[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39662-39668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14489]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[F-2001-RDMP-FFFFF; FRL-7228-3]
RIN 2050-AE92


Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for Municipal 
Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add 
a new section to the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 
(MSWLF) to allow states to issue research, development, and 
demonstration (RD&D) permits for landfill operations at variance with 
some parts of the MSWLF criteria, provided landfill operators 
demonstrate that these operations will not result in an increased risk 
to human health and the environment. EPA is proposing this alternative 
to promote innovative technologies for the landfilling of municipal 
solid waste. Variance from the following MSWLF criteria would not be 
allowed: location restrictions, ground water monitoring, corrective 
action requirements, the financial assurance criteria, procedures for 
excluding hazardous waste, and explosive gases control requirements.

DATES: EPA must receive your comments or your comments must be 
postmarked by August 9, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing docket number F-2002-RDMP-FFFFF to: (1) if using 
regular US Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office 
of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Headquarters (EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20460-0002, or (2) if using special delivery, such 
as overnight express service: RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), 
Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, 
Arlington, VA 22202. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments 
electronically through the Internet to: [email protected]. Comments 
in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F-
2002-RDMP-FFFFF. You must provide your electronic submittals as ASCII 
files and avoid the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption.
    Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential 
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be 
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, 
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0002.
    Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing 
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, 
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is 
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal 
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public 
make an appointment by calling 703 603-9230. The public may copy a 
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. 
Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index and some supporting 
materials are available electronically. See the ``Supplementary 
Information'' section for information on accessing them.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA Hotline at 800 424-9346 or TDD 800 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In 
the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703 412-9810 or TDD 703 
412-3323.
    For information on specific aspects of this document: contact 
Dwight Hlustick, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division of the 
Office of Solid Waste

[[Page 39663]]

(mail code 5306W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters 
(EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, D.C. 20460; 703/308-8647, [email protected].

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

Affected Entities.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of affected
                 Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government........................  Agencies procuring waste
                                             services
Industry..................................  Owners or operators of
                                             municipal solid waste
                                             landfills
Municipalities, including Tribal            Owners or operators of
 Governments.                                municipal solid waste
                                             landfills
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is a guide for readers that describes which entities are 
likely to be affected by this action. It lists the types of entities 
that EPA is aware could potentially be impacted by today's action. It 
is possible that other types of entities not listed in the table could 
also be affected. To determine whether you would be impacted by this 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria. If you 
have questions about whether this action applies to a particular 
facility, please consult Mr. Dwight Hlustick, U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste (5306W), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20460, 703 308-8647, 
[email protected].

Outline

I. Authority for this Proposed Rule
II. EPA's Role in Developing Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria
III. Proposed Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits
    A. Duration of RD&D Permit
    B. Size Limitations
    C. Testing, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements
IV. State and Tribal Implementation
V. Applicable statutes and executive orders
    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 
601 et. seq.
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments)
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
    J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

I. Legal Authority for This Proposed Rule

    The authority for this proposed revision to the Criteria for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 258) is sections 1008, 
2002(a), 4004, 4005(c) and 4010 of the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 
6945(c), 6949a.

II. EPA's Role in Developing Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria

    Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
provides that states will have the primary authority for regulating 
municipal solid waste. The role of the federal government is to 
establish an overall regulatory direction through the development of 
minimum national standards for nonhazardous solid waste disposal 
facilities, which include municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs). On 
October 9, 1991, EPA issued revised Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills (56 FR 50978). These criteria, codified in 40 CFR part 258, 
establish minimum national standards to ensure that ``no reasonable 
probability of adverse effects on health or the environment'' will 
result from solid waste disposal facilities receiving hazardous 
household waste and small quantity generator hazardous wastes (56 FR 
50979). Today, EPA is proposing an amendment to the MSWLF criteria to 
allow for the issuance of limited permits for research, development, 
and demonstration projects. States with permit programs determinated to 
be adequate pursuant to RCRA section 4005(c) and 40 CFR part 239 
(``approved States'') would decide whether or not to adopt this 
provision in their approved programs.

III. Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits

    Today's proposed rule would allow the Director of an approved State 
to issue research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) permits to 
owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfills. The Director 
of a non-approved State would not have the option of issuing RD&D 
permits. EPA is proposing this provision to stimulate the development 
of new technologies and alternative operational processes for the 
landfilling of municipal solid waste. This proposed rule would allow 
the State director to waive specific provisions of the MSWLF criteria, 
including the (1) operating criteria, except procedures for excluding 
hazardous waste and explosive gas control in subpart C; (2) the design 
criteria in subpart D; and (3) the closure and post-closure care 
criteria in subpart F. In order to issue an RD&D permit waiving any of 
these criteria, the State Director must be satisfied that a landfill 
operating under an RD&D permit will pose no additional risk to human 
health and the environment beyond that which would result from a 
landfill operating under the current MSWLF criteria. Today's proposed 
rule is modeled on

[[Page 39664]]

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

A. Duration of RD&D Permits

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

[[Page 39665]]

B. Size Limitations

    EPA considered placing a size limitation on the RD&D projects to be 
permitted. This included the area of the landfill, as well as the 
quantity of waste placed in the landfill. EPA determined that due to 
the variation in types of projects, limitations based on size of 
landfill, quantity of waste, or other limitations should be determined 
by the State Director on a site-specific basis. Therefore, EPA is not 
proposing to establish any limitations based on size or waste quantity, 
but rather, recommends that the Directors of approved States consider 
whether size or capacity limitations are warranted, based on the 
project goals, in order to protect the environment and human health and 
stay within the maximum duration of the RD&D permit. However, EPA 
requests comment on whether there should be any limitations on the size 
of the landfill or quantity of waste placed in the landfill.

C. Testing, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements

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

IV. State and Tribal Implementation

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

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

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

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

[[Page 39666]]

    It has been determined that today's proposed rule is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review. Today's proposed rule would impose 
no new requirements and is intended to give more flexibility to the 
regulated community with significant potential net cost savings. 
Although net cost savings are expected, EPA is unable to estimate the 
magnitude of the savings because it is yet to be seen how many RD&D 
permits will be authorized or what kinds of permit changes or 
innovations might be undertaken.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

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

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document will be prepared by EPA 
and a copy, when completed, may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at 
Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy can 
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr when it 
is available.
    The ICRs affected by this rule are for 40 CFR parts 239, 
Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of Adequacy and 
part 258, MSWLF Criteria. EPA has submitted the ICR for part 239 
(ICR 1608.03, OMB 2050-152) to OMB for review. EPA 
included estimates of the cost for approved States to revise their 
existing program for today's rule. The estimated cost was $5,680 per 
respondent. EPA is requesting comments from States which plan to make 
these revisions so that EPA can better understand the expected burden 
that would be incurred by states who wish to make these changes. EPA is 
estimating that approximately five states will revise their rules to 
take advantage of today's proposal. In addition, EPA is also requesting 
information from MSWLF owners/operators on the reporting burden that 
they would incur due to this rule under the part 258, MSWLF criteria 
ICR (ICR 1381.06, OMB 2050-0122). Information which 
States are expected to require include the annual report specified in 
the rule as well as additional monitoring and testing requirements 
which may be specified by a State authority. Additional monitoring 
requirements could include the measurement of leachate head on the 
liner; landfill temperature at various locations; type, application 
rate and application method of various wastes including liquid wastes 
and water that maybe placed in the landfill; additional hydraulic 
studies; landfill settlement

[[Page 39667]]

rate determinations, etc. At present EPA estimates that only two to 
three landfills a year will be permitted under this proposed rule over 
the next few years. Reporting requirements are estimated to cost 
between $15,000 and $25,000 per year per landfill. So total reporting 
costs are estimated at $30,000 to $75,000 per year for the first year 
and increasing at a rate of $50,000 per year for the next three years 
thereafter. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2823); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20503, 
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in 
any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning 
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 10, 2002, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 10, 
2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

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

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

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

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

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

[[Page 39668]]

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

I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice.

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

J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Municipal Landfills, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: May 31, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

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

PART 258--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. New Sec. 258.4 is added to part 258 to read as follows


Sec. 258.4  Research, development, and demonstration permits.

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

[FR Doc. 02-14489 Filed 6-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P