28720 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Title/subject State effective 

date 

Notice of final rule 

date NFR citation 

*******

(9) Yellowstone County 

*******

Billings 2010 SO2 Maintenance Plan ......................................................................... 12/14/2015 5/10/2016 ............... [Insert Federal 

Register citation]. 

■ 3. Section 52.1398 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1398 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide. 

(a) Redesignation to attainment. The 

EPA has determined that the Billings 

2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

nonattainment area has met the criteria 

under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. The EPA is therefore 

redesignating the Billings 2010 SO2

nonattainment area to attainment. 

(b) The EPA is approving the 

maintenance plan for the Billings 

nonattainment area for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS submitted by the State of 

Montana on December 14, 2015. 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment 

Status Designations 

■ 5. Section 81.327, table ‘‘Montana— 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)’’ 

is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Yellowstone County (part)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.327 Montana. 

* * * * * 

Designated area 

Designation 

Date Type 

*******

Yellowstone County (part) .................................................................................................................... 5/10/2016 Attainment. 

The area originates at the point defined as the southwest corner of Section 11, Township 1S, 

Range 26E. From that point the boundary proceeds north along the western section line of Section 11 to the point of intersection with the midline of Interstate Highway 90. From that point the 

boundary follows the midline of Interstate Highway 90, across the Yellowstone River, to the point 

where the highway midline intersects the northern boundary of Section 35, Township 1N, Range 

26E. From that point the boundary proceeds east along the northern section line of Sections 35 

and 36 to the point where Old US 87/Hardin Road leaves the section line and turns southeast. 

The boundary follows the midline of Old US 87/Hardin Road southeast to the point where the 

road intersects the western boundary of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 31, Township 1N, 

Range 27E. From that point the boundary proceeds south along the 1/4 section line to the 

southern boundary of Township 1N, then east to the northeast corner of Section 5, Township 

1S, Range 27E. The boundary then proceeds south along the eastern section line of sections 5 

and 8 to the southeast corner of Section 8, Township 1S, Range 27E, where it turns west and 

follows the south section line of Sections 8 and 7, Township 1S, Range 27E; and Sections 12 

and 11, Township 1S, Range 26E, back to the point of origin.

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–10451 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 258 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126; FRL–9943–87– 

OLEM] 

RIN 2050–AG75 

Revision to the Research, 

Development and Demonstration 

Permits Rule for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is publishing a final rule 

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 methods that vary from the 

run-on control systems, liquids 

restrictions, and final cover criteria 

prescribed in 40 CFR part 258 if these 

systems are determined by the Director 

of an approved State to be at least as 

protective as those criteria. The current 

rule limits permits for these units to 

three years, and they are renewable 

three times for a total permit term of 12 

years. This revision allows the Director 

of an approved State to increase the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 28721 

1See docket item EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126– 

0012, Smiths Creek Bioreactor Report. 

number of permit renewals to six, for a 

total permit term of up to 21 years. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 10, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126. 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 electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and 

Waste Management Division of the 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management (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 

rule 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 

the Research, Development and 

Demonstration Permits for Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills final rule, referred 

to as the ‘‘2004 RD&D rule’’ (69 FR 

13242, March 22, 2004). 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 revising the maximum 

permit term for MSWLF units operating 

under RD&D permits. The rule allows 

the Director of an approved State to 

issue up to six, 3-year permit renewals, 

for a total permit term of 21 years. The 

RD&D rule previously limited the total 

permit term to 12 years. 

The primary basis for this extension 

of the permit period to up to 21 years 

is to provide the EPA more time to 

characterize the performance of RD&D 

projects without making the permit 

period so long as to be open-ended. The 

EPA believes that the period of 21 years 

strikes an appropriate balance between 

providing more time for projects to 

continue operations as research 

facilities, while providing enough time 

for the EPA to consider making 

additional changes to the part 258 

MSWLF regulations. 

C. What is the agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

The authority for this rulemaking 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 action 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. There are approximately 

30 facilities currently operating with 

RD&D permits. It is also relevant to one 

facility operating on tribal lands under 

a site-specific action. Additional 

facilities may also seek an RD&D permit 

in the future. The EPA has no 

information with which to estimate 

whether any 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 final 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 remains voluntary. 

This action does not impose any new 

regulatory burden. This action allows 

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. 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 show 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 is also 

expected to 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 (56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991). As 

specified in 42 U.S.C. 6981(a), RCRA 

also directs 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. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28722 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

2EPA began Project XL in 1995, and accepted 

projects until 2002, as a national pilot program to 

help business, state and local governments, and 

federal facilities work with EPA to develop and test 

innovative approaches to achieve better and more 

cost-effective environmental and public health 

protection. The provisions for the four Project XL 

landfills discussed here are codified in § 258.41. 

3Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: 

Ten years After the RD&D Rule, EPA document 

number EPA/600/R–14/335. 

The initial 1991 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; and 

—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,2 all of which involved 

some use of bioreactor technology or 

leachate recirculation. 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 the part 258 MSWLF 

regulations to create a broader RD&D 

research program. The 2004 RD&D 

action (69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004), 

which added § 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 with respect to runon controls (§ 258.26(a)(1)) and the 

liquids restrictions in § 258.28(a). In 

addition, the 2004 RD&D 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 three 

years, and the permit can be renewed 

for up to three additional 3-year terms, 

for a total of 12 years. 

As of March 2014, in the most recent 

compilation of data available to the 

EPA, there were 30 active RD&D 

projects in 11 approved states and one 

project on tribal lands.3 The maximum 

permit period for the first of these 

projects is coming to an end. This final 

rule allows 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 did EPA propose? 

EPA proposed this rulemaking 

through an action in the Federal 

Register published at 80 FR 70180, 

November 13, 2015. EPA proposed to 

allow the Director of an approved State 

to increase the maximum term for RD&D 

permits from 12 to 21 years at 

§ 258.4(e)(1), in order to provide the 

EPA more time to continue to support 

research into the performance of 

bioreactors, alternative covers and runon systems. In effect, the proposal 

would allow the Director of an approved 

State to increase the number of permit 

renewals from three to six. The EPA did 

not propose any other changes to the 

RD&D permit program and made it clear 

that EPA was not reopening at this time 

any other provision of the existing 

RD&D rule or MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR 

part 258. 

Separately from this final rule, the 

EPA plans to publish an Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) seeking comment on the 

possibility of revising other sections of 

the MSWLF criteria (40 CFR part 258) 

to authorize the operation of wet 

landfills and bioreactors and other 

possible 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. 

In response to the 80 FR 70180, 

November 13, 2015 proposed rule, the 

Agency received six sets of comments 

during the comment period that closed 

on December 14, 2015. The six sets of 

comments were from: The States of 

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan and Nebraska; 

the Southeast Michigan Council of 

Governments, and the Solid Waste 

Disposal and Conversion Task Force of 

the Association of State and Territorial 

Solid Waste Management Officials. All 

comments can be reviewed on-line at 

http://www.regulations.gov/, using 

‘‘EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0126’’ in the 

search box, and then by opening the 

docket folder and select ‘view 

comments’ to review any or all of the 

comments. 

Five of the six commenters expressed 

support for extending maximum permit 

term for RD&D permits to EPA’s 

proposed term of 21 years. Several 

commenters (including the one 

commenter that did not support an 

extension to 21 years) indicated support 

for eliminating the overall permit term 

entirely, arguing that any time limit may 

discourage entities from making 

investments. Several commenters also 

encouraged the EPA to establish a 

mechanism to convert RD&D permits 

into permanent designs and operational 

practices subject to appropriate 

monitoring and performance standards 

as administered by an approved state. 

Commenters indicated support for 

making permanent changes to the 

regulations at 40 CFR part 258 to 

authorize bioreactor operations. 

After consideration of these 

comments, and in light of other 

information in the record, the EPA has 

decided to issue the final rule as 

proposed. The EPA disagrees with the 

comments that the RD&D permit 

program should not be time-limited, 

which is consistent with the EPA 

position since the original RD&D rule 

was promulgated in 2004. The RD&D 

permits have always been intended to 

be used for innovation and 

experimentation for a limited period of 

time. As such, the RD&D rule is not 

intended to authorize activities on a 

permanent basis, as unlimited renewals 

could effectively allow. In addition, 

EPA notes that the commenters did not 

suggest an alternative, discrete, 

maximum time frame other than EPA’s 

proposal for a maximum permit term of 

21 years. 

The issue of making changes to the 

part 258 regulations to authorize 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 28723 

bioreactor operations on a permanent 

basis is outside the scope of this rule, as 

EPA stated in the proposed rule (80 FR 

70180, November 13, 2015). As 

discussed previously, EPA plans to 

publish an ANPRM requesting data 

relating to wet landfills and bioreactors. 

EPA intends this ANPRM to begin the 

process of considering additional 

changes to the part 258 regulations. In 

that proceeding, the commenters are 

free to raise concerns about how 

existing RD&D projects can be 

appropriately addressed under any 

potential future amendments to the 

existing MSWLF regulations. Thus, the 

comments did not change EPA’s view 

that a maximum term of 21 years is an 

appropriate balance between allowing 

more time for continued research by 

EPA and allowing the facilities to 

continue operating for a significant but 

not open-ended period of time. 

B. Basis for This Final Rule 

In the 2004 RD&D final rule, the EPA 

made clear its intention that MSWLF 

RD&D permits be of limited duration 

while also providing data to support 

future rulemaking. This final rule 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 

believes that the current 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 

did 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 employ 

alternative approaches for final covers, 

which would provide additional sources 

of data in the future. The EPA has heard 

from stakeholders that limiting the 

permit period to 12 years has the 

unintended consequence of 

discouraging the development of 

bioreactors. 

C. Implementation of This Final Rule 

This rule does not require states with 

EPA-approved RD&D programs to 

modify their solid waste permit 

programs. Since this change to the 2004 

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 EPA to be adequate 

under 40 CFR part 239. At the same 

time, the RD&D rule (including the 

revised 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 EPAapproved 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 rulemaking. Any 

state without an EPA-approved solid 

waste permit program may submit an 

application to 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 

rule. For MSWLF units located in 

Indian Country, EPA intends to consider 

the longer maximum permit term when 

issuing or modifying any site-specific 

RD&D rule. EPA has previously issued 

draft guidance on the site-specific 

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 Orders 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

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. 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 provided in 

accordance with this rule 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 rule 

will not create any additional burden for 

small entities. Small entities are not 

required to take any action as a 

consequence of this 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 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28724 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 action 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. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. The underlying RD&D rule 

requires all RD&D permits to include 

terms and conditions that are at least as 

protective as the criteria for municipal 

solid waste landfills to assure protection 

of human health and the environment, 

and this rule does not reopen or 

otherwise change that requirement. 

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 

and environmental risk addressed by 

this action will not have a new 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. The underlying RD&D 

regulations require all RD&D permits to 

include terms and conditions that are at 

least as protective as the criteria for 

municipal solid waste landfills to assure 

protection of human health and the 

environment. This final rule is an 

administrative action to extend the 

maximum permit period, and it does not 

reopen or otherwise change the 

requirement for protectiveness. 

Therefore, the EPA finds that the human 

health and environmental risks 

addressed by this action will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations, because this action does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 

Environmental protection, Municipal 

landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

Dated: April 29, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA amends 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. 2016–10993 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 204, 209, 212, 227, 237, 

and 252 

[Docket DARS–2014–0017] 

RIN 0750–AH54 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Disclosure to 

Litigation Support Contractors (DFARS 

Case 2012–D029) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is adopting as final, with 

changes, an interim rule amending the 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) to implement a 

section of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

that provides DoD the authority to allow 

its litigation support contractors access 

to ‘‘sensitive information’’ subject to 

certain restrictions. 

DATES: Effective May 10, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372– 

6106. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD published an interim rule in the 

Federal Register at 79 FR 11337 on 

February 28, 2014, to implement section 

802 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–81), which provides DoD 

the express authority to allow its 

litigation support contractors access to 

‘‘sensitive information,’’ provided that 

the litigation support contractor is 

subject to certain restrictions on using 

and disclosing such information. Two 

respondents submitted public 

comments in response to the interim 

rule. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

DoD reviewed the public comments in 

the development of the final rule. A 

discussion of the comments received 

and the changes made to the rule as a 

result of those comments follows: 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES