20032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.960, add alphabetically the 

following polymer to the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Polymer CAS No. 

* * * * * 

Castor oil, polymer with adipic acid, linoleic acid, oleic 

acid and ricinoleic acid, 

minimum number average 

molecular weight (in amu), 

3,500 ................................. 1357486–09–9 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–07645 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0043; FRL–9380–5] 

Styrene-Ethylene-Propylene Block 

Copolymer; Tolerance Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of styreneethylene-propylene block copolymer 

(CAS Reg. No. 108388–87–0) when used 

as an inert ingredient in a pesticide 

formulation. AgroFresh Inc., submitted 

a petition to EPA under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

requesting an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of styrene-ethylenepropylene block copolymer on food or 

feed commodities. 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

3, 2013. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 3, 2013, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0043, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Lieu, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–0079; email address: 

lieu.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http:// 

ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. Can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2013–0043 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before June 3, 2013. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2013–0043, by one of the following 

methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of February 

15, 2013 (78 FR 11126) (FRL–9378–4), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

announcing the receipt of a pesticide 

petition (PP IN–10540) filed by 

AgroFresh Inc., 100 Independence Mall 

West, Philadelphia, PA 19105. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 

be amended by establishing an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of styreneethylene-propylene block copolymer 

(CAS Reg. No. 108388–87–0). The 

document included a summary of the 

petition prepared by the petitioner and 

solicited comments on the petitioner’s 

request. The Agency did not receive any 

comments. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20033 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish an exemption 

from the requirement for a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and 

use in residential settings, but does not 

include occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue * * * ’’ and specifies 

factors EPA is to consider in 

establishing an exemption. 

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory 

Findings 

EPA establishes exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance only in those 

cases where it can be shown that the 

risks from aggregate exposure to 

pesticide chemical residues under 

reasonably foreseeable circumstances 

will pose no appreciable risks to human 

health. In order to determine the risks 

from aggregate exposure to pesticide 

inert ingredients, the Agency considers 

the toxicity of the inert in conjunction 

with possible exposure to residues of 

the inert ingredient through food, 

drinking water, and through other 

exposures that occur as a result of 

pesticide use in residential settings. If 

EPA is able to determine that a finite 

tolerance is not necessary to ensure that 

there is a reasonable certainty that no 

harm will result from aggregate 

exposure to the inert ingredient, an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance may be established. 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action and considered its validity, 

completeness and reliability and the 

relationship of this information to 

human risk. EPA has also considered 

available information concerning the 

variability of the sensitivities of major 

identifiable subgroups of consumers, 

including infants and children. In the 

case of certain chemical substances that 

are defined as polymers, the Agency has 

established a set of criteria to identify 

categories of polymers expected to 

present minimal or no risk. The 

definition of a polymer is given in 40 

CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion 

criteria for identifying these low-risk 

polymers are described in 40 CFR 

723.250(d). Styrene-ethylene-propylene 

block copolymer conforms to the 

definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 

723.250(b) and meets the following 

criteria that are used to identify low-risk 

polymers. 

1. The polymer is not a cationic 

polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated 

to become a cationic polymer in a 

natural aquatic environment. 

2. The polymer does contain as an 

integral part of its composition, the 

atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and 

oxygen. 

3. The polymer does not contain as an 

integral part of its composition, except 

as impurities, any element other than 

those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii). 

4. The polymer is neither designed 

nor can it be reasonably anticipated to 

substantially degrade, decompose, or 

depolymerize. 

5. The polymer is manufactured or 

imported from monomers and/or 

reactants that are already included on 

the TSCA Chemical Substance 

Inventory or manufactured under an 

applicable TSCA section 5 exemption. 

6. The polymer is not a water 

absorbing polymer with a number 

average molecular weight (MW) greater 

than or equal to 10,000 daltons. 

7. The polymer does not contain 

certain perfluoroalkyl moieties 

consisting of a CF3– or longer chain 

length as specified in 40 CFR 

723.250(d)(6). 

Additionally, the polymer also meets 

as required the following exemption 

criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e). 

8. The polymer’s number average MW 

of 125,000 is greater than or equal to 

10,000 daltons. The polymer contains 

less than 2% oligomeric material below 

MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric 

material below MW 1,000. 

Thus, styrene-ethylene-propylene 

block copolymer meets the criteria for a 

polymer to be considered low risk under 

40 CFR 723.250. Based on its 

conformance to the criteria in this unit, 

no mammalian toxicity is anticipated 

from dietary, inhalation, or dermal 

exposure to styrene-ethylene-propylene 

block copolymer. 

IV. Aggregate Exposures 

For the purposes of assessing 

potential exposure under this 

exemption, EPA considered that 

styrene-ethylene-propylene block 

copolymer could be present in all raw 

and processed agricultural commodities 

and drinking water, and that nonoccupational non-dietary exposure was 

possible. The number average MW of 

styrene-ethylene-propylene block 

copolymer is 125,000 daltons. 

Generally, a polymer of this size would 

be poorly absorbed through the intact 

gastrointestinal tract or through intact 

human skin. Since styrene-ethylenepropylene block copolymer conforms to 

the criteria that identify a low-risk 

polymer, there are no concerns for risks 

associated with any potential exposure 

scenarios that are reasonably 

foreseeable. The Agency has determined 

that a tolerance is not necessary to 

protect the public health. 

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances 

With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

EPA has not found styrene-ethylenepropylene block copolymer to share a 

common mechanism of toxicity with 

any other substances, and styreneethylene-propylene block copolymer 

does not appear to produce a toxic 

metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that styrene-ethylenepropylene block copolymer does not 

have a common mechanism of toxicity 

with other substances. For information 

regarding EPA’s efforts to determine 

which chemicals have a common 

mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate 

the cumulative effects of such 

chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ 

cumulative. 

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the 

Protection of Infants and Children 

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA 

provides that EPA shall apply an 

additional tenfold margin of safety for 

infants and children in the case of 

threshold effects to account for prenatal 

and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the data base unless 

EPA concludes that a different margin of 

safety will be safe for infants and 

children. Due to the expected low 

toxicity of styrene-ethylene-propylene 

block copolymer, EPA has not used a 

safety factor analysis to assess the risk. 

For the same reasons the additional 

tenfold safety factor is unnecessary. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

VII. Determination of Safety 

Based on the conformance to the 

criteria used to identify a low-risk 

polymer, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty of no harm to the 

U.S. population, including infants and 

children, from aggregate exposure to 

residues of styrene-ethylene-propylene 

block copolymer. 

VIII. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes since the 

Agency is establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

without any numerical limitation. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. 

The Codex has not established a MRL 

for styrene-ethylene-propylene block 

copolymer. 

IX. Conclusion 

Accordingly, EPA finds that 

exempting residues of styrene-ethylenepropylene block copolymer from the 

requirement of a tolerance will be safe. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes a tolerance 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules 

from review under Executive Order 

12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning 

and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993). Because this final rule has been 

exempted from review under Executive 

Order 12866, this final rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it involve 

any technical standards that would 

require Agency consideration of 

voluntary consensus standards pursuant 

to section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes, or otherwise have any unique 

impacts on local governments. Thus, the 

Agency has determined that Executive 

Order 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

Although this action does not require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994), EPA seeks to achieve 

environmental justice, the fair treatment 

and meaningful involvement of any 

group, including minority and/or lowincome populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. As such, to the 

extent that information is publicly 

available or was submitted in comments 

to EPA, the Agency considered whether 

groups or segments of the population, as 

a result of their location, cultural 

practices, or other factors, may have 

atypical or disproportionately high and 

adverse human health impacts or 

environmental effects from exposure to 

the pesticide discussed in this 

document, compared to the general 

population. 

XI. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule 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 the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 26, 2013. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.960, alphabetically add the 

following polymer to the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Polymer CAS No. 

* * * * * 

Styrene-ethylene-propylene 

block copolymer, minimum 

number average molecular 

weight (in amu), 125,000 .. 108388–87–0 

* * * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20035 

[FR Doc. 2013–07642 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2013–0105; FRL–9796–6] 

Adequacy of Oregon Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfill Permit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action approves a 

modification to the State of Oregon’s 

approved Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfill (MSWLF) permit program. The 

approved modification allows the State 

to issue Research, Development, and 

Demonstration (RD&D) Permits to 

owners and operators of MSWLF units 

in accordance with its State law. On 

March 22, 2004, the EPA issued final 

regulations allowing RD&D Permits to 

be issued to certain municipal solid 

waste landfills by approved states. On 

June 14, 2012, Oregon submitted an 

application to EPA Region 10 seeking 

Federal approval of its RD&D Permit 

requirements. After thorough review, 

EPA Region 10 is determining that 

Oregon’s RD&D Permit requirements are 

adequate through this direct final 

action. 

DATES: This direct final rule will 

become effective June 3, 2013 without 

further notice unless the EPA receives 

written adverse comments on or before 

May 3, 2013. If written adverse 

comments are received, the EPA will 

review the comments and publish 

another Federal Register document 

responding to the comments and either 

affirming or revising the initial decision. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

RCRA–2013–0105, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: calabro.domenic@epa.gov 

• Fax: (206) 553–8509, to the 

attention of Domenic Calabro. 

• Mail: Domenic Calabro, Office of 

Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. EPA, Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Mailstop: AWT–122, Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Domenic Calabro, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. 

EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Mailstop: AWT–122, Seattle, 

WA 98101. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Office’s normal 

hours of operation. 

Instructions: Identify your comments 

as relating to Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

RCRA–2013–0105. The EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or claimed 

to be other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets/. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–R10–RCRA–2013–0105. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although it may be listed in the index, 

some information might not be publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington by 

appointment only; please telephone 

(206) 553–1289 to make an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Domenic Calabro, Office of Air, Waste 

and Toxics, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mailstop: 

AWT–122, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 

553–6640, calabro.domenic@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 22, 2004, the EPA issued a 

final rule amending the Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfill (MSWLF) criteria in 40 

CFR part 258 to allow Research, 

Development, and Demonstration 

(RD&D) permits (69 FR 13242). This rule 

allows for variances from specified 

criteria for a limited period of time, to 

be implemented through state-issued 

RD&D permits. RD&D permits are 

available only in states with approved 

MSWLF permit programs that have been 

modified to incorporate RD&D permit 

authority. The purpose of the rule is to 

stimulate the development of new 

technologies and alternative operational 

processes for the landfilling of 

municipal solid waste. 

RD&D permits may provide variances 

from existing requirements for run-on 

control systems, liquid restrictions, and 

final cover requirements. There is no 

authority for variance of criteria for 

groundwater monitoring, closure and 

post-closure requirements (except 

alternative cover provisions), or 

financial assurance requirements. To 

issue an RD&D permit allowing 

variances from any of these criteria, the 

director of an approved state 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 full MSWLF criteria. 

While states are not required to seek 

approval to allow permits under this 

new provision, those states interested in 

providing RD&D permits to owners and 

operators of MSWLFs must seek 

approval from the EPA before issuing 

such permits. Approval procedures for 

the new provisions of 40 CFR part 258 

are outlined in 40 CFR § 239.12. 

On October 7, 1993, EPA published a 

final rule (58 FR 193) approving the 

State of Oregon’s MSWLF permit 

program. On June 14, 2012, Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) applied for approval of its 

RD&D permit provisions, codified at 

ORS 459.245(4). In addition, Oregon has 

a state flexibility rule (OAR 340–094– 

0020) which allows the Director of the 

ODEQ or a designee to approve an 

alternative schedule, procedure, or 

design as long as that alternative is at 

least as protective of the environment as 

the provisions in 40 CFR part 258 and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES