA published SIR (63 FR 57025) that provides procedures by 
which EPA will approve, partially approve, or disapprove State landfill 
permit programs.
    Part 40 CFR 239 (63 FR 57040) outlines several minimum requirements 
for ``adequate'' permit programs. These requirements include that 
states must have enforceable standards for new and existing MSWLFs that 
are technically comparable to EPA's revised MSWLF criteria. 
Additionally, the State must have the authority to issue a permit or 
other notice of prior approval to all new and existing MSWLFs in its 
jurisdiction. The State also must provide for public participation in 
permit issuance and enforcement as required in section 7004(b) of RCRA. 
Finally, the State must show it has sufficient compliance monitoring 
and enforcement authorities to take specific action against any owner 
or operator that fails to comply with an approved MSWLF program.
    The EPA Regions will determine whether a State has submitted an 
``adequate'' program based on the interpretation outlined above. The 
EPA has provided specific criteria for this evaluation in the SIR. The 
EPA expects States to meet all of these requirements for all elements 
of an MSWLF program before it gives full approval to an MSWLF program.
    On September 27, 1993, the EPA Administrator signed the final rule 
extending the effective date of the landfill criteria for certain 
classifications of landfills (proposed rule 58 FR 40568, July 28, 
1993). Thus, for certain small landfills that fit the small landfill 
exemption as defined in 40 CFR part 258.1(f), the Federal criteria were 
effective on October 9, 1995, rather than on October 9, 1993. The final 
rule on the effective date extension was published in the Federal 
Register October 1, 1993 (58 FR 51536).
    On August 10, 1995, the EPA published a proposed rule to solicit 
comments on a two-year delay, until October 9, 1997, of the general 
compliance date of the MSWLF criteria for qualifying small MSWLFs (60 
FR 40799). This allowed EPA time to finalize the proposed alternatives. 
The final rule granting the delay of the

[[Page 19495]]

compliance date was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 
1995 (60 FR 52337).

B. State of Texas

    On August 4, 1993, Texas submitted an application for a full 
adequacy determination for the State's MSWLF permit program. On 
December 17, 1993, EPA published a final determination of partial 
program adequacy for Texas' program. Further background on the final 
determination of partial program adequacy appears in 58 FR 65986 
(December 17, 1993) and in 58 FR 44821 (August 25, 1993). In those 
actions, EPA approved all portions of the State's MSWLF permit program 
except Texas' regulations exempting certain small landfills in arid 
regions from ground water monitoring requirements. On May 7, 1993 the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court 
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 992F.2d 337 (D.C.Cir. 1993)) directed EPA to 
eliminate an exemption from ground water monitoring for small landfills 
in arid and remote locations (40 CFR 258.1 (f)(1)).
    The court held that ``* * * the Agency must revise its final rule 
to require groundwater monitoring, as necessary to detect 
contamination, at all landfills. While such factors as size, location 
and climate may affect the extent or kind of monitoring necessary to 
detect contamination at a specific facility, they cannot justify 
exemption from the statutory monitoring requirement.'' Thus, the Court 
vacated the small landfill exemption as it pertains to ground water 
monitoring, directing the Agency to ``* * * revise its rule to require 
groundwater monitoring at all landfills.'' For that reason, EPA 
directed Texas to remove the exemption for certain small landfills in 
arid regions from ground water monitoring. However, with EPA's 
concurrence, Texas deferred repealing the exemption until EPA adopted a 
new standard.
    On March 26, 1996, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 
1996 was passed (P.L. 104-119, March 26, 1996) providing explicit 
authority for the ground water monitoring exemption, whereupon EPA 
reestablished the ground water monitoring exemption (61 FR 50410 
September 25, 1996) that had been vacated by the Court. Therefore, on 
September 23, 1997, Texas applied for a determination of full program 
adequacy, since it had retained the ground water monitoring exemption 
in its rules and was now in conformity with the revised Federal 
criteria.
    The EPA has reviewed Texas' application and has determined that all 
portions of the State's application are consistent with the revised 
Federal criteria. In its application, Texas demonstrated that the 
State's permit program adequately meets the location restrictions, 
operating criteria, design criteria, groundwater monitoring and 
corrective action requirements, closure and post-closure care 
requirements, and financial assurance criteria in the revised Federal 
criteria. In addition, the State of Texas also demonstrated that its 
MSWLF permit program contains specific provisions for public 
participation, compliance monitoring, and enforcement.

C. Public Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's tentative determination began on 
September 16, 1998, and closed on October 16, 1998. No public comments 
were received.
    Texas does not claim jurisdiction over Indian lands.
    Section 4005(a) of RCRA provides that citizens may use the citizen 
suit provisions of section 7002 of RCRA to enforce the Federal MSWLF 
criteria in 40 CFR part 258 independent of any state enforcement 
program. As EPA explained in the preamble to the MSWLF criteria, EPA 
expects that any owner or operator complying with provisions in a State 
program approved by EPA to be in compliance with the Federal criteria. 
See 56 FR 50978, 50995 (October 9, 1991).

D. Decision

    After allowing for the public comment, EPA concludes that Texas' 
application for a full program adequacy determination meets all of the 
statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Accordingly, 
Texas is granted a determination of full program adequacy for all areas 
of its municipal solid waste permit program.
    This action takes effect on the date of publication. The EPA 
believes it has good cause under section 553(d) of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), to put this action into effect less 
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. All of the 
requirements and obligations in the State's program are already in 
effect as a matter of State law. The EPA's action today does not impose 
any new requirements that the regulated community must begin to comply 
with. Nor do these requirements become enforceable by EPA as Federal 
law. Consequently, EPA finds that it does not need to delay the 
effective date.

Children's Health Protection

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 13045, for all significant regulatory 
actions as defined by E.O.13045, EPA must provide an evaluation of the 
environmental health or safety effect of a proposed rule on children 
and an explanation of why the proposed rule is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by EPA. This is not a significant regulatory action and is exempt from 
E.O. 13045.

Compliance With Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this rule 
from the requirements of Section 6 of E.O. 12866.

Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of the affected State, local and tribal governments, 
the nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from 
the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's action implements 
requirements specifically set forth by the Congress in sections 
4005(c)(1)(B) and (c)(1)(C) of Subtitle D of RCRA, as amended, without 
the exercise of any discretion by EPA. Accordingly, the requirements of 
section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to today's action.

Compliance With Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by 
statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of 
Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct 
compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government 
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
incurred by the tribal

[[Page 19496]]

governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB, 
in a separately identified section of the preamble to today's action, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's action implements 
requirements specifically set forth by the Congress in sections 
4005(c)(1)(B) and (c)(1)(C) of Subtitle D of RCRA, as amended, without 
the exercise of any discretion by EPA. Accordingly, the requirements of 
section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to today's action.

Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that this authorization will not have a 
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. By approving State municipal solid waste permitting programs, 
owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfills who are also 
small entities will be eligible to use the site-specific flexibility 
provided by part 258 to the extent the State permit program allows such 
flexibility. However, since such small entities which own and/or 
operate municipal solid waste landfills are already subject to the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 258 or are exempted from certain of these 
requirements, such as the groundwater monitoring and design provisions, 
this approval does not impose any additional burdens on these small 
entities.
    Therefore, EPA provides the following certification under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act. Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 
I hereby certify that this approval will not have a significant adverse 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. It does not 
impose any new burdens on small entities; rather this approval creates 
flexibility for small entities in complying with the 40 CFR part 258 
requirements. Today's action, therefore, does not require a regulatory 
flexibility analysis.

Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing today's document and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of today's action in the Federal Register. 
Today's action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of 
the APA as amended.

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, the 
EPA 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.
    Today's action contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. Today's action would merely 
acknowledge the adequacy of a portion of an existing State program. The 
EPA has determined that this action would not contain any Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or the private 
sector in any one year. Therefore, today's action is not subject to the 
requirements of section 202 of the UMRA.

Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify 
that this approval will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. It does not impose any new 
burdens on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a 
regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section 
4005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended; 42 U.S.C. 6946.

    Dated: March 10, 1999.
Myron O. Knudson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 99-8337 Filed 4-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P