Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 52 / Thursday, March 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 11677 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, national parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: February 11, 2009. 

James W. Newsom, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry at 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

* * * * * * * 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan and 2002 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory.

Clearfield/Indiana Area: 

Clearfield and Indiana 

Counties.

06/14/07, 05/23/08 ............. 3/19/09 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

* * * * * 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for Part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 4. In § 81.339, the table entitled 

‘‘Pennsylvania—Ozone (8–Hour 

Standard)’’ is amended by revising the 

entry for the Clearfield and Indiana, PA, 

Clearfield County, Indiana County, to 

read as follows: 

§ 81.339 Pennsylvania 

* * * * * 

PENNSYLVANIA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Clearfield and Indiana, PA: Clearfield County, Indiana County, Northampton County.April 20, 2009 ..................... Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise noted. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–5885 Filed 3–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 258 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2008–0354; FRL–8777–9] 

Final Determination to Approve 

Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Request for the Salt 

River Landfill 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX is making a final 

determination to approve a research, 

development, and demonstration 

(RD&D) project at the Salt River 

Landfill, a commercial municipal solid 

waste landfill (MSWLF) owned and 

operated by the Salt River PimaMaricopa County Indian Community 

(SRPMIC) on the SRPMIC reservation in 

Arizona. EPA is promulgating a sitespecific rule proposed on August 4, 

2008, that approves the RD&D project at 

the Salt River Landfill. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 19, 2009. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in this rule have been approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register on 

March 19, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2008–0354. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure 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 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Docket Facility located at 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California. The Docket 

Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Thursday, excluding 

legal holidays, and is located in a 

secured building. To review docket 

materials at the Docket facility, it is 

recommended that the public make an 

appointment by calling the Docket 

Facility at (415) 947–4406 during 

normal business hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Ueno, Waste Management 

Division, WST–7, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901; 

telephone number: (415) 972–3317; fax 

number: (415) 947–3530; e-mail 

address: ueno.karen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

11678 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 52 / Thursday, March 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

I. General Information 

A. What Did EPA Propose? 

After completing a review of 

SRPMIC’s final site-specific flexibility 

application request, dated September 

27, 2007, and the amendments to that 

application, dated April 8, 2008, EPA 

proposed to approve in the Federal 

Register on August 4, 2008, (73 FR 

45187) SRPMIC’s site-specific flexibility 

request to: (1) Install an alternative 

bottom liner system in an area of the 

landfill known as Phase VI and to 

operate Phase VI as an anaerobic 

bioreactor by recirculating leachate and 

landfill gas condensate, and adding 

storm water and groundwater to the 

below grade portions of Phase VI; and 

(2) recirculate leachate and landfill gas 

condensate and add storm water and 

groundwater to the below grade portions 

of areas of the landfill known as Phases 

IIIB and IVA to increase the moisture 

content of the waste mass in these 

phases, both of which have alternative 

bottom liner systems, which were 

previously approved by EPA. 

B. What Is a Site-Specific Flexibility 

Request? 

Under Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 

4010 of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as 

amended by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 

EPA established revised minimum 

federal criteria for MSWLFs, including 

landfill location restrictions, operating 

standards, design standards and 

requirements for ground water 

monitoring, corrective action, closure 

and post-closure care, and financial 

assurance. Under RCRA Section 4005, 

states are to develop permit programs 

for facilities that may receive household 

hazardous waste or waste from 

conditionally exempt small quantity 

generators, and EPA determines 

whether the program is adequate to 

ensure that facilities will comply with 

the revised criteria. 

The MSWLF criteria are in the Code 

of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 

258. These regulations are selfimplementing and apply directly to 

owners and operators of MSWLFs. For 

many of these criteria, 40 CFR part 258 

includes a flexible performance 

standard as an alternative to the selfimplementing regulation. The flexible 

standard is not self-implementing, and 

use of the alternative standard requires 

approval by the Director of an EPAapproved state. 

Since EPA’s approval of the State of 

Arizona’s program generally does not 

extend to Indian country, owners and 

operators of MSWLF units located in 

Indian country cannot take advantage of 

the flexibilities available to those 

facilities subject to the approved State 

program. However, the EPA has the 

authority under Sections 2002, 4004, 

and 4010 of RCRA to promulgate sitespecific rules that may provide for use 

of alternative standards. See Yankton 

Sioux Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471 

(D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against 

Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 

1996). EPA has developed draft 

guidance on preparing a site-specific 

request to provide flexibility to owners 

or operators of MSWLFs in Indian 

country (Site-Specific Flexibility 

Requests for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills in Indian Country Draft 

Guidance, EPA530–R–97–016, August 

1997). 

On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a 

final rule at 40 CFR 258.4 amending the 

municipal solid waste landfill criteria to 

allow for RD&D permits. (69 FR 13242). 

This rule allows for variances from 

specified criteria for a limited period of 

time. Specifically, the rule allows for 

the Director of an approved state to 

issue a time-limited RD&D permit for a 

new MSWLF unit, existing MSWLF 

unit, or lateral expansion, for which the 

owner or operator proposes to use 

innovative and new methods which 

vary from either or both of the 

following: (1) The run-on control 

systems at 40 CFR 258.26(a)(1); and/or 

(2) the liquids restrictions at 40 CFR 

258.28(a), provided that the MSWLF 

unit has a leachate collection system 

designed and constructed to maintain 

less than a 30-cm depth of leachate on 

the liner. The rule also allows for the 

issuance of a time-limited RD&D permit 

for which the owner or operator 

proposes to use innovative and new 

methods that vary from the final cover 

criteria at 40 CFR 258.60(a)(1) and (2), 

and (b)(1), provided that the owner or 

operator demonstrates that the 

infiltration of liquid through the 

alternative cover system will not cause 

contamination to groundwater or 

surface water, or cause leachate depth 

on the liner to exceed 30 cm. RD&D 

permits must include such terms and 

conditions at least as protective as the 

criteria for MSWLFs to assure protection 

of human health and the environment. 

An RD&D permit cannot exceed three 

years and a renewal of an RD&D permit 

cannot exceed three years. Although 

multiple renewals of an RD&D permit 

can be issued, the current total term for 

an RD&D permit including renewals 

cannot exceed twelve years. In adopting 

the RD&D rule, EPA stated that RD&D 

facilities in Indian country could be 

approved in a site-specific rule. (69 FR 

13253). 

C. Overview of SRPMIC’s Site-Specific 

Flexibility Request and EPA’s Action 

Today, EPA is making a final 

determination to approve SRPMIC’s 

site-specific flexibility request to: (1) 

Install an alternative bottom liner 

system in Phase VI and to operate Phase 

VI as an anaerobic bioreactor by 

recirculating leachate and landfill gas 

condensate, and adding storm water and 

groundwater to the below grade portions 

of Phase VI; and (2) recirculate leachate 

and landfill gas condensate and add 

storm water and groundwater to the 

below grade portions of Phases IIIB and 

IVA to increase the moisture content of 

the waste mass in these phases, both of 

which have alternative bottom liner 

systems, which were previously 

approved by EPA. The Tribe’s request is 

discussed in further detail in the August 

4, 2008 proposal. 

EPA is basing its final determination 

on a number of factors, including 

SRPMIC’s overarching goal to 

demonstrate protection of human health 

and the environment, and the 

requirement of today’s final rule to 

maintain less than 30-cm depth of 

leachate on the liner. SRPMIC will also 

maintain a 25-foot or greater separation 

zone between the bottom of the landfill 

and the top of the groundwater aquifer, 

and will routinely monitor leachate 

quantity and quality, liquids balance, 

volume and settlement of the waste, and 

groundwater quality and levels. 

SRPMIC will ensure that each 

horizontal pipe gallery in Phase VI will 

be used to collect landfill gas before 

being converted for liquids addition to 

reduce the risk of negatively affecting 

the gas collection efficiency of the pipe 

gallery. No pipe gallery will be 

converted to liquids addition until the 

pipe gallery above it is installed and 

collecting landfill gas. SRPMIC also will 

install at least two layers of horizontal 

pipe galleries in the above-grade portion 

of Phase VI for the sole purpose of 

collecting gas. To further reduce the risk 

of increased landfill gas generation and 

fugitive emissions, SRPMIC will only 

add liquids to the below-grade portions 

of Phases VI, IIIB, and IVA. SRPMIC 

will monitor fugitive gas emissions 

annually or more frequently, as 

appropriate, using ground-based optical 

remote sensing (EPA OTM–10), and will 

routinely monitor landfill gas quantity 

and quality. Using information gained 

from the monitoring program, SRPMIC 

will propose site-specific input 

parameters to EPA that improve 

modeling calculations for the amount of 

landfill gas generated and the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 52 / Thursday, March 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 11679 

performance of landfill gas collection 

systems. 

In the event that EPA determines that 

the project goals are not being attained, 

including protecting human health and 

the environment, EPA may terminate 

SRPMIC’s authority to operate the RD&D 

project. 

As part of this final determination and 

in accordance with 40 CFR 258.4, EPA 

is requiring SRPMIC to maintain less 

than 30 cm depth of leachate on the 

liner in Phases VI, IIIB, and IVA, and to 

ensure that the approved operation of 

these Phases is protective of human 

health and the environment. For 

purposes of the alternative liner system 

in Phase VI, the relevant point(s) of 

compliance pursuant to 40 CFR 258.40 

will be determined by EPA and shall be 

no more than 150 meters from the waste 

management cell boundaries and 

located on land owned by the owner of 

the cells. 

In accordance with its application, 

which today’s final rule incorporates by 

reference, SRPMIC will submit annual 

reports to EPA that summarize and 

show whether and to what extent RD&D 

project goals are being achieved. The 

annual report will include a summary of 

all monitoring and testing results. Any 

deviations from the September 27, 2007 

application, and the April 8, 2008 

amendments to that application, must 

continue to conform to the standards set 

forth in 40 CFR 258.4 and require the 

prior approval of EPA. 

Also in accordance with its 

application, SRPMIC will arrange for 

independent, third party inspections of 

the RD&D operations on a quarterly 

basis throughout the term of the RD&D 

approval. Copies of the report will be 

submitted to EPA. 

EPA’s final determination will allow 

operation of the subject Phases of the 

landfill consistent with the RD&D rule 

for a total of 12 years. However, the 

owner or operator of the landfill must 

seek a renewal of this authority every 

three years. Each renewal request is 

subject to public notice and comment. 

No renewal may be for greater than 

three years and the overall period of 

operation may not exceed twelve years. 

D. Summary of Public Comments 

Received and Response to Comments 

EPA received one comment on EPA’s 

Tentative Determination. The 

commenter, the National Solid Wastes 

Management Association, expressed 

concern with the use of ground-based 

optical remote sensing (EPA OTM–10). 

The commenter felt that the use of 

OTM–10 should not be required at this 

time, and indicated concern with the 

test method’s applicability to municipal 

solid waste landfills and relatively high 

cost, and cited EPA’s ongoing research 

on the test method. The commenter 

suggested that EPA use existing gas 

monitoring methods rather than OTM– 

10 until EPA’s current research on 

OTM–10 is completed, and the 

method’s applicability to landfills and 

cost-effectiveness are demonstrated. 

As indicated in EPA’s ‘‘Development 

of EPA OTM–10 for Landfill 

Applications Interim Report 2,’’ 

(September 2008), due to the spatial 

extent and non-homogenous nature of 

many source areas, assessment of 

fugitive emissions using traditional 

point sampling techniques can be 

problematic. EPA posted OTM–10 in 

2006 to help address this issue, and 

believes it is a valuable tool to 

supplement traditional monitoring 

approaches. OTM–10 is an ‘‘other test 

method’’ that has not been subject to 

Federal rulemaking, but which may be 

useful to the emission control 

community. EPA continues to study the 

application of OTM–10 from both 

performance and implementation 

standpoints. 

For purposes of today’s action, the use 

of OTM–10 is specific solely to the Salt 

River Landfill and the SRPMIC 

Research, Development, and 

Demonstration project. SPRMIC agreed 

to use OTM–10 to help address 

concerns with increases to fugitive gas 

emissions from bioreactor operations. 

OTM–10 data will supplement other 

landfill gas monitoring and operating 

information collected to better project 

the amount of landfill gas generated and 

the performance of the landfill gas 

collection system. 

The SRPMIC project is a research, 

development, and demonstration 

project, and EPA believes that the data 

collected by SRPMIC will help to 

characterize emissions from the 

bioreactor operations at the landfill and 

further the research and evaluation of 

the OTM–10 test method by providing 

additional information on actual use 

scenarios. EPA anticipates working 

closely with SRPMIC to help guide the 

implementation of OTM–10 and 

facilitate the quality and use of data 

collected. Any long-term use of OTM– 

10 at the Salt River Landfill will be 

assessed after EPA reviews the method’s 

applicability at this landfill, and overall 

cost-effectiveness. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) 

requires Federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings 

on historic properties, and afford the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation a reasonable opportunity to 

comment. In accordance with this 

provision, EPA first determined whether 

it has an undertaking that is a type of 

activity that could affect historic 

properties. Historic properties are 

properties that are included in the 

National Register of Historic Places or 

that meet the criteria for the National 

Register. EPA then identified the 

appropriate State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) to consult with during 

the process, the Arizona SHPO. 

The NHPA regulations, found at 36 

CFR Part 800, place major emphasis on 

consultation with Indian tribes. 

Consultation with an Indian tribe must 

respect tribal sovereignty and the 

government-to-government relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes. Even if an Indian tribe has 

not been certified by the National Park 

Service to have a Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer (THPO) who can 

act for the SHPO on its lands, it must 

be consulted about undertakings on or 

affecting its lands on the same basis and 

in addition to the SHPO. 

While there was no Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer for the Tribes 

which historically used the area around 

the Salt River Landfill, EPA consulted 

with the SRPMIC, as well as the AkChin Indian Community, the Fort 

McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Gila 

River Indian Community, the Hopi 

Tribe, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the 

Tohono O’odham Nation, the YavapaiApache Nation, and the YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe. No cultural or 

historic properties were identified by 

these Tribes, nor was any interest 

expressed in having further consultation 

on the NHPA process with EPA. 

Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, 

EPA reviewed SRPMIC’s site-specific 

flexibility request to take into account 

the effect of the proposed RD&D project 

on historic properties. EPA tentatively 

determined that there is a one-half mile 

area of potential effects, a finding that 

the Arizona Canal is the sole historic 

property within the APE, and that the 

action has no adverse effect. 

EPA received no public comments on 

the proposed Area of Potential Effects 

(APE), proposed finding that the 

Arizona Canal is the sole historic 

property within the APE, or proposed 

finding of no adverse effect under the 

NHPA. As a result, EPA is today also 

making a finding of no adverse effect 

under the NHPA, having determined 

that the RD&D project will not adversely 

affect the Arizona Canal, which is the 

sole historic property within the Area of 

Potential Effects (APE). The Arizona 

SHPO concurs with EPA’s finding. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

11680 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 52 / Thursday, March 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

because it applies to a particular facility 

only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. 

Because this rule will affect only a 

particular facility, this proposed rule 

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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this rule. 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is EPA’s 

conservative analysis of the potential 

risks posed by SRPMIC’s proposal and 

the controls and standards set forth in 

the application. 

This 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. 

As required by section 3 of Executive 

Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), calls for 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.’’ EPA has concluded that 

this action may have tribal implications 

because it is directly applicable to the 

owner and/or operator of the landfill, 

which is currently the Tribe. However, 

this tentative determination, if made 

final, will neither impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on tribal 

governments, nor preempt Tribal law. 

This tentative determination to approve 

the SRPMIC’s application will affect 

only the SRPMIC’s operation of their 

landfill on their own land. 

EPA consulted with the SRPMIC early 

in the process of making this tentative 

determination to approve the Tribe’s 

RD&D project so as to give them 

meaningful and timely input into the 

determination. In 2005, SRPMIC 

submitted its site-specific RD&D 

flexibility request. Between 2005 and 

2008, many technical issues were raised 

and addressed concerning SRPMIC’s 

proposal. EPA’s consultation with the 

Tribe culminated in the SRPMIC 

submitting an RD&D application 

amendment in April of 2008. 

With respect to the type of flexibility 

being afforded to SRPMIC under this 

proposed rule, EO 13175 does provide 

for agencies to review applications for 

flexibility ‘‘with a general view toward 

increasing opportunities for utilizing 

flexible policy approaches at the Indian 

tribal level in cases in which the 

proposed waiver is consistent with the 

applicable Federal policy objectives and 

is otherwise appropriate.’’ In 

formulating this tentative determination 

and proposed rule, the Region has been 

guided by the fundamental principles 

set forth in EO 13175 and has granted 

the SRPMIC the ‘‘maximum 

administrative discretion possible’’ 

within the standards set forth under the 

RD&D rule in accordance with EO 

13175. 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (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, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The technical standards included in 

the application were proposed by 

SRPMIC. Given EPA’s obligations under 

EO 13175 (see above), the Agency has, 

to the extent appropriate, applied the 

standards established by the Tribe. In 

addition, the Agency considered the 

Interstate Technology and Regulatory 

Council’s February 2006 technical and 

regulatory guideline ‘‘Characterization, 

Design, Construction, and Monitoring of 

Bioreactor Landfills.’’ 

Authority: Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 

4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6907, 6912, 

6944, and 6949a. Temporary Delegation of 

Authority to Promulgate Site-Specific Rules 

to Respond to Requests for Flexibility from 

Owners/Operators of Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfill Facilities in Indian Country, 

February 26, 2008, Incorporation by 

Reference. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 

Environmental protection, 

Incorporation by reference, Municipal 

landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

Dated: February 19, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

40 CFR part 258 is amended as follows: 

PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL 

SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 

Subpart D—[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), 6981(a). 

■ 2. Amend Subpart D to add § 258.42 

to read as follows: 

§ 258.42 Approval of Site-specific 

Flexibility Requests in Indian Country. 

(a) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community (SRPMIC), Salt River 

Landfill Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Project Requirements. 

Paragraph (a) of this section applies to 

the Salt River Landfill, a municipal 

solid waste landfill owned and operated 

by the SPRMIC on the SRPMIC’s 

reservation in Arizona, which includes 

waste disposal areas identified as 

‘‘Phases I–VI.’’ The application 

submitted by SRPMIC, ‘‘Research, 

Development, and Demonstration 

Permit Application Salt River Landfill,’’ 

dated September 24, 2007 and amended 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 52 / Thursday, March 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 11681 

on April 8, 2008 is hereby incorporated 

by reference. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 

inspect or obtain a copy at the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA, or by calling the Docket 

Facility at (415) 947–4406, or go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2008–0354. You 

may also inspect a copy at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability at NARA, call (202) 741– 

6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal

_regulations/ibr_locations.html. The 

facility owner and/or operator may 

operate the facility in accordance with 

this application, including the following 

activities more generally described as 

follows: 

(1) The owner and/or operator may 

install a geosynthetic clay liner as an 

alternative bottom liner system in Phase 

VI. 

(2) The owner and/or operator may 

operate Phase VI as a bioreactor by 

recirculating leachate and landfill gas 

condensate, and by adding storm water 

and groundwater, to the below grade 

portions of Phase VI. 

(3) The owner and/or operator may 

increase the moisture content of the 

waste mass in Phases IIIB and IVA by 

recirculating leachate and landfill gas 

condensate, and by adding storm water 

and groundwater, to the below grade 

portions of Phases IIIB and IVA. 

(4) The owner and/or operator shall 

maintain less than a 30-cm depth of 

leachate on the liner. 

(5) The owner and/or operator shall 

submit reports to the Director of the 

Waste Management Division at EPA 

Region 9 as specified in ‘‘Research, 

Development, and Demonstration 

Permit Application Salt River Landfill,’’ 

dated September 24, 2007 and amended 

on April 8, 2008 including an annual 

report showing whether and to what 

extent the site is progressing in attaining 

project goals. The annual report will 

also include a summary of all 

monitoring and testing results, as 

specified in the application. 

(6) The owner and/or operator may 

not operate the facility pursuant to the 

authority granted by this section if there 

is any deviation from the terms, 

conditions, and requirements of this 

section unless the operation of the 

facility will continue to conform to the 

standards set forth in § 258.4 of this 

chapter and the owner and/or operator 

has obtained the prior written approval 

of the Director of the Waste 

Management Division at EPA Region 9 

or his or her designee to implement 

corrective measures or otherwise 

operate the facility subject to such 

deviation. The Director of the Waste 

Management Division or designee shall 

provide an opportunity for the public to 

comment on any significant deviation 

prior to providing his or her written 

approval of the deviation. 

(7) Paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and 

(9) of this section will terminate 36 

months after date of publication in the 

Federal Register unless the Director of 

the Waste Management Division at EPA 

Region 9 or his or her designee renews 

this authority in writing. Any such 

renewal may extend the authority 

granted under paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), 

(6) and (9) of this section for up to an 

additional three years, and multiple 

renewals (up to a total of 12 years) may 

be provided. The Director of the Waste 

Management Division or designee shall 

provide an opportunity for the public to 

comment on any renewal request prior 

to providing his or her written approval 

or disapproval of such request. 

(8) In no event will the provisions of 

paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) or (9) of 

this section remain in effect after 12 

years after date of publication in the 

Federal Register. Upon termination of 

paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of 

this section, and except with respect to 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (4) of this section, 

the owner and/or operator shall return 

to compliance with the regulatory 

requirements which would have been in 

effect absent the flexibility provided 

through this site-specific rule. 

(9) In seeking any renewal of the 

authority granted under or other 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(2), (3), 

(5) and (6) of this section, the owner 

and/or operator shall provide a detailed 

assessment of the project showing the 

status with respect to achieving project 

goals, a list of problems and status with 

respect to problem resolutions, and any 

other requirements that the Director of 

the Waste Management Division at EPA 

Region 9 or his or her designee has 

determined are necessary for the 

approval of any renewal and has 

communicated in writing to the owner 

and operator. 

(10) The owner and/or operator’s 

authority to operate the landfill in 

accordance with paragraphs (a)(2), (3), 

(5), (6) and (9) of this section shall 

terminate if the Director of the Waste 

Management Division at EPA Region 9 

or his or her designee determines that 

the overall goals of the project are not 

being attained, including protection of 

human health or the environment. Any 

such determination shall be 

communicated in writing to the owner 

and operator. 

(b) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. E9–5848 Filed 3–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 0812311655–9277–02] 

RIN 0648–AX44 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch 

Sharing Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), on behalf of 

the International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC), publishes annual 

management measures promulgated as 

regulations by the IPHC and approved 

by the Secretary of State governing the 

Pacific halibut fishery. The AA also 

announces modifications to the Catch 

Sharing Plan (CSP) for Area 2A (waters 

off the U.S. West Coast) and 

implementing regulations for 2009, and 

announces approval of the Area 2A CSP. 

These actions are intended to enhance 

the conservation of Pacific halibut and 

further the goals and objectives of the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC) and the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (NPFMC) 

(Councils). 

DATES: The IPHC’s 2009 annual 

management measure are effective 

March 4, 2009 except for the measures 

in section 26 which are effective April 

20, 2009. The 2009 management 

measures are effective until superseded 

by the 2010 management measures that 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

The amendments to §§ 300.61 and 

300.64 are effective April 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Additional requests for 

information regarding this action may 

be obtained by contacting: the 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission, P.O. Box 95009, Seattle, 

WA 98145–2009; or Sustainable 

Fisheries Division, NMFS Alaska 

Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, 

Records Officer; or Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, NMFS Northwest Region, 7600 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES