70180 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 219 / Friday, November 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

New Sources and Modifications in 

Indian Country: Federal Implementation 

Plan for Managing Air Emissions from 

True Minor Sources Engaged in Oil and 

Natural Gas Production in Indian 

Country,’’ the Docket ID No. is EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0606. Information on 

all of these actions is posted at http:// 

www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/

actions.html. Submit your comments, 

identified by the appropriate Docket ID, 

to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or withdrawn. The 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

If you need to include CBI as part of 

your comment, please visit http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html 

for instructions. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. 

For additional submission methods, 

the full EPA public comment policy, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this action, 

contact Cheryl Vetter, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(C504–03), Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number (919) 541–4391; fax number 

(919) 541–5509; email address: 

vetter.cheryl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: After 

considering the requests to extend the 

public comment period received from 

various trade and business 

organizations, states and tribes, the EPA 

has decided to extend the public 

comment period until December 4, 

2015. This extension will ensure that 

the public has additional time to review 

the three proposed rules. 

Dated: November 3, 2015. 

Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28764 Filed 11–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 258 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126; FRL–9936–10– 

OSWER] 

RIN–2050–AG75 

Revision to the Research, 

Development and Demonstration 

Permits Rule for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the 

maximum permit term for Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) units 

operating under Research, Development 

and Demonstration (RD&D) permits. The 

RD&D permit program, which began in 

2004, allows landfill facilities to utilize 

innovative and new methods that vary 

from the prescribed run-on control 

systems, liquids restrictions, and final 

cover criteria if these systems are 

determined by the Director of states 

with EPA-approved RD&D programs, as 

defined in 40 CFR 258.2, to meet the 

criteria in 40 CFR 258.4. The current 

rule limits permits for these units to 3 

years each, renewable 3 times for a total 

permit term of 12 years. If finalized, this 

rule will allow the Director of an 

approved State to increase the number 

of permit renewals to 6, for a total 

permit term of up to 21 years. The EPA 

is not proposing any other changes to 

the existing MSWLF RD&D permit 

program at this time. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received on or before December 

14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2015–0126 to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and 

Waste Management Division of the 

Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery (mail code 5304P), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone: 703–308–9037; 

email: Dufficy.craig@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

proposal are public or private owners or 

operators of MSWLFs. These entities 

include: 

Category Example of affected entities 

State Governments ................................................................................... Regulatory agencies and agencies operating landfills. 

Industry ..................................................................................................... Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills. 

Municipalities, including Tribal Governments ........................................... Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills. 

The affected entities may also fall 

under the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 

924110, Sanitation engineering 

agencies, government; or 562212, Solid 

Waste Landfill. This list of sectors is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be regulated by this 

action. This table lists the types of 

entities that the EPA believes could 

potentially be regulated by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed in the 

table could also be regulated. To 

determine whether your entity is 

regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria found in 40 CFR part 258 and 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 219 / Friday, November 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 70181 

1See docket # EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126 for 

supporting documentation. 

the Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Permits for Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills final rule 

published in the Federal Register at 69 

FR 13242, March 22, 2004, (‘‘2004 

RD&D rule’’). If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. What action is the agency taking? 

The EPA is proposing to revise the 

maximum permit term for MSWLF units 

operating under RD&D permits. In 

effect, this proposed rule, if finalized, 

would allow the Directors of a states 

with EPA-approved RD&D programs to 

increase the number of 3-year permit 

renewals from 3 to 6, for a total permit 

term of 21 years. 

The basis for the proposed extension 

of the permit period to up to 21 years 

is to provide more time to support 

research into the performance of 

bioreactors, alternative covers and runon systems. The EPA believes the period 

of 21 years strikes a balance between 

providing more time for projects to 

continue operations as research 

facilities, while providing enough time 

for the EPA to consider making 

permanent changes to the Part 258 

MSWLF regulations. 

C. What is the agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

The authority for this proposal is 

sections 1008, 2002(a), 4004, 4005(c), 

4010 and 8001(a) of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

(RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 

6912(a), 6944, 6945(c), 6949a, 6981(a). 

D. What are the anticipated effects and 

benefits of this action? 

The anticipated effect of this 

proposed action, when final, is to 

provide the Director of an approved 

State the ability to issue renewals to 

existing RD&D permits, as well as new 

RD&D permits, for up to 21 years 

instead of 12 years. During this time, the 

EPA will continue to evaluate data from 

these facilities. The universe of facilities 

presently covered by this action is 

approximately 30 facilities currently 

operating with RD&D permits, and one 

on tribal lands. Additional facilities may 

also continue to seek an RD&D permit 

after this action is finalized. The EPA 

has no information with which to 

estimate whether or not, nor how many, 

new facilities will seek RD&D permits. 

Owners/operators operating under 

existing RD&D permits are not expected 

to incur any new costs as a result of this 

proposed rule. The annual costs for 

ongoing recordkeeping and annual 

reporting requirements are estimated at 

$2,410 per facility. 

It is important to note that applying 

for a RD&D permit is voluntary. This 

proposed action would merely allow the 

Director of an approved State to increase 

the number of extensions of the permit 

period for existing facilities, or offer 

more extensions of the permit term for 

new facilities, for those owners and 

operators who choose to participate in 

this research program; it would not 

impose any new regulatory burden. 

Increasing the possible number of 

extensions of the RD&D permit term 

may benefit current owners and 

operators of RD&D units by providing 

additional time to recover their costs, if 

the Director of an approved State 

chooses to extend existing permits. For 

example, data from one RD&D permitted 

facility shows a projected increase of 

3% in the rate of return for 20 years 

compared to 12 years.1

Increasing the possible number of 

extensions of RD&D permit terms will 

provide more time for the EPA to collect 

additional data on the potential benefits 

of the approaches being taken under 

these RD&D permits. These potential 

benefits include: Decreased costs for 

leachate treatment due to leachate 

recirculation in bioreactors; increased 

revenue from the sale of landfill gas for 

use as a renewable source of fuel; 

decreased risk due to a reduction in the 

transportation of leachate for treatment; 

accelerated production and capture of 

landfill gas for use as a renewable fuel; 

and, accelerated stabilization, and 

corresponding decreased post-closure 

care activities, for facilities as a result of 

the accelerated decomposition of waste. 

II. Background 

Under Subchapter IV of RCRA, 42 

U.S.C. 6941–6949a, the EPA has 

promulgated minimum national 

standards for MSWLFs at 40 CFR part 

258. See 56 FR 50978 (October 9, 1991). 

RCRA also directs the EPA to encourage 

research and development for, among 

other things, the development and 

application of new and improved 

methods of collecting and disposing of 

solid waste. 42 U.S.C. 6981(a). 

The initial MSWLF regulations 

addressed seven basic areas: Location 

restrictions; operation; design; 

groundwater monitoring; corrective 

action; closure and post-closure care; 

and financial assurance. These MSWLF 

landfill regulations focused on dry-tomb 

landfills to minimize the possibility of 

groundwater contamination from the 

production and subsequent leakage of 

leachate. After the promulgation of 

those standards, the EPA became aware 

that landfill technology had advanced 

sufficiently that some alternative 

designs and operations could benefit 

from further study through research and 

demonstration projects. For example, 

some of these methods, particularly the 

addition of liquids and leachate 

recirculation, could accelerate 

biodegradation and provide additional 

potential benefits. These include: 

—Acceleration of landfill gas generation 

which can be collected as a source of 

renewable fuel. 

—Minimization of leachate treatment 

requirements during the operational 

life of the landfill. 

—More rapid reduction in concentration 

of leachate constituents of concern, 

thereby limiting the corresponding 

post-closure activities for leachate 

control. 

—An increase in the rate of landfill 

settlement resulting in the more 

efficient use of permitted landfill 

capacity. 

As a means to advance innovation in 

landfill design, in 2000 the EPA selected 

four landfills to participate in its Project 

XL program. The landfills are located in 

Buncombe County, North Carolina; Yolo 

County, California; King George County, 

Virginia; and the Maplewood facility in 

Amelia Country, Virginia. 

In addition to Project XL, in 2001 the 

EPA began using Cooperative Research 

and Development Agreements 

(CRADAs) to promote collaborative 

research between federal and nonfederal scientists as an additional means 

to explore the addition of liquids to 

landfills to promote faster 

biodegradation and stabilization. 

Bioreactor landfill sites operating with 

CRADAs include the Outer Loop 

landfill in Louisville, Kentucky; and the 

Polk County landfill in Florida. 

Subsequently, in 2004, the EPA 

amended 40 CFR part 258 MSWLF 

regulations to create a broader RD&D 

research program. The 2004 RD&D rule, 

which amended § 258.4 enabled the 

Director of an approved State to allow 

RD&D projects with variances to specific 

provisions of the MSWLF criteria, 

including variances from operating 

criteria in part 258 subpart C with 

respect to run-on controls 

(§ 258.26(a)(1)) and the liquids 

restrictions in § 258.28(a). In addition, 

the rule allows an additional variance 

for the final cover requirements set forth 

in the closure criteria in §§ 258.60(a)(1), 

(a)(2) and (b)(1). The 2004 RD&D rule 

limits the duration of the initial permit 

to 3 years. The permit can be renewed 

for up to three additional 3-year terms, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70182 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 219 / Friday, November 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: 

Ten years After the RD&D Rule, EPA document 

number EPA/600/R–14/335. 

for a total of 12 years. More information 

on the RD&D rule can be found in the 

final rule preamble. See 69 FR 13242, 

March 22, 2004. 

As of March 2014, there were 30 

active RD&D projects in 11 approved 

states and one project on tribal lands.2

The maximum permit period for the 

first of these bioreactors is coming to an 

end, and the EPA proposes to allow the 

Director of an approved State to 

continue to extend the permit period for 

up to a total of 21 years to allow for 

continued research. 

A. What the EPA Is Proposing 

The EPA is proposing to allow 

Directors of states with EPA-approved 

RD&D programs to increase the 

maximum term for RD&D permits from 

12 to 21 years at 40 CFR 258.4(e)(1), to 

provide more time to support research 

into the performance of bioreactors, 

alternative covers and run-on systems. 

In effect, this proposed rule, if finalized, 

would allow the Director of an approved 

State to increase the number of permit 

renewals from three to six. The EPA is 

not proposing any other changes to the 

RD&D permit program at this time. The 

EPA is not reopening, nor will it 

respond to comments on, any other 

provision of the existing RD&D rule or 

MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR part 258. 

Separately from this proposal, the 

EPA expects to publish an Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) seeking comment on revising 

other sections of the MSWLF (40 CFR 

part 258) criteria to authorize bioreactor 

operation (and other changes to the 

national criteria) on a permanent basis. 

Interested parties will have an 

opportunity to comment on broader 

issues relating to bioreactor operation 

during the public comment period on 

that ANPRM. 

B. Basis for This Proposal 

In the 2004 RD&D final rule, the EPA 

made clear its intention that MSWLF 

RD&D permits be of limited duration, 

yet also provide data to support future 

rulemaking. This proposal is intended 

to further these dual goals. Although the 

EPA does not expect that all RD&D 

permits will necessarily extend to the 

full permit term, the EPA has since 

learned that the 12-year time limit may 

not be sufficient to realize potential 

benefits in all cases. Thus, extending the 

permit period for up to 21 years will 

provide more time to collect data on 

potential benefits and any problems 

without making the permit period so 

long as to be open-ended. 

Extending the maximum permit term 

will help continuing efforts to collect 

data at existing RD&D units. If the EPA 

does not take this action, owners and 

operators using existing RD&D permits 

would need to make significant 

modifications to their disposal units or 

cease operation altogether, before 

reaching the end of their normal 

operations or closure. Because of the 

potential environmental benefits that 

may be derived from bioreactors, 

alternative cover designs, and run-on 

systems, the EPA believes that it is 

important to extend the maximum 

permit period to 21 years to provide 

more time to characterize the 

performance of RD&D projects without 

making the permit period so long as to 

be open-ended. 

The EPA also wishes to enhance the 

economic feasibility to build and 

operate bioreactors or final cover 

variances in the future, and to thereby 

provide additional sources of data. In 

addition, the EPA has heard from 

stakeholders that the current 12-year 

maximum permit period is an 

insufficient length of time for potential 

owners and operators of bioreactors to 

recoup their initial investment. These 

stakeholders have indicated limiting the 

permit period to 12 years has the 

unintended consequence of 

discouraging the development of 

bioreactors. 

C. Implementation of This Proposal 

This proposal does not require states 

with EPA-approved RD&D programs to 

modify their solid waste permit 

programs. Since this proposed change to 

the RD&D rule provides more flexibility 

than existing federal criteria, states are 

not required to amend existing solid 

waste permit programs that have been 

determined by the EPA to be adequate 

under 40 CFR part 239. States will have 

the option to amend their programs 

once this proposal is finalized. At the 

same time, the RD&D rule (including 

this proposed revision of the maximum 

permit term) is not self-implementing 

and states are required to adopt the 

RD&D rule and obtain EPA approval for 

their RD&D program in order to issue a 

RD&D permit. States previously 

approved to issue RD&D permits that 

wish to increase the total length of time 

for which RD&D permits can be issued 

will need to notify the EPA in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 239. States 

with EPA-approved solid waste permit 

programs that have not previously 

sought approval for an RD&D program 

and now wish to do so will need to 

apply to EPA for approval of an RD&D 

program, including approval of the 

longer time period allowed by this 

proposal. Any state without an EPAapproved solid waste permit program 

may submit an application to the EPA 

for a determination of adequacy under 

40 CFR part 239 and may include a 

request for approval of the RD&D permit 

provisions reflecting the longer time 

period allowed by this proposal. For 

municipal solid waste landfill units 

located in Indian Country, the EPA 

intends to consider the longer maximum 

permit term in this proposal when 

issuing or modifying any site-specific 

RD&D rule. The EPA has previously 

issued draft guidance on the sitespecific flexibility request process in 

Indian Country. See Site-specific 

Flexibility Requests for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills in Indian Country, EPA 

530–R–97–016, August 1997. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

burden under the PRA. OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection activities contained in the 

existing regulations and has assigned 

OMB control numbers 2050–0152 and 

2050–0122. The purpose of this action 

is to extend the maximum allowable 

permit period for this program and this 

change to the RD&D program itself does 

not impose any additional reporting 

requirements. The OMB has previously 

approved the information collection 

activities contained in the existing 

regulations in two different, applicable 

ICRs. The ICRs affected by this proposal 

are for 40 CFR part 239, Requirements 

for State Permit Program Determination 

of Adequacy and part 258, MSWLF 

Criteria. The OMB has reviewed the ICR 

for part 239 (ICR# 1608.07, OMB# 2050– 

0152.) The EPA will request comments 

under the ICR review process from 

states that plan to make these revisions 

so that the EPA can better understand 

the expected burden that would be 

incurred by states who wish to make 

these changes. In addition, the EPA will 

also be requesting information from 

MSWLF owners/operators on the 

reporting burden that they would incur 

under an extended permit term 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 219 / Friday, November 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 70183 

provided in accordance with this 

proposal under the part 258, MSWLF 

criteria ICR (ICR# 1381.09, OMB# 2050– 

0122) when that review process begins. 

This process is scheduled to be 

completed in June 2016. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. This 

proposed rule will not create any 

additional burden for small entities. 

Small entities are not required to take 

any action as a consequence of this 

proposed rule, and this action will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

have therefore concluded that this 

action will have no net regulatory 

burden for all directly regulated small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

The costs involved in this action are 

imposed only by voluntary participation 

in a federal program. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Although 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposal, the EPA has consulted 

with states through the Association of 

State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials during the 

development of this proposal. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. The EPA has concluded 

that this proposal will have no new 

tribal implications, nor would it present 

any additional burden on the tribes. It 

will neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. Accordingly, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. 

The underlying RD&D rule requires 

any RD&D permit to include such terms 

and conditions at least as protective as 

the criteria for municipal solid waste 

landfills to assure protection of human 

health and the environment, and this 

proposal does not reopen or otherwise 

change that requirement. Therefore, the 

EPA finds that the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 

Environmental protection, Municipal 

landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

Dated: October 30, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 258 as follows: 

PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL 

SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 258 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 

U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) 

and 6949a(c), 6981(a). 

Subpart A—General 

■ 2. Revise § 258.4(e)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 258.4 Research, development, and 

demonstration permits. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The total term for a permit for a 

project including renewals may not 

exceed twenty-one (21) years; and 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–28666 Filed 11–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS