[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 29, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16523-16528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7624]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[FRL-6565-6]


West Virginia: Final Determination of Partial Program Adequacy of 
the State's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permitting Program

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:  Notice of Final Determination of Partial Program Adequacy for 
the State of West Virginia's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permitting 
Program.

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

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 or other systems to ensure that municipal solid waste 
landfills (MSWLFs) which may receive hazardous household waste or small 
quantity generator waste will comply with the revised federal MSWLF 
criteria

[[Page 16524]]

(40 CFR part 258). Section 4005(c)(1)(C) of RCRA requires the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether states have 
adequate programs for MSWLFs.
    On October 23, 1998, EPA published the final State Implementation 
Rule (SIR) which contains procedures by which EPA will approve or 
partially approve state landfill permit programs (63 FR 57025). Prior 
to that date, EPA processed state applications for EPA approval of 
their landfill permit programs based on draft SIR procedures. The 
procedures contained in the draft SIR did not significantly differ from 
the final SIR.
    Owners/operators of MSWLFs located in states with EPA-approved 
permit programs can use the site-specific flexibility provided by 40 
CFR part 258 to the extent the state permit program allows such 
flexibility. EPA notes that regardless of the approval status of a 
state and the permit status of any facility, the federal landfill 
criteria will apply to all permitted and unpermitted MSWLF facilities. 
However, facilities in EPA-approved states may have more flexibility in 
meeting those criteria.
    On June 17, 1994, the State of West Virginia applied for a 
determination of partial program adequacy for its municipal solid waste 
landfill permit program under section 4005 of RCRA. West Virginia 
submitted relevant regulations that corresponded to all sections of 40 
CFR part 258 except for specific sections of the following four 
subparts:
    1. Subpart A--General: West Virginia (WV) was not able to adopt all 
of the definitions listed under 40 CFR 258.2;
    2. Subpart E--Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action: WV was 
not able to adopt the requirements of 40 CFR 258.51, Groundwater 
Monitoring Systems; 40 CFR 258.54, Detection Monitoring Program; and 40 
CFR 258.55, Assessment Monitoring Program;
    3. Subpart F--Closure and Post-Closure Care: WV was not able to 
adopt the criteria in 40 CFR 258.60, Closure Criteria, pertaining to 
the time allowed to apply the final cover;
    4. Subpart G--Financial Assurance Criteria: West Virginia was not 
able to adopt any of the sections or provisions of this Subpart.
    On March 8, 1996, EPA published a tentative determination of 
partial program adequacy for all portions of the State of West Virginia 
MSWLF permitting program that satisfied the federal provisions of 40 
CFR part 258, with the exceptions mentioned above (61 FR 9451-9454). 
EPA delayed the final determination of partial program adequacy of West 
Virginia's program due to litigation that affected the state's solid 
waste management authorities. However, these issues were resolved by 
the passage of West Virginia Senate Bill 178 on March 2, 1998. Based on 
EPA's March 8, 1996 tentative determination and the amendment of West 
Virginia's solid waste management authorities, as provided in Senate 
Bill 178, EPA is today completing its decision making process by 
issuing a final determination of partial program adequacy of West 
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final determination of partial program adequacy 
for the State of West Virginia shall be effective on April 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029, Attn: Mr. Michael C. 
Giuranna, mailcode 3WC21, telephone (215) 814-3298. The contact for the 
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection is Mr. Larry Atha, 
1356 Hansford Street, Charleston, West Virginia 25301-1401, telephone 
(304) 558-6350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated revised criteria for MSWLFs (40 
CFR part 258). Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of Subtitle D of RCRA, as amended 
by HSWA, requires states to develop permitting or other similar 
programs that incorporate the federal criteria under 40 CFR part 258. 
Subtitle D also requires in Section 4005(c)(1)(C) that EPA determine 
the adequacy of state MSWLF permitting programs to ensure that 
facilities comply with the revised federal criteria. To fulfill this 
requirement, the Agency promulgated the State Implementation Rule on 
October 23, 1998 (63 FR 57025) which provides procedures by which EPA 
will approve or partially approve state landfill permit programs.
    EPA interprets the requirements for states to develop ``adequate'' 
programs for permits, or other forms of prior approval, as imposing 
several minimum requirements. First, each state must have enforceable 
standards for new and existing MSWLFs that are technically comparable 
to EPA's revised MSWLF criteria. Next, 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, EPA believes that the 
state must show that it has sufficient compliance monitoring and 
enforcement authorities to take specific action against any owner or 
operator who fails to comply with an approved MSWLF program.
    EPA Regions determine whether state programs are ``adequate'' based 
on the criteria outlined above.

B. State of West Virginia

    In a letter dated June 17, 1994, the West Virginia Division of 
Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted an application to EPA Region 
III for a determination of partial program adequacy. In response to 
EPA's comments on West Virginia's application, the WVDEP submitted 
additional information in letters dated April 10, 1995 and October 12, 
1995. EPA reviewed WVDEP's application and this additional information 
and published a tentative determination of partial program adequacy for 
subparts B, C and D, and portions of subparts A, E and F of 40 CFR part 
258, as described below, in the Federal Register on March 8, 1996 (61 
FR 9451-9454).
    A public comment period began on March 8, 1996, and ended on April 
30, 1996. As announced in the notice of tentative determination, a 
public hearing was offered to be held on April 30, 1996, if sufficient 
interest was expressed by the public. Since only one commenter 
requested that a hearing be held, it was determined that sufficient 
interest did not exist, and therefore a public hearing was not held. 
This commenter submitted written comments which are addressed, along 
with all other comments, in Section C, Public Comments, of this notice. 
Following the close of the public comment period, WVDEP addressed all 
public comments which EPA received on its tentative determination. 
Based on WVDEP's response to comments, EPA was prepared to publish a 
final determination of partial program adequacy of the West Virginia 
MSWLF permitting program in late 1996. However, EPA delayed the final 
determination of partial program adequacy of West Virginia's program 
due to several rulings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of West Virginia which brought into question the 
implementation of portions of the West Virginia solid waste statutes. 
However, on March 2, 1998, the Governor of West Virginia signed into 
law Senate Bill 178 which corrected language in the State's solid waste 
laws that had previously been declared unconstitutional by the federal 
court rulings. The provisions of Senate Bill 178 eliminated EPA's 
concerns about the enforceability of West Virginia's solid waste 
statutes and allowed EPA to

[[Page 16525]]

proceed with this final determination of partial program adequacy.
    Listed below are the elements of the federal program that West 
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program satisfy for partial program 
approval. These elements of the federal program that West Virginia's 
MSWLF permitting program satisfy were listed in EPA's previous notice 
of tentative determination of partial program adequacy (61 FR 9451, 
March 8, 1996), and it is those corresponding provisions of West 
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program that are being approved by EPA 
today in this final determination of partial program adequacy.

Subpart A--General

    Existing WVDEP requirements fully comply with 40 CFR sections 
258.1, Purpose, Scope, and Applicability and Sec. 258.3, Consideration 
of other Federal laws.

Subpart B--Location Restrictions

    WVDEP requirements fully comply with Sec. 258.10, Airport Safety, 
Sec. 258.11, Floodplains; Sec. 258.12, Wetlands; Sec. 258.13, Fault 
Areas; Sec. 258.14, Seismic Impact Zones; Sec. 258.15, Unstable Areas; 
and Sec. 258.16, Closure of Existing MSWLF Units.

Subpart C--Operating Criteria

    WVDEP requirements fully comply with: Sec. 258.20, Hazardous Waste 
Exclusion; Sec. 258.21, Daily Cover; Sec. 258.22, Disease Vectors 
Control; Sec. 258.23, Explosive Gas Control; Sec. 258.24, Air Criteria; 
Sec. 258.25, Access requirements; Sec. 258.26, Run-On/Run-Off Control 
Systems; Sec. 258.27, Surface Water Requirements; Sec. 258.28, Liquids 
Restrictions; and Sec. 258.29, Recordkeeping Requirements.

Subpart D--Landfill Design

    WVDEP requirements fully comply with: Sec. 258.40, Design Criteria.

Subpart E--Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action

    WVDEP requirements fully comply with: Sec. 258.50, Applicability; 
Sec. 258.53, Groundwater Sampling and Analysis requirements; 
Sec. 258.56, Assessment of Corrective Measures; Sec. 258.57, Selection 
of Remedy; and Sec. 258.58, Implementation of the Corrective Action 
Program.

Subpart F--Closure and Post-Closure Care

    WVDEP requirements fully comply with:
    Sec. 258.61, Post-Closure Care Requirements.
    In a similar manner, EPA's previous notice of tentative 
determination of partial program adequacy listed those elements of West 
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program that did not satisfy provisions of 
EPA's requirements at 40 CFR part 258. Those elements are again listed 
below and are not being approved in this notice. However, the federal 
program elements listed below are expected to be addressed in a future 
notice.

Subpart A--General

    The definitions listed in Sec. 258.2, Definitions.

Subpart E--Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action

    The requirements of Sec. 258.51, Groundwater Monitoring Systems; 
Sec. 258.54, Detection Monitoring Program; and Sec. 258.55, Assessment 
Monitoring Program.

Subpart F--Final Closure

    The criteria in Sec. 258.60, Closure Criteria, pertaining to the 
time allowed to apply the final cover.

Subpart G--Financial Assurance Criteria

    Sec. 258 Subpart G, Financial Assurance requirements. This includes 
Sec. 258.70, Applicability; Sec. 258.71, Financial Assurance for 
Closure; Sec. 258.72, Financial Assurance for Post-Closure Care; 
Sec. 258.73, Financial Assurance for Corrective Action, Sec. 258.74, 
Allowable Mechanisms and Sec. 258.75, Discounting.

C. Public Comments

    The reader is advised that West Virginia modified its numbering 
system for the Solid Waste Management Rule (the Rule) on June 2, 1996. 
Please note that within the following discussions, both old and new 
section numbers are provided for the Rule.
    EPA Region III received written public comments on its tentative 
determination of partial program adequacy of the West Virginia MSWLF 
permitting program in April of 1996. At that time, two commenters 
raised several concerns over the incompatibility of the WVDEP solid 
waste regulations and the existing West Virginia Groundwater Protection 
Act, WV Code Section 22-12. Their primary concern was that the 
Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Program portion of West 
Virginia's Solid Waste Management Rule at 47 Code of State Regulations 
(CSR) 38 section 4.11 presently 33 CSR 1 section 4.11 (as well as 40 
CFR part 258, subpart E), were less protective than the West Virginia 
Groundwater Protection Act. WVDEP was aware of these deficiencies and 
had already addressed them by adding several references to the West 
Virginia Solid Waste Management Rule during the previous legislative 
rulemaking session. These references, which were added to the Solid 
Waste Facility Permitting Requirements of the Rule, were sections 33 
CSR 1 sections 3.1e.1.D and 3.5.b, which require compliance with the 
West Virginia Groundwater Protection Act.
    Another commenter questioned the wording of both 47 CSR 38 section 
4.13.3 (presently 33 CSR 1 section 4.13.c) and 47 CSR 38 section 
4.8.1.f (presently 33 CSR 1 section 4.8.a.6) of the Rule regarding 
leachate disposal as not conforming with the EPA requirements at 40 CFR 
258.28. WVDEP was again already aware of the nonconformance in section 
4.13.3 (presently section 4.13.c) and added Section 4.13.c.1.B to the 
Rule which incorporated the requirements of EPA regulations at 40 CFR 
258.28. Section 4.8.1.f (presently section 4.8.a.6) of the Rule did not 
need to be revised to conform to federal requirements since this 
section, which covers the general practice of land application of 
treated leachate, is not an element of EPA regulations at 40 CFR 
258.28. The leachate management provisions of 40 CFR 258.28 are limited 
to the placement of leachate onto or into the landfill itself for 
recirculation processes. This same commenter also questioned if the 
State's definition of a waste management facility boundary as defined 
in 47 CSR 38 section 4.11.1.f (presently 33 CSR 1 section 4.11.a.6.A) 
was in conflict with the EPA definition of the relative point of 
compliance for groundwater sampling purposes. The State was again 
already aware of this potential conflict and had revised 33 CSR 1 
section 4.11.a.6.A to match the EPA regulation at 40 CFR 258.53(i)(1).
    Two commenters noted that the presence of definitions for 
``Disposal'' and ``Solid Waste Disposal,'' as well as ``Landfill'' and 
``Solid Waste Landfill Facility'' in the State regulations could cause 
confusion. EPA agrees that having duplicate definitions appears 
unnecessary, but EPA does not believe they are in conflict with each 
other or with the federal definitions. Therefore, revisions to these 
definitions are not required. Concerning the comment that changes in 
some definitions may limit the rule's application to landfills only, it 
is noted that this is consistent with federal rules at 40 CFR part 258 
which only apply to municipal solid waste landfills. Lastly, EPA does 
not agree with the previous commenter that West Virginia's solid waste 
recycling exemption previously under 47 CSR 38 section 2.53.7 
(presently 33 CSR 1

[[Page 16526]]

section 2.114.g) conflicts with the definition of solid waste under the 
federal requirements. West Virginia's recycling exemption from solid 
waste refers to materials which are being recycled or reused, while 
EPA's definition of solid waste refers to materials which are being 
discarded. EPA's 40 CFR part 258 regulations apply to solid wastes 
destined for disposal consistent with West Virginia's rules. If waste 
materials are recycled or reused, by definition, they are not destined 
for disposal.
    Finally, another commenter raised the concern that the existing 
WVDEP regulations on bonding and financial assurance exempt several 
major categories of MSWLF owners. The WVDEP, in written communication 
to EPA Region III, dated August 2, 1996, replied that this commenter's 
interpretation of a ``non-commercial'' facility was incorrect, and 
confirmed that all landfills in West Virginia which are subject to 40 
CFR part 258 fall under the State's financial assurance requirements.
    Additionally, EPA received a comment which expressed concern over 
``weaknesses'' in the WVDEP groundwater monitoring program. EPA was 
aware that the State's groundwater monitoring program was not in 
compliance with EPA requirements under 40 CFR 258.51, Ground Water 
Monitoring Systems; 40 CFR 258.54, Detection Monitoring Program; and 40 
CFR 258.55, Assessment Monitoring Program. This is why EPA did not 
propose to approve those portions of West Virginia's Groundwater 
Monitoring program in its tentative determination and why EPA is not 
including these components in today's final determination of partial 
program adequacy. However, the Rule has since been amended to correct 
those weaknesses, and EPA plans to publish a separate Federal Register 
notice addressing the above-referenced regulatory revisions to West 
Virginia's groundwater monitoring program.

D. Decision

    As discussed in the ``Public Comment'' section of this notice, 
WVDEP has responded to the public comments received in response to 
EPA's notice of tentative determination of partial program adequacy. 
EPA is satisfied that all of the comments and related concerns raised 
as a result of the tentative determination of partial program adequacy 
have been resolved to EPA's satisfaction by the WVDEP. Therefore, EPA 
is granting a final determination of partial program adequacy of West 
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program, for 40 CFR part 258, subparts B, C 
and D, and portions of subparts A, E and F as described in Section B of 
the ``Supplementary Information Section'' of this notice.
    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 explained in the preamble to the final MSWLF criteria, EPA 
expects that any owner or operator complying with provisions of a state 
program approved by EPA should be considered to be in compliance with 
the federal criteria (56 FR 50978, 50995, October 9, 1991).

Compliance With Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and 
Review

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted today's action 
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Compliance With Executive Order 12898--Environmental Justice

    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. EPA does not 
believe that today's action will have a disproportionately high and 
adverse environmental or economic impact on any minority or low-income 
group, or on any other type of affected community.

Compliance With Executive Order 13045--Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' applies to any rule that: (1) the 
Office of Management and Budget determines is ``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 
rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically 
significant rule as defined by E.O. 12866, and because it does not 
involve decisions based on environmental health or safety risks.

Compliance With Executive Order 13084--Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, 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 governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies with consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, 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, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials 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.''
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13084 because it does not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments. West Virginia is not authorized to implement the MSWLF 
permitting program in Indian country.

Compliance With 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'' is 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.''
    Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation

[[Page 16527]]

that has federalism 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 state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This approval does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have a substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132, because this rule affects only one 
State. This action simply approves portions of West Virginia's MSWLF 
permitting program that the State has voluntarily chosen to operate. 
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not 
apply.

Certification Under the 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 action on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as specified 
in the Small Business Administration regulations; (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-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this approval on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action 
does not impose any new requirements on small entities because small 
entities that are owners or operators of municipal sold waste landfills 
are already subject to the regulatory requirements under the State laws 
which EPA is now approving. This action merely approves for the purpose 
of RCRA 4005(c) those existing State requirements.

Compliance With the Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each house of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United 
States prior to publication of today's action in the Federal Register. 
Today's action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

Compliance With the 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 regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives 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 has determined that section 202 and 205 requirements do not 
apply to today's action because this rule does not contain a federal 
mandate that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and/or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the 
private sector. Costs to State, local and/or tribal governments already 
exist under the West Virginia program, and today's action does not 
impose any additional obligations on regulated entities. In fact, EPA's 
approval of state programs generally may reduce, not increase, 
compliance costs for the private sector. Further, as it applies to the 
State, this action does not impose a federal intergovernmental mandate 
because UMRA does not include duties arising from participation in a 
voluntary federal program.
    The requirements of section 203 of UMRA also do not apply to 
today's action because this rule contains no regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although 
small governments may own or operate municipal solid waste landfills, 
they are already subject to the regulatory requirements under the 
existing State laws that are being approved by EPA, and, thus, are not 
subject to any additional significant or unique requirements by virtue 
of this program approval.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., federal 
agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information 
request contained in a proposed rule or a final rule. This rule will 
not impose any information requirements upon the regulated community.

Compliance With the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

[[Page 16528]]

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, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve 
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any 
voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258

    Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure, 
municipal solid waste landfills, non-hazardous solid waste, and state 
permit program approval.

    Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of section 
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).


    Dated: March 14, 2000.
Bradley M. Campbell,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 00-7624 Filed 3-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P